jfuh

Nice try, but no. Again, read what I've already posted. I've already touched on all these distortions which you've brought up here. Hell two of those distorting links you've provided even disagree with your own position that the earth is warming.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Orion

Unfortunately political action is necessary when the global corporate dynamic has more power than ever before in history.

At no previous time have corporations and private business been larger than governmets. Since this has come to pass the problem has arisen that these corporations need to be held accountable for their actions on the one hand and also regulated to some degree to keep them from abusing their positions/power at the expense of the global ecosystem. What type of regulation needs to take place is what the debate is about.

For an example, CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) were banned in massive industrial usage once it was discovered they were depleting the ozone layer to a massive degree. Replacement for the CFC's were found and life went on. Since the CFC bans in the 80's the hole in the ozone has shrunk. (Wow, we did something.)

The problem with the cliimate issue is that it's very complex with multiple issues stemming from multiple causes and these are also mixed in with the natural climate patterns the planet is going through anyway.

This is not a black and white issue, those who say the sky is falling are probably a little alarmist but those who laugh at the alarmists are being too dismissive of an actual problem that needs a little more reasearch and clarification.

Many accredited scientitsts have stated that global climate is a problem, and they are the ones who can tell.

My thought is this:

Which seems more likely, that there is a global climate problem and corporate interests that would stand to lose money are waging a campaign to confuse the issue to protect their interests or there is no climate problem and a very large number of educated scientists have been completely fooled in the fields they've studied and mastered via many years of study?

jfuh

I would say neither.
I don't blame the corporations the least bit. They are only providing for what the public wants. The vast majority of the population simply hasn't cared about this issue. Nor have any politicians. For starters the issue of global warming is not as simple (relatively) as was the issue with CFC's.
To resolve global warming - as we have discussed - will indeed require an entire change in the very methods in which we approach both energy usage and energy production.
The proponents of changing the status quo have all the scientific basis as well as the moral high ground. But seriously lacked any sexiness or appeal based on something that was clearly not an immediacy. Not so with the ozone hole - that was seen as an immediacy and the remedy was quite simple - not life altering.
Frankly most of the industrialized world didn't really care for changing their life styles to protect something that was not very clear cut danger, the opposition absolutely loved this aspect of non-immediacy and screaming that the chicken littles say that how you live is wrong.
However, now having ignored the problem of environmentalism, now comes an interesting problem with the wallet. If anything when it starts to hurt people's wallets is when people demand immediate results.
And look at the domino effect - GM that was saying it couldn't be done, that it was impractical is about to push out the Chevy Volt, and already there's a waiting list for this car. Saturn the Vue hybrid. Ford's Escape hybrid and various others, all of a sudden they can now produce cars profitably where they first said was impossible (even in 2006?).
Even the European automakers that laughed at Toyota for their hybrids (understandable given that Diesle is similar in range) are now singing a different tune. BMW X3, 7series hybrids even possibly an electric Mini?
Merc S class hybrid

So it's not so much that the corperations were wrong doing, but simply the market/public didn't care - well, they certainly are doing so now.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

ludahai

I have several semi-random thoughts on the issue of Climate Change - I will try to make them coherent.

It is clear that the world's climate is changing. I don't think anyone can deny this. However, the cause is what is in question. It is entirely likely that it is a COMBINATION of man created causes AND nature (i.e. increased solar activity.)

HOWEVER, even if NONE of it is caused by mankind, we still have a vital interest in reducing pollution. Pollution of all kinds is detrimental to the earth and damaging to our health (both as individual humans as well as to not only the human species, but all other species on this planet.)

I believe the earth is God's creation and He commands us to be good stewards of the earth. Anyone who would argue that we have been good stewards of the earth (regardless of your religious beliefs) has a serious problem of "head-in-the-sand syndrome." We are damaging our own health as well as the health of our children and those who will come after them with the way we have treated this planet.

Thus, even if global warming is not caused by man at all (something which I seriously doubt - and an issue that I have been evolving on over the last three or so years), we still have a VITAL INTEREST in controlling all kinds of emmissions and other forms of pollution - be they air, water, soil, etc. Otherwise, climate change or no, we will be (in fact, already are) facing other environmental problems and crises in the decades to come.

__________________
Semper Paratus

ludahai

Rockport, Missouri produces more energy from wind power than it actually needs.

Rural Missouri — A new wind blowing
First Wind Powered City : CleanTechnica

__________________
Semper Paratus

Truth Detector

The Earths climate has been constantly changing since the earth's creation. The notion that man has somehow "created" this change or "exacerbated" change is extremely presumptuous and could be considered man-caused arrogance.

It is equally absurd to PRESUME that mere mortals can do anything that would STOP the current trend. But I guess what makes this issue continues to evolve and be taken so serious is that it makes us "feel good" thinking we can somehow "control" it.

I assure you at the risk of making you feel uncomfortable, that man cannot control or change the earth's environment.

If you take a yard stick as the time earth has been in existence, man's existence on the earth timeline amounts to about 1/100th of an inch on that yard stick. Long after man becomes extinct, the earth will continue to exist and the climate change and evolve without man's meager attempts to control it.

I am sorry; it would require an inconceivable willingness to suspend disbelief for me to think any other way.

We are in agreement with the above but with one element to regard, I do not believe in attempts to eliminate pollution at the risk of destroying the economy.

Unfortunately many of the environmental extremists, who have the ear of many Democrat politicians who love to pander and say anything that will get them elected, could care less about our economy and would be perfectly willing to drag our society back to the Stone Age or perhaps even destroy “man” for that matter.

This is where I, of course, part company with the radical extremists.

Yes, let's continue to develop ways to remove pollution; let's find alternative sources of powering our cars and aircraft; but let’s also use sensible legislation that does not create a false economy like the idiotic notion of "carbon credits" which is a simplistic way of making us "feel good" about ourselves but does little or NOTHING to reduce emissions.