Here's OneOriginally Posted by monutdfc
Some More
More World reknowned Scientists
Last edited by Block G Raptor; 04/02/2008 at 11:57 AM.
I have, and I've found people who say climate change is a smokescreen are morons to be honest
One of the questions they ask themselves is will the Day After Tomorrow happen, forgive me for having stopped reading at this point
Last edited by jebus; 04/02/2008 at 12:05 PM.
A civil engineer
Please, I did ask for no references from Exxon-funded charlatans
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=87
(see, how clever they are at creating confusion)
Who are the CEI? Is this paper peer-reviewed? At least there are some references, but how do I know if they are selectively quoting? (In fairness, this one at least looks interesting and I will read it)
I think you'll find it was an FAQ page as in Frequently asked questions. If enough morons ask a question then obviously they'll be compelled to answer it.
to clear things up I don't not believe that Global Warming is A. happening and/or B.Is a threat. I don't think there is enough evidence either way to know for sure . It just bug's me the Media jump on a subject and repeat Press releases verbatim as fact which is then consumed by the viewer and regurgitated.when in fact much of what is been reported as cold hard facts is still being hotly debated.
If there is a Campaign to pull the wool over our collective eyes then it is obviously not geared at selling more lightbulbs as was suggested above. I believe it would be more geared towards keeping third world countries from becoming Industrialised and competing in an already saturated market place
Woops, you've done it again. I asked for no references to Exxon-funded charlatans.
The CEI (who I now know are "The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace." - so an unbiased viewpoint there) has as one of its initiatives the globalwarming.org website, which features a Chris Horner, and what do you know, there he is:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/per...eet.php?id=281
You see just how damn sneaky they are, giving their websites serious names with .org addresses, but they are all funded by Exxon to create confusion.
But in fact, the CEI are upfront about it; from their own website:
"The lead editorial in the December 4, 2006 edition of The Wall Street Journal, “Global Warming Gag Order—Senators to Exxon: Shut up, and pay up,” hits Sens. Olympia Snowe and John D. Rockefeller IV's letter to ExxonMobil telling the oil company to stop funding “global warming deniers” like the Competitive Enterprise Institute. While CEI has previously responded to the Snowe-Rockefeller missive, we welcome the Journal's defense of free scientific debate—and our role in it. "
TBH I would skeptical of some of the solutions we provided with.
We are told to turn off lights when not in use but light bulbs last longer when left on (especially the florescent versions used in offices). Considering how little power lights use could more power be used in producing & transporting the bulbs?
We are told not to buy food from across the globe due to carbon footprint & buy Irish produce. Firstly the third world depends on us buying food off them. Secondly is the carbon footprint really bigger for a cargo ship to transport food in bulk across the globe or farmer to drive his jeep across Ireland to 'farmers market' with days worth of produce? The farmers return journey is worthless while you can be sure the ship is productive on return journey...
China & India are polluting like its 1850 all ovr again so does it really matter what we do in Europe? Do we have the right to stop developing countries from polluting?
Surely the best arguments for Reduce Reuse and Recycle are economic not environmental.
A Carbon Tax, CFC lightbulbs, Banning 4x4's, Congestion Charges, etc all seem very negative and punative with it seems to me anyway very little impact and in turn very few supportive measures for encouraging alternatives to oil.
The consumer changes in the west will it seems be offset by the damage caused by emerging economies anyway. Surely the answer to reducing mankinds impact on the environment will only be solved by scientists coming up with real alternatives to oil and the economic benefits therein?
Cork City FC
While I make an effort to recycle I wonder where it all goes. Is there a point in shipping plastic half way across the world for it to stacked in "plastic markets" ? How much ends up in landfills here too? Does the state regulate this?
Agree and what better way for the west to ensure market share than to scapegoat these countries and sign treaties preventing them doing what we done at the turn of the last century because it's "Killing the Planet". Oil Company may be spreading mis-information against Global Warming but don't for one minute think that the Scientists finding "Proof" of impending doom due to climate change are not being funded by big business that is cacking itself at the thought of competing with African and Asian companies on a level playing field
I'd agree with a lot of that. Minor annoyances for myself at the moment is designer eco-bags made in China(or wherever), it seems there is a new must-have one every other week. Couple that with China, India and America dragging their feet over reducing their omissions and I do see why people are wondering if changing their lightbulbs will make a difference. That said, I don't see that the Power of One campaign has done any harm whatsoever, as I do agree with the principle that if we all change one thing then we can make a difference, the problem again is whether people will do this by their own choice.
I agree completely with the idea that we should leave 3rd world produce alone is ridiculous however, and I have read pieces in the Guardian where writers have been listed as saying that we should buy 3rd World produce in one article, and we shouldn't for climate change reasons in another, that to me is where people think climate change is just another neo-left wing stick to beat us with
The problem with switching lightbulbs on and off isn't to do with lifespan, but with the extra power usage of the starter in fluorescents.
Individual thinking.Considering how little power lights use
You're told this by people who haven't thought it through. Be more selective in your advisors.We are told not to buy food from across the globe due to carbon footprint & buy Irish produce.
We're talking about climate change here, not charity. Focus on a topic for once in your life.Firstly the third world depends on us buying food off them.
adam
Last edited by dahamsta; 04/02/2008 at 1:38 PM.
Some good points above. In my view, the solutions have to implemented on a political level rather than reliance on the individual. It take political will to implement the changes required for wholesale reductions.
Biofuels are definitely not the answer. The second biggest source of greenhouse gases in recent years was deforestation, much of it in Malaysia and Indonesia where rainforests were cleared for Palm Oil plantations. (Plus, in the long run the west will pay more for biofuels than the 3rd world can pay for food.) They have a role, but a limited one.
BTW, far from wanting to stifle competition, Big Business is dying to see 3rd world countries develop as these are new markets for their goods.
No, sorry, it needs both. Climate change needs action at every level, by every person, business and politician, otherwise it's just not going to work. We have to drill it into everyone's head that we're in big trouble here, and expecting someone else to sort it out is just plain murdering our descendants.
Again, sorry, but no. Biofuels are not the answer on a wholesale level in Ireland, and in other countries they're causing major problems because of the greed and ignorance of people growing the crops. If you educate those people, and remove the source of greed, locally produced and used biofuels can work very well.Biofuels are definitely not the answer.
adam
Absolutely, it needs both. In editing my post before finalising I deleted the bit about individual responses helping; but there needs real political will to implement change for major reductions to happen. For example, the biggest source of greenhouse gases is power production - politicians need to make the changes here.
Agree, they have a role, and I have said so. But they are not the answer (and reading your post I think we are agreed on this) that some people have thought, seeing them as a silver bullet.Again, sorry, but no. Biofuels are not the answer on a wholesale level in Ireland, and in other countries they're causing major problems because of the greed and ignorance of people growing the crops. If you educate those people, and remove the source of greed, locally produced and used biofuels can work very well.
adam
US and (to a lesser degree) EU policy is leading us down the road of biofuels with targets that if met would cause huge problems for world food production.
The energy generation thing drives me demented. We have a country literally surrounded by waves and wind, and we're talking about "the nuclear option"? And it's not just the usual ignoramuses either, even the shiny new nutjobs won't rule it out for fear of upsetting their masters. Does nobody get the whole "nuclear waste" thing? Do they even know what the phrase "half life" actually means?
There's no silver bullet, certainly. Silver bullets are fairy stories and steorns.Agree, they have a role, and I have said so. But they are not the answer (and reading your post I think we are agreed on this) that some people have thought, seeing them as a silver bullet.
adam
That's the problem with the current nuclear debate - it is focussed on the dangers of production (a 9-11 strike or a Chernobyl) whereas the real issue is the problem of nuclear waste
Has anybody seen a documentary called The End of Suburbia. It is a frightening look at peak oil, and the consequences.
And in case you think it was made by environmental-nutjobs, one of the contributors was an energy adviser to George Bush.
You cannot deal with topics in isolation hence the issues with biofuels & cost of food production. See your own posts.
"global warming" stopped in 1998. Not only on earth, but on Mars, Venus and Jupiter. See that yellow ball in the sky... It's called the sun. It's made of lots and lots of fire. Some times the fire is really hot and other times it's really, really hot. It has fluctuated like this for about 6 billion years.
"Climate Change" is the phrase the Gore shower came up to cover their asses when global temps level out. "you deny Climate change!" - talk about moving the goal posts.
The term "Climate Change" is so meaningless as of course the bloody climate changes! That's not what Gore and Co were flapping their arms over it was GLOBAL WARMING.
Global Warming was and is a fraud.
QED
Last edited by Boh_So_Good; 06/02/2008 at 1:30 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks