Global Warming

[Bo D]

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

Wow! Did you see that picture of the alien? Yeah...this is a quality source!

But seriously, Henry. If you had done as I asked and read up on the effects of Global Warming on the Gulf Stream, then you would know that an Ice Age is EXACTLY what would follow if the current warming melts the Arctic ice sheet.

[awol]

Do you check anything before YOU decide what is or isn't true....

YEP.  i don't have the conservative luxury of making up whatever facts i need to support my argument.

[Exterminator]

...but, the whole point to my side of the arguement has ALWAYS been, and always will be, it the alamists such as the AL Gore crowd, who believes the only solution is to bring corporate america to a halt by regulating and taxing them out of existence...

Who has ever so much as suggested that bringing corporate America to a halt is even a possibility and who would possibly benefit by doing so?  No one, that's who...never happened.  Corporate America is interested in a singular goal...profit.  They will continue to do business exactly as they have until such time as it is no longer profitable and then they will make the changes necessary to return to profitability.  The recent switch to flat panel televisions is a perfect example.  It has long been known that it is much cheaper to make a flat panel TV than its CRT conterpart but manufacturers didn't make the switch immediately when the technology became available.  The reason they didn't is because they had huge investments in the complex machinery and processes in use to make cathode ray tubes.  Given no outside influence, they'd still be making them until the machines no longer worked but in this case, the demand for the newer product forced those manufacturers to abandon their old lines and retool for the products consumers want.  Guess what?  They're still making money much in the same way as they would be if stricter regulations had caused the changes in their production processes instead of consumer demand.  Those companies that won't or can't afford to adapt go out of business and their market share is absorbed by those who do.  Corporate America continues producing and selling products and life goes on.  The assertion that addressing the issue of emissions will fundamentally affect this paradigm is ridiculous and unfounded.

I've never gotten a good answer to the question of what, exactly, the down side is to reducing emissions.  When a blizzard is forecast by the weather service, people take action.  They dig out their snow shovels or go buy new ones, stop at the hardware store and buy ice melting salt, fill the gas tanks in their cars, stand in long lines at the grocery store buying bread, milk batteries and emergency candles...road crews start out salting still-dry roads in anticipation...all of this costs money and we go through this preparation despite the number of times in my life that I've seen a winter storm so bad that it would prevent people from moving about 48 hours later has been, well, never!  This is even more startling when you consider the frequency with which the forecasts, based on scientific methods and computer models just like the global warming predictions albeit using infinitely less precise data gathered over considerably shorter time intervals and with nowhere near the global concurrence of the scientific community.  I really fail to understand why some would spend even a moment considering what is likely to be a non-event that, at worst, will have virtually no lasting impact and then not only ignore but go out of the way to deny even the possibility of a permanent change in the climate with potentially serious negative consequences.

[Henry Hawk]

Okay, I somewhat agree with you ex...and my stance on this whole global warming has become that I do not "believe" things are as bad as the Al Gore crowd says, but I also believe that there could be REAL concerns........... I also do not believe in many of the scientist and because there are so many different views on this subject, it has become somewhat confusing at times? Figuring out the facts and the myths...........I know that companies ARE paying some politicians and scientists to say the things they are saying...from BOTH sides of the spectrum.....I personaly have done things to become MORE green, so to speak.......like I now use the super efficient compact fluorescent bulbs, instead of the incandescents bulbs....I'm more concerned with proper upkeep of my cars, I plan my trips more, like stopping by the store on my way home from work, I don't drive nearly as much as I used too....

but I STILL think that the kyoto protocol was/is bad...........I think we need to be very careful on how we approach this from an economic view.....if I could say one thing positive about the Gore's doomsday crowd is, that they DID open up a can of worms that needed opened.....and we ARE taking serious looks at being better stewards of this earth.

[Exterminator]

...I know that companies ARE paying some politicians and scientists to say the things they are saying...from BOTH sides of the spectrum...

Again, I ask why?  I can understand companies paying for anti-global-warming opinions to avoid having to make infrastructure changes but what interest would scientists have in propagating such a myth and who would pay them to do so?  They've been receiving grant money to study the climate since long, long before any mention of global warming so the claim that skewing their results one way or the other to continue to do so is nonsensical.  What do they have to gain?

but I STILL think that the kyoto protocol was/is bad...

Really?  Why?  What does it say exactly?  The fact of the matter is that it is primarily designed to encourage other countries to meet many of the same standards to which we've been adhering anyway.  How is encouraging global cooperation on that front bad?

...I think we need to be very careful on how we approach this from an economic view...

As I have pointed out several times now, the 'economic impact' is a fallacy invented by the corporations who are working only to protect their own interests.

[Henry Hawk]

Again, I ask why?  I can understand companies paying for anti-global-warming opinions to avoid having to make infrastructure changes but what interest would scientists have in propagating such a myth and who would pay them to do so?  They've been receiving grant money to study the climate since long, long before any mention of global warming so the claim that skewing their results one way or the other to continue to do so is nonsensical.  What do they have to gain?

The United Nations has a lot riding on this....Billions of dollar could be generated IF enough hype is sold...I personally to not trust the UN, I believe they are the most crooked organization on earth.

Really?  Why?  What does it say exactly?  The fact of the matter is that it is primarily designed to encourage other countries to meet many of the same standards to which we've been adhering anyway.  How is encouraging global cooperation on that front bad?

It would encourage factories and investors to move the "smokestacks"....and all their carbon dioxide...AND the jobs that works for those "smokestacks" to other countries...Like China that is not subject to Kyoto's "carbon dioxide limits"...

As I have pointed out several times now, the 'economic impact' is a fallacy invented by the corporations who are working only to protect their own interests.

how is it a fallacy?........countries leave here...go to China or wherever they can get around the High standards of CO emissions that would be set in the US........THAT would have an 'economic impact'.....

If they (the Kyoto protocol) set's up the same standards across the board to ALL countries...THEN maybe....

[Exterminator]

The United Nations has a lot riding on this....Billions of dollar could be generated IF enough hype is sold...I personally to not trust the UN, I believe they are the most crooked organization on earth.

Huh?  Billions of dollars for whom?  This is the basis for your position?

It would encourage factories and investors to move the "smokestacks"....and all their carbon dioxide...AND the jobs that works for those "smokestacks" to other countries...Like China that is not subject to Kyoto's "carbon dioxide limits"...

how is it a fallacy?........countries leave here...go to China or wherever they can get around the High standards of CO emissions that would be set in the US........THAT would have an 'economic impact'.....

They're doing that now without Kyoto; how would it change anything?

If they (the Kyoto protocol) set's up the same standards across the board to ALL countries...THEN maybe....

Well, that is the idea.

[Henry Hawk]

Huh?  Billions of dollars for whom?  This is the basis for your position?

The UN  WANTS to be the Governing body of Global Warming....they have sunk millions into the IPCC....it does not take a brain surgeon to see opportunity for the UN to impose 'Global Taxes' to manage this doom and gloom scenario that they have succeeded in doing to 'save' the planent..

They're doing that now without Kyoto; how would it change anything?

and it would get even worse IF this was imposed upon them........let's not give them any MORE reasons to continue to leave.

Well, that is the idea.

But that is NOT what is proposed by the Kyoto Protocol...

[Exterminator]

The UN  WANTS to be the Governing body of Global Warming....they have sunk millions into the IPCC....it does not take a brain surgeon to see opportunity for the UN to impose 'Global Taxes' to manage this doom and gloom scenario that they have succeeded in doing to 'save' the planent..

Bullshit hyperbole; the U.N. has no authority to tax anyone.

And if you want factories to stop leaving the country, stay the hell out of WalMart.

[Henry Hawk]

Bullshit hyperbole; the U.N. has no authority to tax anyone.

And if you want factories to stop leaving the country, stay the hell out of WalMart.

No authority NOW!!....hyperbole?  ..maybe.......maybe not..........do you think that they could NOT, with the right people in charge? I don't think it is bullshit, no more bullshit than the world scorching in 7 years as predicted by Gore and the IPCC...

btw, I very rarely go into Walmart..........but, Walmart had NOTHING to do with GM moving plants to mexico or china.....

closing the doors of walmart will not bring back factories...

[Exterminator]

So you're basing your entire dissent on the possibility that the UN will impose taxes on Americans?  LMAO...wow! 

[Henry Hawk]

So you're basing your entire dissent on the possibility that the UN will impose taxes on Americans?  LMAO...wow! 

lmao at you  ...HOW did you come up with THAT?       it is simply ANOTHER reason for me NOT to be a kool-aid drinker and believe that Al Gore and his UN croonies.....It is ALL about money, NOT saving the earth.....at least THAT is how many people feel about the lunacy of Al Gore.  The UN is without a doubt a crooked organization, who would love nothing more than to gain even MORE control of the world than the do now................global warming is simply another tool being used to accomplish that task.

[Exterminator]

lmao at you  ...HOW did you come up with THAT?  

How did I come up with my opinion that the U.S. will not cede power to the U.N.?  What are you, on dope with your whacked conspiracy theories?

it is simply ANOTHER reason for me NOT to be a kool-aid drinker and believe that Al Gore and his UN croonies...

Yeah, believe Rush Limbaugh instead.     You are the quintessential kool-aid drinker.  You can't persevere in a discussion using facts so you resort to wild-assed scenarios in which the U.N. is taking over the world!

...It is ALL about money, NOT saving the earth...

Oh, it's about money alright but not the way you're suggesting.

The UN is without a doubt a crooked organization...

Please prove this assertion with verifiable sources and be prepared to be called names if your sources suck.

...global warming is simply another tool being used to accomplish that task.

Again...bullshit!

[Henry Hawk]

Please prove this assertion with verifiable sources and be prepared to be called names if your sources suck.

why don't you just google Secretary-General Kofi Annan and oil-for-food and pick your own sources...

[Exterminator]

So the son profitting by taking advantage of his father's position means that the entire organization is crooked even though it was the organization itself that handled the investigation and rebuked the Secretary-General?  That's some stretch!   

Is that all you've got?