HappySqurriel said: Unfortunately, the spread of common sense is far too late: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-passes-major-apf-3149260005.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=

Jobs will change and people will get retrained. Local manufacturing and assembly will be needed for windfarms, solar, nuclear (if thats an option), geothermal, etc. New transport lines, trains everywhere, manufacturing of electric busses. All this stuff is going to bring a boom in the economy but you have to be positive about it. Go look at Germany's GDP and their environmental product manufacturing sector, its BIGGER than japan now. Go check out China where one of that countries biggest and most valuable companies makes solar panels (suntech). Its possible to make green industries as big as the internet boom and they will last much longer than them too.

One thing I want to ask global warming supporters is what makes them believe that they’re getting fair and reliable information about global warming?

Enron was one of the first companies to really get onto the global warming bandwagon, and spent a fortune lobbying the government because they believed global warming regulation would "do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States." Enron wasn't the only company doing this, and companies like GE and Dow Chemicals have spent billions of dollars lobbying the govenment and funding Global Warming research so they can be in a position to make hundreds of billions of dollars when regulations like Cap-n-Trade are put in place.

Knowing full well that the science is funded by, the politicians are dependant on the donations from, and large portions of the media are owned by companies who benefit from global warming hysteria why do you accept everything you're told without questioning any of it?

^ You know i think its an unfortunate repurcussion of global capitalism, the belief that trade of carbon credits is the best solution. Market forces, blah blah blah. Your correct in saying that there is alot of money to be made, and some companies are interested in profiting through the use of lobbyists, but the truth is there are many more lobbyists working against climate change legislation than for it.

megaman79 said: ^ You know i think its an unfortunate repurcussion of global capitalism, the belief that trade of carbon credits is the best solution. Market forces, blah blah blah. Your correct in saying that there is alot of money to be made, and some companies are interested in profiting through the use of lobbyists, but the truth is there are many more lobbyists working against climate change legislation than for it.

Not... really.  No.  I mean hell.  A lot of Oil companies even stand to make big bucks because they're the ones in the best position to make use of alternative energy. 

BP and Shell for example.

The American Petrolium Institute are the only lobbiests left against global warming... and that's basically code for Exon Mobile.

Just about everyones piled up on the global warming side because it's a convient lie to get done what should be done but might not be otherwise.

Man, r u serious? Have u looked at the pathetic % of money BP put into green tech? Its basically nothing.

"Environmental campaigners always dismissed the "Beyond Petroleum" campaign and said BP's much advertised investments in green energy, which represented about 1 percent of the company's total capital expenditure in recent years, was simply a token."

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSWLB778620080228

And don't forget that for atleast the last 10 yrs all these companies have worked very hard on manufacturing doubts in the public and governments.

megaman79 said: HappySqurriel said: Unfortunately, the spread of common sense is far too late: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-passes-major-apf-3149260005.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=   Jobs will change and people will get retrained. Local manufacturing and assembly will be needed for windfarms, solar, nuclear (if thats an option), geothermal, etc. New transport lines, trains everywhere, manufacturing of electric busses. All this stuff is going to bring a boom in the economy but you have to be positive about it. Go look at Germany's GDP and their environmental product manufacturing sector, its BIGGER than japan now. Go check out China where one of that countries biggest and most valuable companies makes solar panels (suntech). Its possible to make green industries as big as the internet boom and they will last much longer than them too.

If it is that easy to switch over to solar, wind, nuclear, hydroelectric and geothermal energy why hasn't it happened yet?

The truth is they are not cost competitive, and won't be cost competitive unless fossil fuels are pushed to a price level where Oil is (roughly) $400 per barrel; and they also face massive environmental and political lobbies against their creation.

 

When you add massive energy costs to massive labour costs and high taxes there is very little reason for any company to choose to do business in the United States anymore. When you can build the same product in Canada with lower labour costs, lower energy costs, and lower taxes why are you going to build it in the United States; and when you can build it in China or India, ship it to North America, and pay any tariffs they throw at you for less than manufacturing it in North America where is the incentive to build it here?

megaman79 said: Man, r u serious? Have u looked at the pathetic % of money BP put into green tech? Its basically nothing. "Environmental campaigners always dismissed the "Beyond Petroleum" campaign and said BP's much advertised investments in green energy, which represented about 1 percent of the company's total capital expenditure in recent years, was simply a token." http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSWLB778620080228 And don't forget that for atleast the last 10 yrs all these companies have worked very hard on manufacturing doubts in the public and governments.

Yeah... outside the fact that they are building a Cellustic Ethanol plant with Verenum.

http://industry.bnet.com/energy/1000651/oil-giants-wade-into-renewables-pool/

 

BP doesn't need to put their money into research.  They can just sit back... find the small companies that are making the best progress and then BUY them.

Oil companies will swoop in and clean house on all the little guys once they start hitting breakthroughs.  It's already strating.

Oil companies don't fund lobbyiests anymore.  Not to many anyway.  Just about Exon Mobile and others in their alliance.  You can look it up.  It's all over the place because pro-global warming people like to use that info to claim that the oil companies have finally been "won over."

megaman79 said: ^ You know i think its an unfortunate repurcussion of global capitalism, the belief that trade of carbon credits is the best solution. Market forces, blah blah blah. Your correct in saying that there is alot of money to be made, and some companies are interested in profiting through the use of lobbyists, but the truth is there are many more lobbyists working against climate change legislation than for it.

Oil companies have very little motivation to fight "Global Warming" anymore ...

Oil companies can spend billions trying to fight global warming and then spend billions to convince the governments of the world to allow them to explore and develop new energy sources to keep oil at less than $100 per barrel; or they can do nothing, pay $40 for the production cost of the oil, $60 for the carbon credit and sell it for $500 per barrel.

elprincipe said: Final-Fan said: elprincipe said: akuma587 said: TheRealMafoo said: Glad to see that what I have been saying for years is now going mainstream. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html I like your definition of mainstream: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions. It's well documented that the editor of the global warming portions of Wikipedia is a follower of global warming dogma.  Do a search on this fact if you don't believe me.  Quoting Wikipedia on anything is grounds for failure in and of itself (not to mention laughs), but especially on this issue. Look, I agree that Wikipedia is far from a paragon of neutrality on some issues, global warming very notably among them.  But this is a simple statement of fact that IF UNTRUE ought to be easily proven so.  And if it's NOT untrue, then your complaint is irrelevant.   Please put up or shut up.    [edit:  I admit that "easily" may be an exaggeration.  Also, "the editor"?  As in there's only one?  I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, because what it sounds to me like you're saying makes no sense.] It took two seconds to find this information.  I guess we really are that lazy nowadays. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml

Unfortunately that was completely irrelevant to the point.  That had nothing to do with the statement in question, which regards organizations not individuals.  (I've discussed that story before, and found the counterclaims massively exaggerated (of bias of the source, not bias of the editor), but fortunately there is no need to argue over that since it's completely irrelevant either way.)

There is not one editor in charge of global warming articles on Wikipedia (either de jure or de facto), whatever some idiot from NRO thinks, and the story doesn't even touch on the statement in question anyway.  

Final-Fan said: elprincipe said: Final-Fan said: elprincipe said: akuma587 said: TheRealMafoo said: Glad to see that what I have been saying for years is now going mainstream. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html I like your definition of mainstream: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions. It's well documented that the editor of the global warming portions of Wikipedia is a follower of global warming dogma.  Do a search on this fact if you don't believe me.  Quoting Wikipedia on anything is grounds for failure in and of itself (not to mention laughs), but especially on this issue. Look, I agree that Wikipedia is far from a paragon of neutrality on some issues, global warming very notably among them.  But this is a simple statement of fact that IF UNTRUE ought to be easily proven so.  And if it's NOT untrue, then your complaint is irrelevant.   Please put up or shut up.    [edit:  I admit that "easily" may be an exaggeration.  Also, "the editor"?  As in there's only one?  I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, because what it sounds to me like you're saying makes no sense.] It took two seconds to find this information.  I guess we really are that lazy nowadays. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml Unfortunately that was completely irrelevant to the point.  That had nothing to do with the statement in question, which regards organizations not individuals.  (I've discussed that story before, and found the counterclaims massively exaggerated (of bias of the source, not bias of the editor), but fortunately there is no need to argue over that since it's completely irrelevant either way.) There is not one editor in charge of global warming articles on Wikipedia (either de jure or de facto), whatever some idiot from NRO thinks, and the story doesn't even touch on the statement in question anyway.

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica

Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

Over the last couple of weeks, Wikipedia, the free, open-access encyclopedia, has taken a great deal of flak in the press for problems related to the credibility of its authors and its general accountability.

In particular, Wikipedia has taken hits for its inclusion, for four months, of an anonymously written article linking former journalist John Seigenthaler to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy. At the same time, the blogosphere was buzzing for several days about podcasting pioneer Adam Curry's being accused of anonymously deleting references to others' seminal work on the technology.

In response to situations like these and others in its history, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has always maintained that the service and its community are built around a self-policing and self-cleaning nature that is supposed to ensure its articles are accurate.

Still, many critics have tried to downplay its role as a source of valid information and have often pointed to the Encyclopedia Britannica as an example of an accurate reference.

For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.

In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.

That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.