Ripe for the picking!
Big business fears that the fight against climate change will cost them billions are now giving way to a different view: green can be the color of money.
The United States, Europe and Japan are locked in a frantic race to cash in on the exploding business of saving the planet. London has become the center for the multibillion dollar market in carbon emissions, attracting investors who trade CO2 allowances.
To distill it down, businesses understand what suckers climahysterics are, and are going to cash in on it. I’m tempted to invest in them myself. Nothing like sucking the money out of gullible liberal pockets. Just ask Michael Moore!
Silicon Valley is leading the way in attracting venture capital for green technologies that shows signs of duplicating the dot-com boom — and critics say eventual bust — of the 1990s. And Japan’s Toyota has sold more than a million Prius hybrid models, its cutting-edge eco-friendly car. Like all markets, the clean energy industry faces risks.
I reckon’ the word "bust" is rather mild for what happened with the dot-com’s, the decline of which was part of the reason for the short lived recession that began around 2000 and ended in 2003 (thanks to the tax cuts.) Sooner or later, people will realize that it is easier to simply flush their money down the no-more-then-3-gallon-by-law toilets. Or, in the case of the really far out wacko’s, dump it in the "chemical toilets" they prefer.
“There’s a lot of money chasing not so many ideas, so the prices are going up fast, raising some concern that this activity by venture capitalists and hedge funds could produce the next dot-com bust,†said Dlugolecki.
There will be plenty of suckers out there for them, though!
On a serious note, I would much prefer that all that money went into doing things that would actually benefit the environment.
Of course it is silly to think that the climate could ever change !!
[…] Efron Global Warming Today: Climahysteric Suckers! » This article link is from an article posted at Pirate’s Cove » >>Americans Never Quit on […]
No, it’s not. In my opinion, based on everything I have read and heard, it is. However, the falicy is to think that it is caused strictly, or mostly, Mankind. Sure, we have some effect. But, it distrubs me that so much time, effort, and money is spent on this silly “theory” when it should be used for more important, and real, environmental issues.
I haven’t seen anyone saying that mankind is solely responsible for global warming/global climate change.
If man is only partly responsible should he in some way try to reduce his impact on climate change.
In the summer of 1986 when I was in Wainwright AK you could see the reflection of light off the sea ice on the horizon. Check out where it is this summer.http://www.adn.com/front/story/9227255p-9143118c.html
Teach, if you look at the latest IPCC report they have assigned values to all the components of climate change (natural and man-made). Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system. You can see those numbers on Figure TS.5. on page 32 of the Technical Summary (Working Group I of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report).
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_TS.pdf
Do you know of a different report that shows different numbers indicating the temp changes are mostly natural?
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
Carlos Menéndez
http://www.creditomagazine.es
John, what is happening is that folks like Al Gore, among others, push the issue as being mostly or solely the cause of Man. They wouldn’t get very far if they said that man was a minor contributor to the problem, which, the biggest influence of Man is in farming, which releases large amounts of methane. We cannot cut back on food production, though, can we? And an interesting part is that as more biofuels are produced, it will mean more methane, as plants release methane.
I’m not saying we should do nothing, but that we should concentrate on issues such as air, water, and land pollution, to put it broadly, rather then CO2 output.
As you can see, John, Silke is blaming it mostly, or solely, on Man, but, not to flame her, but she, like most of the Believers, do not change their own lifestyles to match their rhetoric.
Teach said: As you can see, John, Silke is blaming it mostly, or solely, on Man,
No, I’m not. Nature is certainly part of the equation and I acknowledge this is a very complex issue. For instance solar irradiance has been assigned a value of 0.12 Watts/square meter (with a 90% confidence interval of 0.6-0.3).
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask what report or what numbers you base your opinion on. Please answer my question, Teach.
I made a mistake. The 90% confidence interval should read “0.06 to 0.30â€.