Global warming fallacies

[Michael Hardner]

So to solve the world's issues someone has to make money? I don't get this.

Well, can you think of a counter example ? An example of solving a problem where somebody doesn't make money ?

Effort=money, goods=money

[GostHacked]

Well, can you think of a counter example ? An example of solving a problem where somebody doesn't make money ?

Effort=money, goods=money

Sure I got the solution to cure the planet .... pay up.

[bloodyminded]

Sure I got the solution to cure the planet .... pay up.

But you haven't answered Michael's question.

Name something--say, the best and most noble of all human endeavours--in which somebody doesn't get filthy rich.

One. just name one.

Consider it a challenge.

Now, why in god's name would this one, single matter, and only this one, be utterly exempt?

[GostHacked]

But you haven't answered Michael's question.

Name something--say, the best and most noble of all human endeavours--in which somebody doesn't get filthy rich.

The invention of the wheel.

One. just name one.

Electricity. Bread. Fire.

Consider it a challenge.

Sure will.

Now, why in god's name would this one, single matter, and only this one, be utterly exempt?

God does not like greed, right? But I guess one can ask why is money always the driving force? Do people do it for the money or because they have something that will revolutionize the way we live?

If the 144 billion dollar profit of the carbon trading market actually goes to funding scientists and new technologies.... great, then I really don't have a problem with it. But there are people who are proposing a solution like David Keith at the University of Calgary is being funded partly by the Alberta government and mostly by Bill Gates through his funding/grants/foundations. I fail to see how the carbon trading market benefits a guy like David Keith.

[bloodyminded]

The invention of the wheel.

People haven't gotten rich from that?

Really?

Electricity. Bread. Fire.

either you're not serious, or you didn't understand the question, or you don't know what you're saying. Lots of people have gotten, and continue to get, rich from these things.

?????

Sure will.

Whenever you're ready to try again. Evidently energy companies and Dempster Breads don't meet your criteria.

God does not like greed, right? But I guess one can ask why is money always the driving force? Do people do it for the money or because they have something that will revolutionize the way we live?

Both. But someone will always get rich. That's the point.

If the 144 billion dollar profit of the carbon trading market actually goes to funding scientists and new technologies.... great, then I really don't have a problem with it. But there are people who are proposing a solution like David Keith at the University of Calgary is being funded partly by the Alberta government and mostly by Bill Gates through his funding/grants/foundations. I fail to see how the carbon trading market benefits a guy like David Keith.

[Shady]

Name something--say, the best and most noble of all human endeavours--in which somebody doesn't get filthy rich.

I always thought that the civil rights fight in the 1960's was a very noble human endeavour. I'm not sure how many multi-millionaires/billionaires were quickly created because of it.

Women's Sufferage. Same thing.

[GostHacked]

People haven't gotten rich from that?

I do see what you are getting at though. ....

Why do people need to get rich on solving a problem that could benefit all of mankind? If we are really in that much trouble on this planet due to CO2, why are people still making money on it while all these people are simply talking about it? I've made that thread about scientists currently involved in geoengineering,

Yes people have gotten rich from, bread. But those who invented bread did not get rich. Same goes for the wheel. It was invented in ancient times and well today have not invented the wheel, but they have made it better.

If I could solve the world's climate problems right now I would. And I would not care if I got a dime from it. But that's just me, not a very greedy person.

But 144 billion dollar PROFIT for a bank/trading scheme that has only been in place for about a decade is really something to make note of. Where DOES that money go?

[Shady]

I do see what you are getting at though. ....

Why do people need to get rich on solving a problem that could benefit all of mankind? If we are really in that much trouble on this planet due to CO2, why are people still making money on it while all these people are simply talking about it? I've made that thread about scientists currently involved in geoengineering,

Yes people have gotten rich from, bread. But those who invented bread did not get rich. Same goes for the wheel. It was invented in ancient times and well today have not invented the wheel, but they have made it better.

If I could solve the world's climate problems right now I would. And I would not care if I got a dime from it. But that's just me, not a very greedy person.

But 144 billion dollar PROFIT for a bank/trading scheme that has only been in place for about a decade is really something to make note of. Where DOES that money go?

Exactly. People getting rich from the wheel, or fire, etc, got rich from things they produced with it. In AGW's case, the people getting the richest aren't producing anything at all. It's like a new form of Goldman Sachs. They push paper around, make billions and billions, and pretend they're solving a problem.

[bloodyminded]

I always thought that the civil rights fight in the 1960's was a very noble human endeavour. I'm not sure how many multi-millionaires/billionaires were quickly created because of it.

Did you ever see Missippi Burning? Pretty good movie.

Made a lot of money.

Women's Sufferage. Same thing.

No women have gotten rich as a result of Suffrage????

Really????

[bloodyminded]

If I could solve the world's climate problems right now I would. And I would not care if I got a dime from it. But that's just me, not a very greedy person.

I don't doubt your word here one little bit, Gosthacked.

But others would, and will. That's completely aside from the rightness or goodness of a given project. People get rich from charity; they get rich from preaching the poverty of Jesus and the sublime ethics of Mohammad. Rich from books designed to make readers' lives better, whether sincerely or not.

[Shady]

Did you ever see Missippi Burning? Pretty good movie.

Made a lot of money.

LOL!!! Are you for real? You're comparing a movie made illustrating a period in American history with individuals lobbying for and directly profitting from global warming changes?

No women have gotten rich as a result of Suffrage????

You know that women made money before Women's Suffrage right?

Your so-called comparisons are ridiculous and embarassing. I'm guessing you're probably just joking around. Your post can't be serious.

[TimG]

I fail to see how the carbon trading market benefits a guy like David Keith.

Different people take positions for different reasons. However, when corporations get involved it is about making a buck whether the buck comes directly via new business opportunities or indirectly via positive PR. More importantly, once a government policy has created a group beneficiaries, they will stop at nothing to keep the government money flowing. Look at the troubles that the US is having getting rid of ethanol subsidies. That is why any policy like cap and trade that creates imaginary property that will be impossible to get rid of later must be opposed vehemently.

[dre]

I always thought that the civil rights fight in the 1960's was a very noble human endeavour. I'm not sure how many multi-millionaires/billionaires were quickly created because of it.

Women's Sufferage. Same thing.

Lots of lawyers have made a pile of dough on the civil rights movement.

[bloodyminded]

LOL!!! Are you for real? You're comparing a movie made illustrating a period in American history with individuals lobbying for and directly profitting from global warming changes?

No. My point--made very clearly, which proves you didn't bother reading back for crucial context--was that every issue, every major circumstance, whether good, bad, or neutral, has provided opportunities for people to profit from it.

A thoroughly uncontroversial truism...except to you.

You know that women made money before Women's Suffrage right?

What has that to do with anything we're talking about?

Your so-called comparisons are ridiculous and embarassing. I'm guessing you're probably just joking around. Your post can't be serious.

No..either you didn't bother to read the discussion for context...or you were unable to read it. Either way, not my fault.

Edited December 24, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree, During the last "little ice age" volcanic activity was intense, volcanoes emit way more gaseous substances than coal factories & vehicles yet the earth was cooling

Do you have a graph that shows greenhouse gases for that period ?

That is proof alone that "greenhouse gasses" don't affect the temperature on a world wide scale

No, it's not. You need to compare levels of greenhouse gases over time versus temperature, with the knowledge of how GGs do affect temperature. None of that is controversial, except to a minority fringe.

One of the hottest years on record was decades a go.. before warming ever started to happen, I don't think you can tell me that "greenhouse gasses" caused that

How about when the earth was a flaming globe ? That was millions of years ago and there were VERY FEW CARS...

There are other things that cause increases in temperature, in other words, no dispute there.