Weather Channel Founder says"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in History

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because it's far from clear that the necessary levels of efficiency are achievable without fundamental advances, and because it's almost always a bad idea to put all of your eggs in one basket.

[/ QUOTE ]

the link I posted said solar will be competitive within 10 years. nanotechnololgy is what, 10-20 years old?

even if what you say is true, wouldn't it make sense to use the carbon tax to fund things like solar nano research?

[/ QUOTE ]

Predictions of the rate of development of technology shouldn't normally be taken seriously. I've looked into this area quite a bit. Several times groups have made 'breakthroughs' that seemed to herald massive improvements, but progress keeps stalling out.

Whether money should be allocated to this is unconnected with the money that comes from a carbon tax.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Predictions of the rate of development of technology shouldn't normally be taken seriously. I've looked into this area quite a bit. Several times groups have made 'breakthroughs' that seemed to herald massive improvements, but progress keeps stalling out.

Whether money should be allocated to this is unconnected with the money that comes from a carbon tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

if we were certain to the same degree that we are certain of man made global warming, that an asteroid would hit the earth,

should we raise taxes or should we devote a bunch of resources to try and stop asteroid?

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Predictions of the rate of development of technology shouldn't normally be taken seriously. I've looked into this area quite a bit. Several times groups have made 'breakthroughs' that seemed to herald massive improvements, but progress keeps stalling out.

Whether money should be allocated to this is unconnected with the money that comes from a carbon tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

if we were certain to the same degree that we are certain of man made global warming, that an asteroid would hit the earth,

should we raise taxes or should we devote a bunch of resources to try and stop asteroid?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, but since you mention it newsbusters and people that control ICECAP are both on Exxons payroll. I find it curious how this seems to be your defacto sarcastic response to everything on this topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL it's not sarcastic, just front running the inevitable slam. You didn't disappoint me. Kind of like predicting that the price of oil would rise substantially on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 and recommending people buy oil company stocks with both fists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you hadn't brought up the oil thing I probably wouldn't have mentioned it the Exxon connections. The quality levels of American meteorologists is something of a hot topic right now even within the AMS. That is a problem on par with Exxon.

[ QUOTE ]
[sarcasm]BTW I realize that green movement is pure and that no tools are being paid to promote their agenda. I also realize nobody promoting "green" will make a penny off of getting their agenda implemented.[/sarcasm]

[/ QUOTE ]

Conspiracy claims against politicians is one thing. There is obvious fraud going on there. Claiming monetary conspiracy against mathematicians, geologists and physicists that work in the field is a display of gross ignorance. Choose who you attack wisely.

[ QUOTE ]
But hey I took your advice and purchased carbon offsets from TerraPass for a year so I'm cool,

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad you are making an effort. That is quite noble of you especially in light of your skepticism. My review of TerraPass was a quick once over and it seemed good especially with the countless media endorsements. I had a lawyer friend review it and he said it was a brokerage firm which is something I know nothing about. My opinion has gone to neutral.

[ QUOTE ]
sort of like Al Gore is cool in offsetting his behemouth carbon footprint. Maybe not Nobel Peace Prize winning cool but still pretty good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adios, my favorite line of Al Gores is "a planet has a fever". Al Gore has contributed greatly to the science (such as fighting to declassify ice sheet thickness measurements from cold war nuclear submarines) but can cause just as much trouble as he solves. I don't understand why the public is fascinated with him. Maybe it's because he's so polarizing. He obviously gets under your skin (and I'll admit mine as well). I'm curious as to why this entire topic seems to aggravate you so much. You seem to be in a full on war to debunk AGW. You are a smart man. You bought TerraPass so it would seem you know what is obvious to every major scientific institution on the planet. Why do you choose to so fervently attack AGW instead of the moronic bureaucrats that try to ram Kyoto down our throats. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away. The only thing you can do is focus your efforts on making sure the solution will be one you agree with.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Weather Channel Founder calls Global Warming Biggest Scam in History

Discuss....

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain why I should care about his opinion.

Lots of scientists saying man made global warming is a very likely possibilty = irrational cultist conspiracy

One guy says it isnt = must be true.

Who is it who is being cultist and irrational?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the fact that you used "one guy" and not "one scientist". With TV personalities, scientists are rarely at the helm.... even on science related shows.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
Weather Channel Founder calls Global Warming Biggest Scam in History

Discuss....

[/ QUOTE ]

Miller, the guy who does all the shows on HBO of skiers etc. going all over the world, dropping down off a helicopter and going down a 10k mountain on skis. He has no doubt there is global warming. He's been traveling around the globe since the 50's.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The manhattan project was to spend money to buld a nuclear bomb. Government spending is not going to make a non price comeptitive product price competitive. Did the government subsidize the car industry to replace horses? In fact can you site one example where government made an entire industry price competitive? Sure wasn't the Post Office!

[/ QUOTE ]

the point is that in 1940, atomic bombs were about a decade or two away given advancing technology.

today, given nanotechnoly and it's advancement, solar power that is *cheaper* than fossil fuels is between 10 and 30 years depending on who you ask. I posted a link to one guy in this thread.

see the parallel?

[/ QUOTE ]

The goal was NOT to make the production of nuclear bombs price competitive, it was to MAKE nuclear bomb regardless of price. Do you see the differance?

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For any of you newcomers out here that may be making the mistake of taking this post seriously, please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated

[/ QUOTE ]

I did and this is what I found in the first linky:

Was this:


Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is far more efficient than the U.S. maize-based industry. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per litre, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[6] Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual rainfall. Sugarcane is one of the most efficient photosynthesizers in the plant kingdom, able to convert up to 2% of incident solar energy into biomass. Ethanol is produced by yeast fermentation of the sugar extracted from sugar cane. Sugarcane production in the United States occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. In prime growing regions, such as Hawaii, sugarcane can produce 20 kg for each square meter exposed to the sun.

U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol. Unfortunately, despite this cost differential in production, in contrast to Japan and Sweden, the U.S. does not import Brazilian ethanol because of strict U.S. trade barriers (tariffs) corresponding to a levy of a 54-cent per gallon. These are promoted by the powerful American sugar lobby, which does not want a competitor to high-fructose corn syrup, and domestic sugar interests.


Any chance of a transfer of wealth to U.S. farmers and U.S. sugar growers with a protective tariff that amounts to a subsidy more or less?

[ QUOTE ]
Felix and those of his ilk post EXACTLY like shills for the oil companies whose mission is to engage in a massive wealth transfer from consumers and other industries to big oil, to the ultimate detriment of the country as a whole

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah the oil robber baron argument. Except that the U.S. public owns oil companys more or less.

Edit:

For new members of this forum, EliotR likes to parrott the liberal, Democratic party talking points as in his oil company rant. When I say the public owns oil companys I mean that the shares are owned by instutions like mutual funds, pension accounts, etc. Stuff people put there money in for retirement and such. Here's an article that appeared in the NYTimes about who owns oil companies:

What Is an Oil Company, Anyway?

Are we angry, then, at the owners of the oil companies? Maybe, but then it's self-hatred. Roughly 41 percent of Exxon Mobil stock is owned by retirement funds, private, public (federal, state and local) and individual retirement accounts. In other words, by us.

It is demonstrable that many retirement funds hold a great deal of oil stocks, including Exxon Mobil. Of the other owners, the largest holdings by far are at mutual funds and exchange-traded funds — generally vehicles for middle-class investors and retirees.

No individuals own more than 1 percent of the stock, and the largest single personal holding, representing far less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the company, is owned by Lee R. Raymond, the retired chief executive, who took the company through some very rough sailing to arrive at its present, fairly secure position.

ONE of the largest holders is the College Retirement Equities Fund, for higher-education teachers and others. Are we angry at them? If teachers get a bigger retirement because oil company profits are up, are we sad?



[/ QUOTE ]

You think you are so smart with all your facts and figures and logic. Well let me tell you something. YOU ARE!!!

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Weather Channel Founder calls Global Warming Biggest Scam in History

Discuss....

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain why I should care about his opinion.



Lots of scientists saying man made global warming is a very likely possibilty = irrational cultist conspiracy

One guy says it isnt = must be true.

Who is it who is being cultist and irrational?

[/ QUOTE ]

One guy?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html

http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1083.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...bed2f6&k=0

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21542564-421,00.html

http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1835.htm#Message5954


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/scienc...and&emc=rss

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

Cliffs: Man produces less than 1% of green house gases and there is no proof that I can see showing that man is the cause of global warming. I would like to see some proof showing how less than 1% of green house gases is warming the earth anymore then it would be anyway. If you can prove that then show me how man would ever be able to cut production enough to have any measurable effect.

[rsk111]

I just read a really great book on this topic: Cool It, by Bjorn Lomborg.

The basic premise of the book is that humans are causing some global warming, but the effects are not going to be as bad as we often hear about and the money involved in directly impacting global warming (i.e., reducing C02 emissions) could be spent in better ways to avoid the effects of global warming or in other ways entirely that would be more beneficial to humanity (i.e., save/improve more lives).

It's a well-written (it reads kind of like freakonomics), well researched book. I'm sure that many who disagree with it would classify it as slick propaganda and those who agree will think it's great.

However, if anyone has any interest in this issue, no matter what their opinion might be, it would be a useful endeavor to become familar with the arugments laid out in the book.