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

[PLOlover]

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

it was to solve a technologically solvable problem.

maybe space race was better analogy.

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bjorn gets my respect. He's been on both sides in his life and more than most folks, he can see the BS.

My own test on climate change is simple. If you announce your certainty you have announced your ignorance. If you're certain that funding a specific item is in everyone's best interest, I'm certain you don't understand cost/benefit analysis at best. At worst you're a simple crook.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

it was to solve a technologically solvable problem.

maybe space race was better analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government did not make space travel more cost effective. In fact a look at recent private endeavors in to space shows government did quite the opposite.

We CAN already produce energy from the sun! Oil is cheaper. The profit motive will insure companies explore ways to make solar more cost effective without Government interference. Did Government make computers more cost effective? Cell phones? Air travel? Over night delivery?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Government did not make space travel more cost effective. In fact a look at recent private endeavors in to space shows government did quite the opposite.

We CAN already produce energy from the sun! Oil is cheaper. The profit motive will insure companies explore ways to make solar more cost effective without Government interference. Did Government make computers more cost effective? Cell phones? Air travel? Over night delivery?

[/ QUOTE ]

you're confusing old solar tech with brand new nano solar tech. btw, the gov did get the computer industry started.

basically my point is that nano solar tech guys say they are gonna get there. no question about it. I'm just saying throwing money at the problem is better than throwing money away.

also if you hate the sun or whatever, you could make the same argument that the gov should do a lot (cut regulatory b.s. for one) to go nuclear, which would also cut CO2.

my point is that giving china money to buy their carbon credits won't reduce worldwide CO2, which is supposedly the problem, and it will cost a bunch of money.

but let me ask you this; in 5 years if solar has become cost competitive like the guy in the article says, would you want the government to tax you and give the money to china, or would you want the gov to do stuff to promote solar power?

see my point?

[Zygote]

GW is a subset of religion

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Government did not make space travel more cost effective. In fact a look at recent private endeavors in to space shows government did quite the opposite.

We CAN already produce energy from the sun! Oil is cheaper. The profit motive will insure companies explore ways to make solar more cost effective without Government interference. Did Government make computers more cost effective? Cell phones? Air travel? Over night delivery?

[/ QUOTE ]

you're confusing old solar tech with brand new nano solar tech. btw, the gov did get the computer industry started.

basically my point is that nano solar tech guys say they are gonna get there. no question about it. I'm just saying throwing money at the problem is better than throwing money away.

also if you hate the sun or whatever, you could make the same argument that the gov should do a lot (cut regulatory b.s. for one) to go nuclear, which would also cut CO2.

my point is that giving china money to buy their carbon credits won't reduce worldwide CO2, which is supposedly the problem, and it will cost a bunch of money.

but let me ask you this; in 5 years if solar has become cost competitive like the guy in the article says, would you want the government to tax you and give the money to china, or would you want the gov to do stuff to promote solar power?

see my point?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think government should redistribute wealth in an ineffecent manner. I don't see examples of where government made industries more effecient, the profit motive does that best.

The idea sounds great, throw a bunch of money at a problem and fix it. I don't see evidence of where government has done this, take your pick, poverty, health care, education, crime, drugs or Iraq. All great innovations that improved our lives were created by the profit motive and not Government. Look at all the private money flowing in to nano solar. It doesn't need government funding, as long as people think they can make money, it will be funded.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
All great innovations that improved our lives were created by the profit motive

[/ QUOTE ]

computers weren't.

but even if solar were price competitive in 5 years, it would still take a ton of money to switch over.

I mean, the premise is that the entire earth is being destroyed by CO2. having said that it seems logical that if you accept that premise that you should do everything you can to get off fossil fuels and onto non CO2 emitting energy. that's all I'm saying. the fact that the global climate *answer* has nothing at all to do with non CO2 energy you have to admit is mighty suspicious and supports the theory that global warming is a hoax.

I mean look at france. most of electricity there is generated by nuclear power. so if the threat were real and a real solution were wanted, countries would at least discuss building more nuke plants to get off of oil/coal, at least for electricity generation.

I mean, even if you accept the premise that nuclear plants are unsafe, radioactive waste a problem, etc., what's that compared to the fact that THE ENTIRE PLANET IS BEING DESTROYED RIGHT NOW BY MANMADE CO2. WE MUST DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SAVE OURSELVES except build nuclear plants cause they make us nervous and they got bad press and jane fonda made a movie ... ok, that makes sense.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All great innovations that improved our lives were created by the profit motive

[/ QUOTE ]

computers weren't.

but even if solar were price competitive in 5 years, it would still take a ton of money to switch over.

I mean, the premise is that the entire earth is being destroyed by CO2. having said that it seems logical that if you accept that premise that you should do everything you can to get off fossil fuels and onto non CO2 emitting energy. that's all I'm saying. the fact that the global climate *answer* has nothing at all to do with non CO2 energy you have to admit is mighty suspicious and supports the theory that global warming is a hoax.

I mean look at france. most of electricity there is generated by nuclear power. so if the threat were real and a real solution were wanted, countries would at least discuss building more nuke plants to get off of oil/coal, at least for electricity generation.

I mean, even if you accept the premise that nuclear plants are unsafe, radioactive waste a problem, etc., what's that compared to the fact that THE ENTIRE PLANET IS BEING DESTROYED RIGHT NOW BY MANMADE CO2. WE MUST DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SAVE OURSELVES except build nuclear plants cause they make us nervous and they got bad press and jane fonda made a movie ... ok, that makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't fathom anyone would think anything other than the profit motive led us to the great developments of the computer. IBM, Intel, Microsoft?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer

I just don't see how you could think that the great computer developments of this country are due to the efforts of the US Government.


In terms of solar, if it is not price competitive it is not going to take the place of oil. The enormous profit potential from making solar price competitive will drive innovation without the need for government intervention.

Man produces less than 1% of CO2, I agree it is not an urgent pressing problem, for as you point out, if it were, nuclear plants would be being built like crazy.

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't fathom anyone would think anything other than the profit motive led us to the great developments of the computer. IBM, Intel, Microsoft?

[/ QUOTE ]

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't fathom anyone would think anything other than the profit motive led us to the great developments of the computer. IBM, Intel, Microsoft?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's my understanding the big vaccuum computers of the 40's were built by government for government stuff, cause they were extremely expensive. I'm talking bout the origin of computers.