Scientist: CO2 not driving climate

tinfoil said:
alternatives have been shelved for decades until this current green craze allowed for the value of such hopelessly inefficient devices to increase and make them worth marketing. Now the politicians can invest and then pass laws favoring their investments and we can call it saving the planet.

how to profit off your bogeyman in a few easy steps.
Get the tape now and be on your way to making money.
Click to expand...

Your perspective is weird. At some point, this century, we WILL have to transtion from fossil fuels. There will be a point where we will have absolutely no choice in the matter.

And you think this is "profiting off the bogeyman"? I call it preparing the the future, in a way that boosts our economy & cleans up the planet. There are no negatives. As for the technology being "hopelessly inefficient," you are a little behind the times, there.
 
There is good science behind global warming, but CO2 emissions are not the driving force behind it. Trends of global warming/cooling are influenced by sun cycles more than by any other factor. Global warming has been observed on Triton (a moon of Neptune), Pluto, Mars, Jupiter as well as other celestial bodies.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
Your perspective is weird. At some point, this century, we WILL have to transtion from fossil fuels. There will be a point where we will have absolutely no choice in the matter.

And you think this is "profiting off the bogeyman"? I call it preparing the the future, in a way that boosts our economy & cleans up the planet. There are no negatives. As for the technology being "hopelessly inefficient," you are a little behind the times, there.
Click to expand...

The negatives are failing economies from energy strangulation due to crazy environmental laws.
 
Tabasco said:
There is good science behind global warming, but CO2 emissions are not the driving force behind it. Trends of global warming/cooling are influenced by sun cycles more than by any other factor. Global warming has been observed on Triton (a moon of Neptune), Pluto, Mars, Jupiter as well as other celestial bodies.
Click to expand...

Although there are natural cycles in climate, it's the rate of change we're seeing that is alarming, and it is this which has been ascribed to human activity. I have no problem with this concept at all. It may be possible that the current trends were initiated by a natural process, though data seem to be piling up against that notion, but it is also very clear that the rate of the change has been precipitated and maintained by human activity.

It is doubtful that this process may be entirely reversed; it is possible that it may be mitigated by rational, responsible behavior and use of resources on our part. There are so many factors involved in this process that it would be ludicrous to suggest that humans have not contributed in probably several ways. At the very least we can minimize our waste and our use of finite resources, and clean up our environment.
 
Onceler said:
Your perspective is weird. At some point, this century, we WILL have to transtion from fossil fuels. There will be a point where we will have absolutely no choice in the matter.

And you think this is "profiting off the bogeyman"? I call it preparing the the future, in a way that boosts our economy & cleans up the planet. There are no negatives. As for the technology being "hopelessly inefficient," you are a little behind the times, there.
Click to expand...

My perspective is dead accurate. Electric alternatives have been shelved until the masses would be willing to accept less performance, than oil, respectively, and be willing to pay more for it. Along the way they can penalize one product and the government gets its take in the scheme. Government is run by humans. They are historically unreliable and corrupt as leaders
 
Thorn said:
Although there are natural cycles in climate, it's the rate of change we're seeing that is alarming, and it is this which has been ascribed to human activity. I have no problem with this concept at all. It may be possible that the current trends were initiated by a natural process, though data seem to be piling up against that notion, but it is also very clear that the rate of the change has been precipitated and maintained by human activity.

It is doubtful that this process may be entirely reversed; it is possible that it may be mitigated by rational, responsible behavior and use of resources on our part. There are so many factors involved in this process that it would be ludicrous to suggest that humans have not contributed in probably several ways. At the very least we can minimize our waste and our use of finite resources, and clean up our environment.
Click to expand...

Aside from sun cycles and/or cosmic radiation, what common factor is there that would result in warming of other solar objects (i.e. Mars, Triton)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top