Posted on 3/23/2007, 11:25:57 AM by PurpleMountains
Despite Al Gore’s appearance during which Congressman Joe Barton confronted him with scientific facts that destroyed his position and which he could not counter, I think that there are definite signs that the global warming nonsense has reached its peak, and that common sense and science are starting to take hold. The proximate causes for this turning point were the appearance of the video, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which has now been viewed by millions, and the NY Times piece that presented views from some leading scientists who dispute global warming and which also took Al Gore to task for the misrepresentations and actual falsehoods contained in his famous movie.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Never heard of it before.
Nor have I. Where and when did it show?
WHAT? Are you KIDDING??!! When a baby has a fever, you don't question facts!!!</global_emergency_rant>
I have a link to the YouTube site for the "Great Global Warming Swindle" on my site on the right hand side below my profile. Go to http://forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com
I'd like to believe this, but experience has shown that the stronger the argument against AGW, the greater the effort to bolster it.
Global Warming = Pet Rock
Apparently Channel 4 has a split personality. The skeptics produced the program, but the Greens still run the website.
I don't believe Global warming is primarily man-made, or that we will do much about it, or even that it is necesarily a bad thing.
But I still think it is rational to reduce our carbon footprint. Carbon costs money, and I'm a frugal guy. I don't want to waste resources, I want to use them efficiently and productively.
If you had two Hummers to choose from, they worked the same, but one got 10 mpg and the other 20 mpg, wouldn't you choose the 20 mpg version? There's no point in throwing money away.
Exactly. If you had two Hummers to choose from, and they worked the same, but one got 10 mpg and cost $50,000 and the other got 20 mpg and cost $100,000, wouldn't you choose the 10 mpg version? At $4.00 per gallon, you'd have to drive 125,000 miles to break even.
Assuming all resources are equal, and the total price of energy is appropriately priced into the goods and services we purchase (that isn't the case), price would be the perfect measure of being "green". If the 20mpg Hummer was twice as expensive, it would imply that the resource cost to gain that efficiency wasted more energy than was saved.
The costs of waste should be better allocated to those who cause waste, and the costs of pollution aloocated to those who cause pollution. Doing so would more properly price the things we buy, and the market would do the rest.
People are now buying compact florescents. Not because they are forced to by law. Not because they are pressured by their peers. But because for many applications, the bulbs save money in energy costs and life-cycle costs.
That most certainly is the case. What company can do business by paying more for energy to produce a product (or to mine the raw material used in a part or component of an end product) than they get by selling their manufactured good? Energy costs are always included in the price of something.
That's why the Toyota Camry Hybrid is so much more expensive than the non-Hybrid Camry. It costs more in materials to build, and the cost of the materials is ultimately a function of how much energy it takes to gather the raw materials and assemble the components.
You are referring to a different matter entirely, which is the intangible costs of damage done to the environment by producing or disposing of goods, such as how much money is the added pollution of nickel mining worth, or how much it costs to dispose of the lead and mercury contained in a product. That is a different matter entirely.
Being "Green" has been equated to being "Carbon Neutral" only because it is believed that CO2 is a "pollutant" that is causing damage to our envioronment due to Global Warming.
If CO2 is not responsible for Global Warming, than your "carbon footprint" has nothing to do with being Green, does it?
Now, if you wish to argue that a Prius is better than a Hummer because less money goes to terrorist states for oil, that is a different argument, but has nothing at all to do with being "Green."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.