Comments on: But What If Global Warming is All a Hoax?

By: Carl Green

Carl Green — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:44:32 +0000

Regardless if the climate change is a Hoax or not. There is currently technology available that can increase the energy efficiency in existing buildings by a tremendous percentage at the same time saving untold millions of dollars
in fuel costs as well as thousands of tons of greenhouse emissions at the same time. Can anyone argue the fact that cleaning the air and water of this much pollution in addition to saving a huge percentage of fuel cost is a win-win solution
to an ongoing problem. This is only one area that can greatly
improve our current rate of pollution and cost savings. Hundreds of other new technologies can also be tapped to make use of renewable energy and a more sustainable environment for
our children and future generation.

By: C Ross

C Ross — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:15:51 +0000

We have a finite amount of natural resources thus they need to be conserved which justifies any movement which initiates increasing efficiency and the use of resources.

Businesses cut cost to increase profits and to increase a company’s produtivity, profit and use of resources in the attempt to avoid waste. They are economically linked.

It is irresponsible and not in the capitalistic interest to promote wasteful behaviour.

By: Otto Burden

Otto Burden — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 02:36:35 +0000

Interesting discussion. If we accept the increase in temperatures of our earth and that it is due to mankind, then I have two questions about policies to address this;
1. What impact will the policies have on the temp increase? I have not seen anything that indicates how much impact we could have on global warming by changing our human habits. It would be very foolish to adopt policies that have no impact while having significant impacts on our economy.
2. Any good policy about changes in global changes in climate due to mankind would need to include policies to deal with global warming and cooling. And when would we need to implement to address warming or cooling. As we know our good earth has been cooling the last few years. Does this mean we need to implement policies to warm us up.

I am all for practices that keep our world as clean as we can, but am not for meaningless policies that have no known impacts, but have significant impacts on our economy.

By: Beautiful Girls Gallery

Beautiful Girls Gallery — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:45:48 +0000

Global warming is becoming such an obvious problem that someone somewhere other than the US President needs to step up to help drive a massive campaign which aims to reduce Global Warming.

By: Stacy Carpenter

Stacy Carpenter — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:35:10 +0000

Greetings,

Could those posting comments please provide citations to back up the presented data (preferably peer reviewed and not wikipedia/youtube/special interest group fare)?

It is important identify how a conclusion was reached and understand the utilized methodology.

Thank you.

By: vince Puleo

vince Puleo — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:25:02 +0000

“Conspiracy Theory.” Good title for a book or a movie. It kind of grabs your attention. I still go back to the question, Where have the glaciers gone? The earth is cooling? Has anyone said that either naturally occurring warming or cooling does not have blips? Bottom line, the earth has been, is being trashed and we need to do something about it. If our activities coincide with mitigating global warming all the better. Economic activities will have to adjust. Just think, what if we had tried to save all those horse and buggy jobs at the start of the twentieth century?

By: S. Kazemi

S. Kazemi — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:16:37 +0000

Debate is great for moral issues, but when we get sick, we normally don’t debate with the doctors about their diagnosis, we might get several second opinions but at the end we always trust the doctors opinion because they represent the scientific consensus of the time, doctors could be wrong, but we still choose to trust the judgement of the science of the time. I’m always surprised why it is different with global warming, scientific consensus seems to be clear, yet we chose to enter into a scientific debate with our bits of knowledge here and there creating a lot of talking points and a lot of noise while real scientists have already had this debate and already reached a consensus..

By: Kevin Rice

Kevin Rice — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:12:16 +0000

I tend to agree with Micheal Mills comments (i.e. cause and effect of various new tech being used to “go green”). I support the move to a more sustainable living arrangement, just feel we need not close our eyes to the realities of what that move might bring to our lives.

By: bwarden

bwarden — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:38:10 +0000

Any chemical in excessive quantities is poison.
CO2 in excess IS pollution. Believing otherwise is burying your head in the sand.

I can’t claim to argue on an even footing with climate researchers, but evidently a lot of other Engineers feel qualified to. I am qualified to look at who benefits from stopping efforts to fix global warming: big companies, in business to make money. If you think a lot of PHDs got into it to make money or “force European style socialism down” anyone’s throat, I strongly suspect your knowledge of anything relating to academia (hint — it’s no way to get rich).

For God’s sake, follow the money! It ain’t Al, it’s the corporations that are pulling the scam.

By: Sherri Gibson

Sherri Gibson — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:56:08 +0000

That is a brilliant comic strip and I will be showing it to my AP Environmental Science class after the winter break. =)

But…

What about the fact that the climate DOES change? Climate cannot stay the same, even if we “humans” stop the horrible things we’re doing to Mother Earth. Personally, I think we should “Go Green” because it’s the more natural thing to do. As for climate change, it’s going to happen with or without burning fossil fuels and we should just do what all of the other organisms do: Adapt, Move, or Die. It makes no sense to throw a fit because the land can no longer support the large money crops that we think it should.

Why not just grow local, native crops and adapt ourselves to our environment instead of trying to adapt the environment to our preferred way of life?