Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald
Are you serious? There is more profit being made in a single quarter by big oil than there is being made by all of those entites concerned about global warming. Considering our whole economy is pertroleum based, your statement is grossly incorrect. Need you be reminded that several RW think tanks, with ties directly to big oil, have advertised their willingness to pay for any research that supports the position counter to global warming. Eliminate those who are taking their money from the oil companies and there is little to no research to dispute the theory.
|
The Oil companies are at the forefront of research in alternate fuels. Their product is reaching its limits as far as supply goes and because of China and India demand is increasing exponentially. They've already figured out that the price per barrel can only go so high before people just won't be able to afford to buy their product. It's only logical to develop alternative products to sell in the global market place. The likelihood of some cheaper fuel coming along tomorrow that will replace oil is slim to none. But things like ethanol will provide another product to sell consumers. This man-made global warming schlick is just providing them a vehicle to subsidize their research and development. Governments are throwing big money at research. They are also subsidizing the ethanol industry to a large enough extent that the oil companies are still able to make their obscene profits while they retool for alternative fuel sources. The oil companies are not going to lose a penny and stand to make a huge profit. Also, every barrel of oil produced will be sold and burned. We are not going to effect carbon output with what we are doing now. Actually carbon output globally will increase as we turn to alternative fuels. This because the barrel of oil we don't burn will be sold to China or some other place where emission standards are lower if present at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald
What is lost in this discussion is the fact that one side of the debate has a unified voice and theory as to what is happening. The other side has but one unified point, and that is that global warming is NOT a result of CO2 emissions. None of the dissenting voices can agree on what is causing global warming, and yes it is universally agreed that global warming IS happening, all they can do is disagree with the CO2 theory and promote their own.
|
What theories? The consensus is that the warming trend is just part of a natural cycle with multiple contributing factors. Most of the articles I've read has been more concerned with correcting false conclusions made by the CO2 crowd. They generally only speak to one so called "proof" of man caused global warming because of their personal area of expertise. For instance: a man who studies icebergs in Greenland isn't going to comment on the cause of hurricane activity. When the leading world scientist on hurricane activity came out to say that he sees no link to a increase in storm activity and global CO2 levels he wasn't trying to promote a new theory. He was just answering a question that arose because of Al Gore and his traveling circus. When a person who studies Ocean currents denies the Al Gore theory on rising sea levels that is all he is speaking to. He doesn't have to address Al Gore's many other fears.