Get rich quick-global warming.

[Mercadante]

gfilmsuk : Google it! Just type in ''make money from global warming'' and half a million + pages will pop up.

Google "make money from flat earth" and nearly two million pages will pop up. That is not an intelligent measure of profitability.

Moreover the fact that people make money from doing something is not an indication that what they do isn't needed. People make money from growing food, too.

[gfilmsuk]

Sorry but you are missing the whole point. I'm not against people making money, great heaps of it if they wish, it doesn't bother me in the slightest, we all need to make money in order to survive. What I do object to is the number of people making money off the back of man-made global warming, which I don't believe. Convincing people that they need to go green in principle is excellent but when people do it, based on fear, it's wrong.
There is two sides to the issue, who's right and who's wrong I don't know, I only know that the GW senario has provided the money-makers with some very powerful selling tools.
Dave

[Paul mabbott]

Why is this a bad thing? If people are working and pollution is being reduced, where is the harm?
These companies that you mention aren't actually making a new profit, they are saving the waste on their old profits.
There are people who don't give a damn about the planet or even understand the problems of climate change but will take effective action if you can demonstrate that they will save money. I might not bother about the future of the planet but if by insulating the house roof and walls, turning the heating down by 1C, wearing an extra jumper, I can save a few hundred pounds per year then I'll go for it!
I wouldn't call that profiteering ....

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

............ Environmental organizations have reaped billions through their campaigns of fighting "Global Warming." The world's media has printed thousands of articles of "Global Warming" and printed many books. Some have even become best sellers and more are on the way. The media readily prints all articles favouring Global Warming without any verification of the facts but it has yet not resulted in any visible changes
Al Gore continues to tell his critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself. There are many others, here's a few more who love GW..
Anyone with a vested interest in Nuclear Power
Anyone with a vested interest in Renewable Energy
Insurance Companies
Current Energy Producers
Energy Retail Companies
Carbon Offset companies
The German Government has discovered that its policies and investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions have had "zero negative effect" on the economy ... while producing 450,000 new jobs. It takes the smallest of logical leaps to realize that if nearly half a million people went from being on unemployment benefit to paying taxes, the government's investment in reducing climate change will earn it billions of dollars.
Toyota's "Environment and Social Report 2004," spent 201 billion yen on "environmental costs." the document states that 260 billion yen in additional purchases were generated which means that Toyota is making roughly a 30% return on its "environmental costs".

Climate Group co-organizer Michael Northrop reported that six major companies -- IBM, DuPont, BT (British Telecom), Alcan, Norske Canada and Bayer -- had each reduced CO2 emissions by at least 60 percent since the early 1990s ... and collectively made more than $4 billion in the process.
The construction industry is also cashing in. Extra cost for buildings to meet "green" standards is about two percent extra compared to non green. The result of that additional two-percent outlay can be up to ten times the "premium", probably more as people continue to rush headlong into 'buying green'.

..........

[Paul mabbott]

Frankly, if I had to admit that "I don't know" anything about a debate, I would keep my mouth shut.

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

...........There is two sides to the issue, who's right and who's wrong I don't know, I only know that the GW senario has provided the money-makers with some very powerful selling tools.
Dave

[StuartDH]

It's a massive and complicated issue and so I've tried to simplify it as much as I can by concluding that:

1. If the scientists are wrong, then I've wasted my time putting in a few energy lightbulbs (which also save me money), driving less (which also saves me money), buying food from the UK (which also helps local farmers), using less fossil fuels (which also produces less pollution and it's good for the environment) paid some taxes (that I would have been paying somehow anyway), watched people make more money than me (nothing new there) etc etc. It's not a big deal.

2. But if I do nothing and then find out that the scientists were right, I've helped pollute the environment, destroy habitats, lose species, create famines etc.

I feel much happier about taking option number 1.

[Mercadante]

gfilmsuk: "Sorry but you are missing the whole point. I'm not against people making money"

I didn't for a moment think you were. I did suggest that "number of hits on Google" and "some people can make money from it" are spectacularly inadequate arguments in favour of the link to tripe you posted. So too is this:

gfilmsuk: "Convincing people that they need to go green in principle is excellent but when people do it, based on fear, it's wrong."

People very sensibly do all sorts of things out of "fear", i.e., to avoid possible bad consequences, and it's not wrong to encourage them to, unless there is no good reason to suppose the bad consequences would happen. That is simply not true here.

[gfilmsuk]

Good comment Stuart. I dont agree that option 1 could turn out a waste of time. As you said you would have saved a bit of time, money and helped a few people such as UK farmers along the way.

Paul wrote; Frankly, if I had to admit that "I don't know" anything about a debate, I would keep my mouth shut.
But that comment I assume that you do know, seeing your mouth is open, so why not share it with us all.
If you believe you are 'in the know' and have answers then I'll bet the world is waiting to hear.
I noticed yesterday the way the comments were going, rudeness, sarcasm and even childish private conversations between buddies in an attempt to sabotage the thread.
I'm sure this is not the way forward.

[Bub-les]

I agree with Stuart's no 1 point. In fact I've been doing it for years. Its the green lot that have jumped on my money saving life-style!

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

Good comment Stuart. I dont agree that option 1 could turn out a waste of time. As you said you would have saved a bit of time, money and helped a few people such as UK farmers along the way.

Paul wrote; Frankly, if I had to admit that "I don't know" anything about a debate, I would keep my mouth shut.
But that comment I assume that you do know, seeing your mouth is open, so why not share it with us all.
If you believe you are 'in the know' and have answers then I'll bet the world is waiting to hear.
I noticed yesterday the way the comments were going, rudeness, sarcasm and even childish private conversations between buddies in an attempt to sabotage the thread.
I'm sure this is not the way forward.

I think the conversations were actually supposed to illustrate that not everything you read on the web is true, accurate or reliable (see how many hits you can get for "elvis still alive" - do you believe that too ?)

and as to your other points I think paul as already demonstrated that he does indeed know quite a bit about the subject - he certainly isnt relying on poorly researched websites to suport his argument.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

I noticed yesterday the way the comments were going, rudeness, sarcasm and even childish private conversations between buddies in an attempt to sabotage the thread.
I'm sure this is not the way forward.

As one of those involved in the "childish" conversations, I'm afraid at that point there was no sensible debate that deserved anything more. Your use of what frankly are plain daft web sites for the basis of your arguments got the response they deserved.