Get rich quick-global warming.

[gfilmsuk]

All over the world people are subscribing to the latest secret to making money, it's called Global Warming.
If you are really interested in knowing the truth about this enormous scam, then I urge you to read this informative post here at;
The global warming scam
When you've read it, deal with it and move on. Stop supporting the scammers.
If you can't be bothered to read this post then I suggest you're not interested in the truth.
Dave

[Paul mabbott]

I wouldn't normally reply to such a load of rubbish but since you are continuously loading the fora with it then I'll waste a little of my valuable time. You seem particularly obsessed that the concept of enhanced atmospheric warming is a scam invented by industrialists to make money. Any study of the history of this issue would show that capitalists have resisted the idea for decades since they mostly make a profit from exploiting natural resources and don't have any real concern for the long-term future. Sure, recently some have caught on that there is a profit to be made from non-carbon energy sources but that's the nature of capitalism ...

Your quotations are things which one would dump in the category of "bad science" and we've been through this sort of thing before (over and over). One of your quotes is: "... One factor the forecasters always seem to forget is that the rate of any chemical reaction increases with concentration of the reactants. Therefore, the more CO2 we add to he atmopshere, the faster plants consume CO2 in photosynthesis reactions ..." which is completely untrue. Photosynthesis, like other biochemical reactions, occurs within a particular temperature range - within that range there is increased reactivity with heat (not necessarily linear) but below and above that range reactions such as photosynthesis stop.

Not that the sheer wrongness of such comments has a lot of relevance to the argument (one of the quotes you made was from someone who didn't believe that the Earth was millions of years old ... ).

There is masses of literature on this, should you care to read it. Facts: the greenhouse effect exists; increased release of greenhouse gases will cause warming of the atmosphere; greenhouse gas release has increased massively over the last two hundred years; atmospheric temperatures are rising irrespective of natural oscillations.

What the effects of this will be are speculative to an extent but the warnings are based on informed opinion. So I would hope that people take heed and reduce greenhouse emissions.

[Mercadante]

Thanks Paul, your patience is impressive.

[Meta menardi]

Originally Posted by Mercadante

Thanks Paul, your patience is impressive.

Well, darn, not just that but your persistence in reading all of it. I can't get beyond about 500 words and then my interest just goes. Like reading recipes for turning lead into gold.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by Meta menardi

......... Like reading recipes for turning lead into gold.

Well, since you mention it, for a small (let's say reasonable) sum ... and if you've got the lead, I've got the recipe .... just e-mail for my bank account transfer details ....

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

All over the world people are subscribing to the latest secret to making money, it's called Global Warming.
If you are really interested in knowing the truth about this enormous scam, then I urge you to read this informative post here at;
The global warming scam
When you've read it, deal with it and move on. Stop supporting the scammers.
If you can't be bothered to read this post then I suggest you're not interested in the truth.
Dave

What on earth makes you think that is 'the truth'? It's a complete pile of one-sided, distorted, pseudo-science.

Have you any idea of how much money is being made by those desperate to deny the existence of global warming? i.e. the massive oil and gas industry who fund anti-global warming think-tanks throughout the US, so worried are they that global warming will damage their profits. The power of these lobbies eclipses those of any groups keen to exaggerate global warming.

Matt

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

What on earth makes you think that is 'the truth'? It's a complete pile of one-sided, distorted, pseudo-science.

Have you any idea of how much money is being made by those desperate to deny the existence of global warming? i.e. the massive oil and gas industry who fund anti-global warming think-tanks throughout the US, so worried are they that global warming will damage their profits. The power of these lobbies eclipses those of any groups keen to exaggerate global warming.

Matt

Matt, do you mean if it's on the internet it's not the truth??

[StuartDH]

I read it, but gfilmsuk I just still can't see who's making all this money from Global Warming.

Look at some of the people who have been pushing the need to do something about climate change:

Hippies and environmentalists - not exactly known for their wealth and capitalism
Academics - with their qualifications, they're usually earning a fraction of what they'd earn in business
Companies like Toyota - The Prius isn't exactly flying out of the showroom, and yet global warming hits the sales of their more expensive Landcruisers
Oil companies - they make billions selling oil and gas, and will lose out if we all use less energy, move more into nuclear and renewables, or run cars on alternative fuels
Governments - they've never needed an excuse to put up taxes

and yet there those who will lose a lot of money like the big airlines, holiday companies, the packaging industry, foreign manufacturers and farmers...

[Rich_]

The big airlines & holiday companies will only loose money when planes are physically taken out of the sky. The aircraft does not emit less co2 because the passengers have paid green tax The government could pass a law to allow only essential flights, but they are more likely to ban patio heaters?

I think this is why some people are so hostile toward the climate change issue. They don't seem to be targetting the main culprits.

[gfilmsuk]

Stuart I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle.
Google it! Just type in ''make money from global warming'' and half a million + pages will pop up. OK I don't expect you to go through them all but like me you'll find quotes such as; Make money from global warming, etc. and many more offers. And these aren't just small Internet entrepreneurs looking for a quick buck either.

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'.

Blackle.com, the eco-friendly version of Google in Australia claim they’re saving the planet, but all that’s really been saved is the piles of money they’re banking. They use a black screen instead of a white background claiming it saves thousands of watts of power a year because it took less juice for a monitor to display black than white. Hundreds of thousands of searches a day are conducted by users who use the search engine instead of Google because they believe they’re doing their bit for the environment. But that claim is now being disputed by those who have tested the theory and say the power saving benefits are negligible or non-existent.

Nuclear energy is back in the news and the price of Uranium has increased dramatically and continues to rise at an incredible rate. In 2003 the price was around five pounds per pound, the price is now around fifty pounds a pound. Same product, bigger profit.
As global warming becomes more and more prominent the tax on ego based transportation will continue to increase. Earlier this week London introduced this 200 quid tax on HGVs but how is it helping to save the planet any more than airline tax.

Here's a couple of idea's for you to make money through so called GW. Write a book denying global warming exists, that it's all a socialist plot. Plenty of suckers will buy it or develop a cat converter to fit to the rear-end of cows, that should be a real winner! Start an investment company that sells stock in "green" companies and carbon credits, then make a movie that shows how the world is on its last legs. If you really want to play with the big boys; get a bill passed that mandates everyone buys a product from one of the companies you recommend. They'll love you, and you'll make heaps of cash. Problem is, it's already history.

Insurance is the second-largest industry in the world in terms of assets, and has a direct link to most home owners and businesses. It also has the ability to change behaviour and policies.
Peter Michaelis, who runs the Norwich Union Sustainable Future fund, recommends the UK-based firm Romag, which fits glass round solar cells. “Many new office buildings are keen on having some form of solar energy,” he said. The firm supplied the mayor of London’s office.
He likes solar energy stocks such as the Renewable Energy Corporation, a Norwegian company that produces the silicon used in solar panels. Michaelis says the firm will double in size in the next couple of years. Michaelis also recommends Eco-securities, Trading Emissions and Camco, all of which source carbon credits for sale into the European trading scheme. I'm not going into that one as the thing is an obvious joke.
This is just a minuscule example of how people are making money out of others fear.
If you feel that strongly about GW then I ask all of you, what are YOU doing about it? How have you changed your lifestyle and of those you influence. Have you really done any serious research into the subject?
After 30 years in the media business there is one saying that still rings true; Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, there's no money in it.

[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.

[thwick in 'ead]

Hooray, some sense at last on the "global warming" nonsense!!!!!!!

[gfilmsuk]

Graham, thanks for your explanation.
I have just checked the link I included in the first post, just to make sure I had put the right one, I really cant see why you regard it as plain daft.
To me, and maybe to others, it shows how