Bob55

Climate Change: How to Invest for the Possibility

It's precisely because China is an environmental disaster due to industrialization that they have to do something soon on a grand scale. Think their growing economy doesn't have a price? Look at the smog and polluted rivers that is decimating their people and landscape.

Like I said, it was a first step. A first step is better than not taking a step at all.


On Sep 29 12:42 PM HardwoodFlooring wrote:

> China is an environmental disaster...I can't stand the whole "China"
> is ahead BS. They are still making AC on a Freon(sp) platform. Have
> people that bang on about China's environmental record actually been
> there? They are a g-damn disaster.

Climate Change: How to Invest for the Possibility

And labeling global warming as "bad science and faulty reasoning" is not sensationalizing? Let me ask you something. You admit that it is important that decisions be made "as our knowledge improves" meaning global warming "could" exist but so many like yourself would not admit to it at the current time. Likewise, an increasing (not decreasing contrary to some's belief) number of AGW-believers could change their views in the future if the scientific community could prove undeniably that its cause is not man-made. You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you, but in the meantime, real things are happening in our environment that will have dire effects on humankind. I don't care what's causing it right now. It's happening. Do we take the approach of doing nothing and watch the coastal areas of the world sink to rising waters or do we try implementing something on a worldwide scale and see if it makes a difference? I take the approach of doing something because to do nothing especially if we have the means to is to give up and accept disaster.

Climate Change: How to Invest for the Possibility

Very sorry - correcting another typo.

"We just have to see which way the wind blows in Washington this time around."

Climate Change: How to Invest for the Possibility

Perhaps it is for the same reason that the U.S. have not committed for so many years and why China and India have yet to agree to commit. Growth of the economy at all cost.

At least in the last summit, China has taken some steps in the right direction by announcing concrete investments in renewal energy, a large-scale tree-planting project, etc. but it is a mere first step. Should the U.S. finally make a commitment, it would be a huge step towards acknowledging that the science is real and not mere religion as you say and it will be a matter of time that other uncommitted nations will follow. We just have to say which way the wind blows in Washington this time around.


On Sep 29 10:00 AM concrete guy wrote:

> Bob: When CFCs were shown to be depleting the ozone layer, every
> country on the planet immediately discontinued their use. Why?....because
> the science behind the concern was compelling and indisputable. So
> why then are the vast majority of these same countries not responding
> to the AGW concern? Because the science is anything but compelling.
> AGW is not science, it's religion.

Climate Change: How to Invest for the Possibility

Strange isn't it that other countries across the globe are willing to hurl themselves off this green cliff (as you put it) because the leaders of their countries see global warming as a very credible threat with very serious consequences. Or perhaps these leaders are misguided as those of us who put Earth and the environment first and foremost over corporate profits and the economy? We, in the U.S., can continue debating this till the cows come home while the glaciers continue to melt and world water levels rise.

Climate Change: How to Invest for the Possibility

Sorry, a typo:
" I hope very much the same ploy is not used here regarding global warming. "

Climate Change: How to Invest for the Possibility

A huge danger when an article like yours come out is when it makes the suggestion that we should do nothing to stop global warming, that it is simply a natural cycle of warming and cooling throughout the Earth's history, and mankind has neither the resources nor the true volition to do anything about it. The arguments bear similarities to when cigarette companies deny claims that their product cause everything from emphysema to cancer. They might try modifying their products a little like suggesting low-tar cigarettes, but in the end, their products is just as dangerous. I hope very much the same ploy is used here regarding global warming. Today, cigarettes are forced to have health warnings on their label, and after adding all the tax surcharges the cost of a pack of cigarette is close to $10 a pack. The same can be applied here. Yes, there will be a cost to world governments and industry to combat the problem, but if left unchecked, I foresee the cost in the future will grow substantially. We have the technological means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and if survival is at stake, I believe mankind will be more resilient than you give them credit for.

Climate Change: How to Invest for the Possibility

When doctors tell you today that smoking is bad for your health, people listen without contesting the empirical evidence. Likewise, when the majority of the world's scientists say there will be very imminent consequences if we don't cut CO2 emissions drastically in our immediate future, we should listen seriously. This conclusion if from the vast majority of those who are climatologists who know their business far better than you or I.

Now getting back to my cigarette example, for decades cigarette companies try dismissing the validity of the health claims against them in fear of it cutting into their profitability and it wasn't till decades later that it can be accepted without a doubt that smoking cigarettes will kill you. The consequences of Global Warming may well be vastly more devastating. If the world could be at risk, I ask you why would you even risk it? Sure, there's the possibility decades from now that just maybe, just maybe, Global Warming may not be caused by humans, but I'm surely not going to wait decades as was done with cigarettes that it is, without a doubt, a danger. By then, it will be too late.


On Sep 26 04:28 PM Chad Brown wrote:

> "I am not a climatologist – just a rational man who respects the
> empirical process.
>
> You say your are not a climatologist but that does not seem to stop
> you from knowing the answers to the questions that climatologists
> study. Can you do that also with medical problems? (Perhaps I could
> save on my medical bills with you.) How about foreign policy issues?
> Can you translate ancient languages? I guess scientific questions
> would be a breeze for you given your respect for the empirical process?
> Are there any areas where you don't have all the answers? Also,
> do you need to know the questions first, or is that just a waste
> of you time?