Long post **sigh**
As for the graphs, there's a big controversy about them and now there are several alternative graphs. Just search the Web for "hockey stick", take
this for instance, and
this for a resource about the basis against the man-made global warming in general, with plenty of articles about the "hockey stick". The very author of the study that reached those graphs as a conclusion had to admit that the mathematical model he used produces graphs with that same hockey stick shape with any input, even if you don't use the scarcely known historical data but fictional randomly generated data. He still states that his study is still valid though. The case is that if man-made global warming was a reality objective scientific scrutiny would find it out, but if you set up a politically funded research and you know the conclusions you want to and will reach beforehand, you'll never get the truth. Plus the very scientists who believe in man-made global warming don't state it's "proven", only that they lean towards believing it.
As for man-made global warming being a proven fact, as I said not even the UN report states it, it says that it's "very likely" and that something should be done in case. But it doesn't have the nerve to state that we're scientifically certain of it. The UN report isn't neutral at all, yet it keeps some scientific rigour and if the media merely quoted it instead of fabricating apocalyptic stuff, the average man wouldn't have blind faith in global warming as he has. A scientific theory is the closest you can get to scientific truth, even being open to revision, but global warming is nowhere near being a theory. It's a hypothesis, that is a reasonable supposition not thoroughly based on experimental data, and a hypothesis which has resisted being upgraded to a theory during two decades in spite of all the funds spent on researching it, and which has received some bashings during these two decades.
As for the people who think that the "deniers'" --outrageous name we receive-- side is the only one with economic motivations and lobbying and whatnot. First I could talk about political motivations because they're present in the pro-man-made side and not in the anti-man-made side, but I'll just drop it myself, Greywolf seems willing to discuss it though. But I'll say a couple of words about economic motivations, which tend to permeate the political field also.
First, what are the economic motivations of the anti-man-made side? I'd say defending the use of technologies that, it must be understood and accepted and flaming is not the way to convince anyone, we don't think they're harming the environment in the way the other side says. From the point of view of the companies, they're not harming anybody, they're providing a service you're not forced to hire and you can boycott them if you like --just don't buy electricity and go Rambo as Tai said--, and they think they don't deserve being unfairly charged or taxed or banned or in any way penalized. And from the point of view of the consumers, of the few who don't believe in man-made global warming and don't own stock of energy companies either, measures introduced to fight something we believe it doesn't actually exist have the effect of raising both energy prices and taxes collected to fund those measures. That is the measures decrease our living standards and purchasing power, and we think it's all for nothing. If you think these two points of view are criminal sue us.
On the pro-man-made side, and contrary to what most people believe or rather even know about, there are big fat economic motivations as well. During the Clinton administration the energy company Enron donated almost half a million dollars to the Democratic party and lobbied in favour of the Kyoto Protocol before it was even signed. A prestigious lawyer told how he was hired by Enron but not told about what would be his job until he accepted, supposedly becaus Enron didn't want its competitors to know about it. Seemingly Enron didn't want anyone to know, but when the first day they told their new employee that his main job would be lobbying the government in favour of signing the Kyoto Protocol, he immediately resigned and later told the story to the oh so few media interested.
The reason for certain companies' being interested in the Kyoto Protocol is always the same, they don't want to compete if they can receive subsidies. Enron had previously purchased from General Electric and others equipment for energy generation through renewable technologies. This equipment was a bad purchase if Enron had to compete because its costs are much higher than the fossil fuels technologies, but Enron planned thus to get a dominant or monopolistic position in the renewable energies sector, and money spent to lobby the government would be well worth it if it made the government bash their so-called non-eco-friendly competitors and massively subsidize them. That's not what I would call honest practices, and if I'm not wrong Enron was sentenced for an unrelated accounting fraud.
We have the same situation here in Spain, especially with a company called Acciona. It was dedicated to building roads and housing, which has been a very lucrative business with all the EU subsidies to infrastructures and with the humongous housing demand here during the last years. But now Spain will be giving to the EU rather than receiving, and the housing demand is saturated, so Acciona thought about entering the energy sector. But again they didn't want to compete if they could convince the government to subsidize them, so they've specialized in renewable energies. They've spent loads of cash in an advertising campaign about sustainable development. Why, because the high executives just feel better doing good to mankind and into the bargain they want the stockholders to oust them for trashing their profits? Yeah sure. And know what? Acciona pays Al Gore to lecture in Spain.
By the way I don't know if you heard that Al Gore's house --or the biggest of his houses-- spends 20 (!) times as much electricity as the average American home. Well I respect anyone who believes in global warming even if I don't and advocates for action in a honest way, like the people who post here. But I just can't think good of this guy, given what he says vs. what he does. Plus he lost the election, period. The electoral law is as it is and I don't see the Democrats advocating for changing it or reviewing the federal constitution of the US either.
As for the influence of CO2. It does cause greenhouse effect, but. First, greenhouse effect occurs naturally and without it Earth would be frozen and life would be hardly possible. As I said during past eras there was 10 or more times as much CO2 as now. Secondly, even will all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere right now, still most CO2 in it has a natural origin. Thirdly and this is important, around 98 per cent of greenhouse effect is caused by vapour, yes, water in gas form (take a
look at
this). The pro-man-made side doesn't deny this, they can't, what they say is that this 0.X per cent of greenhouse gases we cause artificially will spoil some supposedly extremely delicate balance --although we know how widely the climate has historically changed without reaching the extreme of an ice age, and then again ice ages or any kind of ages are natural and we can't nor should try to do anything to influence the climate. Well you can believe in it just like Ahmadinejad believes in the coming of the 12th imam.
Anyway I'm only talking about global warming, I'm not saying that man doesn't harm the enviroment in other aspects.
0
(at least in that manner)
I couldn't agree more.
