global warming is a myth to scam people out of money all gore is an idoit that thinks he can rule the world, he has a bigger enery footprit than 3 houses combined
Your typing makes me shudder! Man, so horrible. Zerato5, I thought that all the ignorant people who were in denial finally saw the light shining through, but I guess I was wrong. If it is all a myth how do you explain the changes that are going on throughout the world? Let me guess, a natural period of warming at a rate that has NEVER been seen before in the history of man? When you put things that are bad for you to breathe in the air (poisonous gases and chemicals) it does bad things to our environment. It's obvious! Wake up and get with the system, go get some help to get out of denial so people like you can become smart and educated on the truth.
global warming is a myth to scam people out of money all gore is an idoit that thinks he can rule the world, he has a bigger enery footprit than 3 houses combined
How is it scamming people out of money? It encourages people to spend less money on gas and electrics. If anything, it encourages people to save money and be sustainable.
And Al Gore gets money from his movie + for discovering it.
Al Gore most certainly did not discover global warming! He is just an advocate for sustainable and renewable energy, and helps to educate people on the topic.
Well theres lot of companies profiting off global warming by selling the "Green" stuff.
It is actually very expensive for companies to switch to greener practices. This is why many companies have not yet switched to sustainable energy and practices. Switching to green is not exactly convenient, and not profitable in the short run. However, when oil starts to run out and gets even more expensive, that is when it will start paying off.
It is actually very expensive for companies to switch to greener practices.
That's true. Plus, we can save a ton of money by buying "green" products. Companies won't profit from selling green products until everyone makes the switch.
That's true. Plus, we can save a ton of money by buying "green" products. Companies won't profit from selling green products until everyone makes the switch.
That's the problem, Kevin44. Some people are so convinced that global climate change is a scam and they refuse to invest in it out of spite. We need to get everyone educated so we can move forward with the "green" movement.
The evidence for global warming itself is evidence against it.
Global warming is either way different from what we hear, meaning its not as devastating and will take a long time, or its completely false.
The claims it makes,
Unless their solution is enacted right now, temperatures will rise terribly in the next century. Icecaps will start to melt, coasts will flood, storms will get worse, diseases will spread, animals will die, and more...
Unless their solution is enacted right now, temperatures will rise terribly in the next century. Icecaps will start to melt, coasts will flood, storms will get worse, diseases will spread, animals will die, and more...
There is something wrong with that.
What are these claims that global warming is making? And why are you using some persons claims as your definition as to what will happen? The fact is, CO2 levels have risen in the atmosphere, and it is affecting out atmosphere in a negative manner. The fact is, no one truly knows what exactly will happen. But what we do know, is that it IS hurting the environment. Yes, glaciers are melting. Yes, hurricanes are getting worse. And if we don't start reducing our CO2 output, it will only add to the problems.
The cost of meeting the Kyoto Protocol will be $150 billion to $350 billion annually (compared to $50 billion in global annual development aid). With global warming disproportionately affecting third world countries, we have to ask if Kyoto is the best way to help them. The answer is no. For the cost of Kyoto for just one year we could solve the world's biggest problem: we could provide every person in the world with clean water. This alone would save two million lives each year and prevent 500 million people from contracting severe disease. In fact, for the same amount Kyoto would have cost just the United States every year, the United Nations estimates that we could provide every person in the world with access to basic health, education, family planning and water and sanitation services. Isn't this a better way of serving the world?
Only problem with that is that we all know that the US isn't just going to use that much money on third world countries.
I don't think so either, we would rather spend our money on ridiculous wars. But I do think that the USA has a big responsibility when it comes to global climate change. We produce about 25% of all the carbon emissions in the world. The consequences of this is going to adversely affect third world countries who did not even contribute to the issue.
The thing is that the US itself doesn't make money off of 3r world countries, but rather US companies and organizations do. Which means that the money isn't necessarily available fort he government to give unless all those corporations suddenly decide that profit is no longer their number one motive.
While I do think that Lomborg from the article that you referenced makes a valid point () it would bring about its own host of problems. Industrializing all these nations would create it's own host of problems, and most likely increase human caused green house gases as well as stretching the cost of living even further making it much harder to support the entire world. Unless many advances are made before these countries begin to industrialize (such as cheaper, cleaner energy, more greater food production, and more advanced easily distributed medicine) it will ultimately cause increased depletion of the worlds natural resources and further hurt the human race's chance for survival at our current technological level.
