So global warming is about marketing???

Question

Has anyone else noticed that half of the "solutions" to global warming involve purchasing something?

Anywhere from flourescent light bulbs to hybrid cars, a lot of ideas requires $$$$. (P.S. Flourescent lightbulbs contain mercury, which leads to a toxic pollutant when disposed of by the way) (P.S.S. trees do absorb carbon dioxide, but also rease a lot of it when they die and decompose)

I was just asking if anyone else noticed that apparently everyone needs to spend money in order to save the planet from this horrific global warming.

Answer 1

So I am not the only one that noticed that.  I like how everyone says that those CFBs will save a ton of mercury from the environment.  Over the course of it's 5 year life the CFB will be responsible for 6.4 mg mercury and incandescents would be responsible for 10 mg.  That 4 mg difference is the same amount as advertised in a CFB and I am told by AGW supporters that this is just a trace amount that we should not worry about.  But what if that CFB only lasts 2 1/2 years, then it will equal the incandescent in mercury output. However, in the case of my house if you burn out a CFB in 1 month average for 5 bulbs than you are putting much more mercury into the environment. I checked the prices of them today and found they range from 5 to 10 dollars.  Someone is lining their pockets big time due to all the bleeding hearts.

Answer 2

Global warming is science.  Period.

As for your comments--they are an example of the deliberate misinformation being spread by special interests. For example--you say compact flourescents contain mercury. So they do--a trace amount. but, like every so-called "skeptic" you leave out the whole story. The coal  burned to make the electricity CFL bulbs sae releases many times as much mercury into the air.  And CFLs are recyclable-none o ft emercury they contain need ever be released.

And marketing?  To stick to this example--CFLs save people money. The real deceptive marketing is on the part of dishonnest people who try to spread misinformation to keep consumers paying far more for energy jsut to protect the special interests ad the status quo.

Want an example of the real "marketing" scams?  Last year the oil companies spent literally millions lobby ing Congress to stop a bill that would require more fuel-efficient cars.  Now those cars will SAVE consumers money-thousands of dollars in fuel costs over the lifetime of a car.  

The marketing you sneer at is aimed not just at helping the environment--it will also save the average person money--a lot of money.  So why should anyone listen to you and your propaganda?

Answer 3

Or could just spend less money and be more enviromentally friendly, things like turning off appliances when you are not using them, walking instead of taking the car, only buying the things that you actually need.

How much pollution do you think a really really poor person makes compared to us who are lucky enough to have a more comfortable lifestyle?

Answer 4

Well, I guess it is. I always believed it was money. about the same.

I am a naturalist/ Conservationist. I have been following the climate change since the 80's.

Climate Change is a more accurate term....

I am not denying that the earth 's climate changes, these are called cycles. I have only found FACT to sustain that these are warming and cooling cycles.

More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.

The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming imperils the planet.

Environmentalists generally only care about the environment for political gain.

Anyone who really cares about the environment are generally known as conservationists.

We just need to continue to conserve energy and protect the environment. Leave the rest to God.

Answer 5

You forgot to mention the biggest one - carbon credits and carbon trading.  Al Gore is involved in an investment company that stands to make billions in the trading of carbon credits.

Answer 6

No, it's about science.

This is science and what counts is the data.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

It's (mostly) not the sun:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-...

And the first graph above shows that the sun is responsible for about 10% of it.  When someone says it's the sun they're saying that thousands of climatologists are stupid and don't look at the solar data.  That's ridiculous.

Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater...

There's a large number of people who agree that it is real and mostly caused by us, who are not liberals, environmentalists, stupid, or conceivably part of a "conspiracy".  Just three examples of many:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know...  Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point.  You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"