T Nation

Investing in Global Warming

With Bush getting another 4 years I don’t see CO2 emmisions dropping anytime soon.

Any ideas where to invest to benefit through global warming?

I was thinking buying land up in Canada for when the grain belt shifts north. Any other ideas? Perhaps owning stock in companies working on melanoma treatments.

You could always buy stock in aluminum. When everybody starts making hats to defend themselves from space alien mind-control devices, the price is gonna skyrocket!

The reason I’m saying this is because there is a hell of a lot more credible scientific evidence pointing to the existence of extraterrestrials visiting our planet than there is for catastrophic climate changes due to CO2 pollution.

Hope you make a mint! :slight_smile:

[quote]

The reason I’m saying this is because there is a hell of a lot more credible scientific evidence pointing to the existence of extraterrestrials visiting our planet than there is for catastrophic climate changes due to CO2 pollution.

Hope you make a mint! :)[/quote]

Cute but wrong.

Even the pentagon put out a report expecting massive consequences to global warming.

http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climatechange.pdf

and

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/041304_climate_change_pt1.html

now please tell me that you think the pentagon is full of a bunch of liberal wackos.

If you would like to find more evidence for global warming get out of whatever hole you have been in and look it.

Enjoy your mint!

Working on my mint, thanks!

BTW, I posted this on the Dear Mr. President thread a few days ago:

http://muller.lbl.gov/...alWarming.html

It’s a left-wing scientist’s take on the “hockey stick” graph which shows the supposed cataclysmic climate shift occuring soon.

And BB posted this as well:

http://www.techcentralstation

I looked at your Pentagon report. It is nothing but a “what if” game theory paper, and disclaims it as such on the first page. It in no way supports the idea that global warming is going to occur, ever. It is simply a way to have a contingency plan. The sentence on the first page: “We have created a scenario…” explains it all.

Your other link to the fromthewilderness.com site is nothing but a report about the Pentagon paper, meaning that it doesn’t support your argument, either.

I’m serious now, buddy. Do some google-ing tonight about aliens. This is no shit. You want to talk about pentagon reports? The ones on the aliens are substantiated by NASA, and they’re not game theory, bro. This shit is for real. These are credible government agencies, with years of reports of anecdotal and direct measurable evidence of UFO’s, alien abductions, and whatnot. Buy fucking aluminum.

[quote]Soco wrote:

Cute but wrong.

Even the pentagon put out a report expecting massive consequences to global warming.

http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climatechange.pdf

and

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/041304_climate_change_pt1.html

now please tell me that you think the pentagon is full of a bunch of liberal wackos.

If you would like to find more evidence for global warming get out of whatever hole you have been in and look it.

Enjoy your mint![/quote]

The Pentagon is full of a bunch of liberal wackos.

Just because somebody works for the Pentagon does not mean they are conservative. Also you missed what he said about CO2. You think he is saying there is no global warming, but he said that there is not enough proof that the CO2 we are creating is causing it.

Now that that is out of the way, I will say that I do believe that we are affecting the atmosphere. But it is normal for the Earth to have fluctuations in temperature, and way beyond anything we have ever seen.

The Earth was once 20 degrees hotter then it is now. And a 20 degree fluctuation in global temperature is not that abnormal over a 50 year period of time during ancient times. I am actually convinced that the CO2 we have been pumping into the atmosphere has actually stabilized the Earths atmosphere. (This is my own theory, and I have no knowledge of anyone else proposing this.)

Also there is a disagreement between scientists as to whether or not the changes would really be bad. The fact is that nobody really knows. Some scientists have actually warned that we might be due for an ice age, and recommend increasing the CO2 just to reduce the effects.

I should mention that these two people don?t actually work for the Pentagon, they just wrote a paper for them. They both work for an organization called Global Business Network.

http://www.gbn.com

Their main function is to create scenarios. In other words to make up a possible future. This requires a lot of guess work. This is not a fruitless effort, but attempting to forecast the future is barely an exact science.

And the second link is a complete conspiracy site. Be careful of anything you get from that site. Oh yeah, the first site, while having a document which may have been presented to the pentagon, is a politically biased website with an agenda.

Now please don’t say just because somebody submitted a paper to the Pentagon, that they work for the Pentagon, or that the Pentagon believes, or supports the paper.

How is it that with the millions of people in this world and other countries leaders doing the types of things that emit CO2 it comes around that President Bush is responsible for it?

[quote]The Mage wrote:

But it is normal for the Earth to have fluctuations in temperature, and way beyond anything we have ever seen.
[/quote]

Bingo

Global warming and cooling is a natural cycle. Maybe we speeded it up a bit with all the stuff that breaks down ozon but it will happen no matter what we do.

It’s happened several times already during the earths history and it will continue to do so.

Why worry??

There is overwhelming evidence that global warming is real, the quesiton is whether it is caused by people.

There is also plenty of evidence to show that there has been increases in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and that CO2 is a known byproduct of burning fossil fuels. While I agree that there isn’t 100% proof that global warming is caused by current human activities, there is very strong evidence to show that it is.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/106332.asp?cp1=1#BODY

Even the Bush administration has admitted that Human activity causes global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

Along with that, the U.S. is currently the largest producer of greenhouse gases though that ranking will probably soon be taken by China.

The United States is currently the world’s only superpower and as the largest producer of fossil fuel emmissions should take the lead.

Even if you disagree with global warming, there are still very large negative impacts associated with conflicts surrounding limited natural resources.

Currently world oil production is peaked and demand is still increasing. Even in the short term that has consequences that merit using renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency.

[quote]bandgeek wrote:
http://www.junkscience.com/[/quote]

so many links so little time

I read one of those “worst case scenario” books and it said that if you are ever abducted by aliens make sure not to think of anal probing as this might encourage them to probe you.

I have no links to offer currently but I’ve read several reports that Mars is going through some global warming as well.

[quote]Soco wrote:
I read one of those “worst case scenario” books and it said that if you are ever abducted by aliens make sure not to think of anal probing as this might encourage them to probe you. [/quote]

LOL!! I’m gonna get me some aluminum underwear, too!

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Soco wrote:
I read one of those “worst case scenario” books and it said that if you are ever abducted by aliens make sure not to think of anal probing as this might encourage them to probe you.

LOL!! I’m gonna get me some aluminum underwear, too![/quote]

check the travel addition of the worst case scenario.

As for the alien thing, stop listening to A.M. radio.

[quote]Soco wrote:

As for the alien thing, stop listening to A.M. radio.

[/quote]

Are you sure you?re not the one taking Coast to Coast too seriously? Even Art Bell has said he doesn?t believe 40% of it.

As far as the environment, yes it is important. But we don?t have to destroy the economy to improve things. Also acting too fast can have bad consequences, especially if we get the science wrong.

The fact of the matter is that it is all theory. And theories can be wrong, or misunderstood. And when science leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of politics, it gets distorted.

Rather then figuring out what is actually going on, people have a knee jerk reaction, and go overboard jumping into the political side, (or the legal side to make some money,) and this is foolish.

Anyone who reads this site knows the real facts about protein. But there are still people, and doctors, pushing the idea that excess amounts are dangerous to your kidney, even though recent research has failed to show any effects.

If we react the wrong way, we could actually ruin an economy for no reason, or even cause environmental problems.

How about this. (Sorry to go slightly off subject, but you might understand.) How many people would love to clone a dinosaur? Sound cool? Great idea? Guess what, it may not be able to survive in our environment.

With amber found in the past, they have found air bubbles with ancient air. It took them two years just to prove to themselves that the air had not changed since the time of the dinosaurs. And the level of oxygen in the air was much higher then it is now. Dinosaurs needed all that oxygen, and that may actually explain why there were so many large animals in the past. All the oxygen allowed for more growth, and it was easier for the animals to get enough oxygen to live.

The environment changed on it?s own, reducing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

Also you have mentioned peak oil. You know that is the belief that we are already running out. (While oil won?t last forever, I really think it is overblown.) Now if you are right about that, then there should not be a problem. We run out of oil, and we quit burning it. No global warming due to oil. Makes sense to me.

Now I ask you to check how the environment is doing compared to decades ago. It is better then it was.

Don’t you think there might be some consequences when we run out of oil? If the world doesn’t have other technologies available there could be serious resource wars or at least major effects on the economy.

You actually think the climate is better now then a decade ago? What the hell are you basing that on? You can tell me that you have a conscious memory of the world enviroment ten years ago being worse than it is today?

The fact that there are numerous countries signing Kyoto indicates that this is a serious issue. Climate change is well past the point of a simple theory. Look at one of my earlier posts, the fact that the Bush administration has even admitted that global warming is partly caused by man should be a wake up call.

Bush’s environmental record always gets short shrift, mostly because the President didn’t bother defending it, as he rightly viewed it as a minor issue w/r/t the campaign.

This note on air trends produced by the EPA contains a nice graph showing how total emissions have been decreasing over the past 30 years, and continued decreasing under Bush:

Here are three articles by Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, specifically taking on some of the crap spewed by RFK, Jr.:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/adler_morriss200405260828.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/adler/adler200312030840.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/adler/adler200409150552.asp

I was an environmental engineering student for a while in college. (of course, now I design military jet engines. . . two diametrically opposed fields). I did a research project on reducing Arsenic concentrations from coal combustion and garbage incineration. We were able to capture Arsenic by passing the waste stream through a fluidized bed of Aluminum Oxide. It was very efficient, and pretty cool to do something effective for the environment instead of sitting on the Plaza of Americas smoking weed and playing hackey sack.
I think focusing on CO2 is just part of the disasterous atmospheric picture. It does have an effect on the environment, but the atmosphere is such a dynamic, massive entity affected by so many dynamic variables that we dont yet understand, that you can spin the data either way. Most environmental engineers will agree to the fact that the constant pumping of all kinds of gases into our atmosphere is not positive, or otherwise stated, will transform our atmosphere into something other than what we have biologically adapted to.
I think some of the more important issues are reducing the VOCs (volatile Organic Compounds) NOx (nitrous oxides)and SOx (sulfur oxides) that are spewing into our air. CO2 has an impact on the global heat up, but also the benefit of feeding our plantlife, which in turn, feeds our oxygen production. Whereas supplemental compounds starve / taint the environment where we organic beings live.
That said, there has a been a push under this administration to reduce the regulations on pollutants from the 1990 HAPs act (Hazardous Air Pollutants). That is scary. Arsenic, Lead, Mercury are on that list.
We did a bunch of case studies of families in china who burn coal for heat, and the extremities of their limbs are turning black from the inside out due to arsenic poisoning. Its bad shit.

Soco –

We are behaving much better than we were 10 years ago, but it is like a deficit / debt argument (cut the deficit in half but still plunge further into debt).
We pollute much less than we did 10 years ago, due to awarenes, regulation, and technology, but we are still negatively impacting the environment.

That Kyoto Treaty blows my mind. our president says we must lead the world when it comes to spreading democracy, but when it is inconvenient for our business to sign on to a unified environmental policy, he gives us a manifest destiny response.
If there is one policy that we must sign onto, it is environmental policy as we all share the climate, atmosphere, and oceans.
We have a responsibility to lead the world in all aspects, including the environment. Especially when we lead the world in environmental protection technology.