Global Warming Do You Care?

[JetsetBkk]

"But oh no! I can't read that! It's on the BBC's website and we all know they're biased and part of the left-wing/capitalist/UK aristocratic/Gorian/greenie plot to force us to believe in AGW". You can't fool Xyborg and friends, they know a trick when they see one.

I read it all. Right down to the very, very end... where there was this little gem: (maybe you missed it)

However, even those scientists who agree with evidence for recent, strong anthropogenic warming have reservations about models such as the hockey stick.

According to Professor John Waterhouse, of Anglia Polytechnic University in Cambridge, UK, the so-called Medieval Warm Period (AD 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (AD 1600-1850) do not show up.

"Most climate researchers expected them to be there," he told the BBC News website.

He added that uncertainties in the methods used for climatic reconstruction underestimate the changeability of climate in the past.

[JetsetBkk]

...like having an argument on the relative merits of deontological and consequentialist ethics with a 5-year old...

Wow! Have you been at the thesaurus again? And please, there's no need to compare yourself with a 5 year old.

[JetsetBkk]

I hope to be around in 20 years laughing at how foolish most folks were when they realize they've been duped

Good idea! Let's all make a pact to meet in a pub in Bangkok in 20 years from now so we can laugh at the ones that got it totally wrong. I'm up for it.

P.S.

I'll be the one wearing Wellington boots, because bkk will be 2 feet under water by then, won't it?

[HS Mauberley]

The quotation from Professor Waterhouse does not appear on the page to which plachon linked so I'm not sure what you were reading or what your point is but if you're somehow trying to suggest the Professor Waterhouse is with you in the idiots' camp, you clearly don't understand what "scientists who agree with evidence for recent, strong anthropogenic warming" means. But do keep it up. Any more academics who support theories of anthropogenic climate change who you would like to quote? As for knowing what constitutes the difference between various ethical systems (or, indeed, understanding why it is idiotic to suggest that dark matter has caused climate change) - that is the benefit of staying in education beyond primary school.

[xyborg]

<br />The quotation from Professor Waterhouse does not appear on the page to which plachon linked so I'm not sure what you were reading or what your point is but if you're somehow trying to suggest the Professor Waterhouse is with you in the idiots' camp, you clearly don't understand what "scientists who agree with evidence for recent, strong anthropogenic warming" means. But do keep it up. Any more academics who support theories of anthropogenic climate change who you would like to quote? As for knowing what constitutes the difference between various ethical systems (or, indeed, understanding why it is idiotic to suggest that dark matter has caused climate change) - that is the benefit of staying in education beyond primary school.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

You must try to calm down when replying and hurl less insults, I did not say dark matter was linked to global warming I said "what if" however you seem to know exactly what dark matter is and its effects on our planet which strangely no one else does know. The point I am trying to make is YOU and anybody else and his dog do not know everything about this planets climate and anything that may affect it. I DONT KNOW EITHER.

Sometimes the strangest things utnhinkable can be hugely influential.

Now I have to run along or teacher will smack me but its ok it wont redden my skin and so I will laugh in his/her/its face.

Dont worry I managed in another life to get a degree in Geology zzzzzzzzz

[Cobalt60]

What a rude man HS Mauberley is. If you represent the global warming brigade, then I dont care how right your reasons, I am in the other camp.

Documentary last night said beware of sunspots, for they have a major effect. The fewer there are the colder we get evidently, just off for a look, bye

[Dupont]

Top story on BBC Radio 4 News at One today, was re. boss of WHO expressing concern about the impacts of climate change on the poor of Sub-Saharan Africa

What a big stinky steaming pile of steer manure! Millions of imporverished people who have no shelter, no food, no clean water, no medical care, no education, no future and are being killed or otherwise discriminated against by their central governments or out of control militias, don't give two sh*ts about climate change. How 'about this group of high-minded EU legislators doing something to help these people survive into next year?

Meanwhile my daughter learns about climate change and global warming in the Year 7 science curricula.

Further evidence that some segments of the teaching population are intent on pushing a political agenda to brainwash the next generation, rather than educating children with the fundamentals from which they may one day make their own decisions. It's borderline child abuse.

Mr Spee - why do you think these "wars" and "famine" are breaking out every where?

People are fighting for power, power to control land with ever-decreasing resources - such as water, oil etc and this is all linked to CLIMATE CHANGE.

These wars are breaking out because liberal hand wringers like you gave them millions of dollars in the 80's because it was trendy.

Ethiopia and Somalia are so hunger striken that they have managed to wage war on each other as well as engage in full blown civil wars throughout this period.

We should cut the entire continent off without a single further cent until they shape up.

Wilko. GO TO AFRICA! GO NOW, then we might believe your purile student rants! DO SOMETHING, STOP EXPECTING EVERYBODY ELSE TO DO SOMETHING!!

[JetsetBkk]

the real inconvenient truth is that carbon increases came after temperature rose -- usually hundreds of years later. Temperature went up first.

no, it did not.

look at the graph.

blue is temperature. red is CO2. the time goes from left to right. past to present.

blue lags red. temperature follows CO2.

Did you look at this graph?:

Analysis of ice core data from Antarctica by Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years.

There are many examples of studies finding lags, a few examples include:

* Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years, using Antarctic ice-cores between 60 and 20 kyr before present (see figure).

* Fischer et al. (Science, vol 283, p. 1712, 1999) reported a time lag 600±400 yr during early de-glacial changes in the last 3 glacial–interglacial transitions.

* Siegenthaler et al. (Science, vol. 310, p. 1313, 2005) find a best lag of 1900 years in the Antarctic data.

* Monnin et al. (Science vol 291, 112, 2001) find that the start of the CO2 increase in the beginning of the last interglacial lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.

Clearly, the correlation and lags unequivocally demonstrate that the temperature drives changes in the atmospheric CO2 content.

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

But you can believe Gore's pretty blue and red graph if you want. And "misinterpret" it just like he did.

[wilko]

I hope to be around in 20 years laughing at how foolish most folks were when they realize they've been duped

Good idea! Let's all make a pact to meet in a pub in Bangkok in 20 years from now so we can laugh at the ones that got it totally wrong. I'm up for it.

P.S.

I'll be the one wearing Wellington boots, because bkk will be 2 feet under water by then, won't it?

Jetski - with your survival skills I doubt you'll make it......

[wilko]

Top story on BBC Radio 4 News at One today, was re. boss of WHO expressing concern about the impacts of climate change on the poor of Sub-Saharan Africa

What a big stinky steaming pile of steer manure! Millions of imporverished people who have no shelter, no food, no clean water, no medical care, no education, no future and are being killed or otherwise discriminated against by their central governments or out of control militias, don't give two sh*ts about climate change. How 'about this group of high-minded EU legislators doing something to help these people survive into next year?

Meanwhile my daughter learns about climate change and global warming in the Year 7 science curricula.

Further evidence that some segments of the teaching population are intent on pushing a political agenda to brainwash the next generation, rather than educating children with the fundamentals from which they may one day make their own decisions. It's borderline child abuse.

Mr Spee - why do you think these "wars" and "famine" are breaking out every where?

People are fighting for power, power to control land with ever-decreasing resources - such as water, oil etc and this is all linked to CLIMATE CHANGE.

These wars are breaking out because liberal hand wringers like you gave them millions of dollars in the 80's because it was trendy.

Ethiopia and Somalia are so hunger striken that they have managed to wage war on each other as well as engage in full blown civil wars throughout this period.

We should cut the entire continent off without a single further cent until they shape up.

Wilko. GO TO AFRICA! GO NOW, then we might believe your purile student rants! DO SOMETHING, STOP EXPECTING EVERYBODY ELSE TO DO SOMETHING!!

On this posting I am refraining from putting forward any sensible arguments because as illustrated yet again by the above aanything but a derisory response would be utterly pointless.

[mogoso]

the real inconvenient truth is that carbon increases came after temperature rose -- usually hundreds of years later. Temperature went up first.

no, it did not.

look at the graph.

blue is temperature. red is CO2. the time goes from left to right. past to present.

blue lags red. temperature follows CO2.

Did you look at this graph?:

Analysis of ice core data from Antarctica by Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years.

There are many examples of studies finding lags, a few examples include:

* Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years, using Antarctic ice-cores between 60 and 20 kyr before present (see figure).

* Fischer et al. (Science, vol 283, p. 1712, 1999) reported a time lag 600±400 yr during early de-glacial changes in the last 3 glacial–interglacial transitions.

* Siegenthaler et al. (Science, vol. 310, p. 1313, 2005) find a best lag of 1900 years in the Antarctic data.

* Monnin et al. (Science vol 291, 112, 2001) find that the start of the CO2 increase in the beginning of the last interglacial lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.

Clearly, the correlation and lags unequivocally demonstrate that the temperature drives changes in the atmospheric CO2 content.

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

But you can believe Gore's pretty blue and red graph if you want. And "misinterpret" it just like he did.

Wow the famous hockey stick graph. Wasn't it M. Mann and a few others who came out with this trash. O.S.Card actually looked at their work and totally trashed it. They manipulated and manipulated the data till they were able to produce time after time this graph. Unfortunately for them Card went over their work found the computer data left out and oops no more hockey stick. They manipulated it solely to get the result they wanted to fit their political agenda. BTW Card is a liberal, but can't stand bad science.

Global warming caused an increase of 1.4 degreesF over the past 100 years, but in the last 10 years theres been little change. The past three years a slight decrease in temperature.

The global, now climate change crowd only uses computer models to state their case. Take that same program and plug in 1992 temps and you cannot get any data that gets anywhere near the present.

Understand the solution to your political leanings and what the UN wants to do is remove money through taxation from the properous and give it to the less properous. Just world socialism and with the power of taxation the start of a world gov't run by the UN of course. The LOST treaty being brought up in the US congress is just another piece of it.

I basically live a pretty green life, and will go further in that direction when we build our new home in a couple of years. I don't do it by listening to fear mongers, but I'm just independent and financially frugal person who understands many things will change in the coming years. I wanna basically live off grid electrically, pump my own water from my well, and continue to produce a great deal of food from my garden. I can buy my food, but I like to grow things, I like the fact it's organic and quite tasty.

But I don't do it outta misplaced ideas, and listening to a crowd that seeks fiscal and political control over my life by using bad science and its adherents.

[mogoso]

I hope to be around in 20 years laughing at how foolish most folks were when they realize they've been duped

Good idea! Let's all make a pact to meet in a pub in Bangkok in 20 years from now so we can laugh at the ones that got it totally wrong. I'm up for it.

P.S.

I'll be the one wearing Wellington boots, because bkk will be 2 feet under water by then, won't it?

Thats ok I'm diver But as I'll be about 80 then come up to Chiang Mai.

I've a question, if the temperature on the earth is too hot, whats the ideal temperature? Let me know when it gets there as far as I know its always changing.

[disgruntled]

I care. The only solution is less people, less and less people. What a wonderful world we would be in if there were less people in it.

[ignoramus]

Haven't bothered to read the pessimistic posts of the true-believers, and won't be tempted to, because, amongst many (i.e. many) other things, Greenland was in fact once a green land (hence warmer), and grapes once grew in Scotland.

China found no ice way north - you know - way up there, many many years ago (the medieval warming period I believe it is called).

Cycles, lads and lasses, cycles. Like circadian rhythms, stuff like that.

The ice age is a tad overdue, and when it comes it'll last for about 100,000 years, but relax, the sky ain't falling.

260 million years ago an asteroid hit us, killing off about 98% of species. Subsequent lava flows caused a temp rise to about 500 degrees (F or C, does it matter?).

Aphosis, in 2029 or more likely 2036, may be a slight prob., but I'm not nervous.

But I don't doubt that someone somewhere just skipped a heartbeat, or will do after a Google search.

The sun-caused warming stopped in '98 - no current sun-spots, you see.

The temps which appear on all those glorious graphs which litter the joint were taken in inappropriate locations. Oopsie, perhaps I shouldn't say this - hel_l hath no fury like a doomsayer laughed at.

I had a cousin - he is no longer - of near-genius IQ. In preparation for Y2K he purchased thousands of dollars worth of groceries, stashing them safely away. Come minute 1 in 2000 and what happened? Nix, zilch, nada. Oopsie daisy. He had no sense of humour, so wouldn't have thought "oh, silly me".

Doubtless he figured someone was out to get him. Too intelligent, that was the prob. Zero common sense. Hey man, hey bro', I coulda told him - I coulda been a contender - but, sheesh, he just wouldn't listen. No wait, he didn't even ask!

I haven't look at it yet, but if you are still confused, look up jimball.com.au.

Scroll down a little and look for the name Bob Carter. There you'll find 4 short (7-8 mins) videos. I understand they are somewhat mind-clearing.

(PS. I mentioned earlier that N.Z. is in for a shock re Kyoto. Every man woman and child will be up for about a grand each, taxation-wise. They can relax for a bit, though, as it won't happen until about 2012.)

Oh, to the pessimists, the true-believers, the walking worried, the I-insist-that-share-my-fears-crowd -- I shan't be entering this forum again, so address your venom to your compatriots. That is to say, make it third-person sermon (or rant).

[H2oDunc]

As to the original OPs questio. No not in the slightest. Its all a con! Its just a way of taxing the crap out of people and blame it on Global warming. Trying to tell that to the new believers and tree huggers is a waste of time and effort. Its now become a quasi religion. I read that a father took the UK goverment to court to protest at Al Gores film being shown to his children as factual. He won his case with the judge declaring that the film contained numerous scientific innaccuracies and when shown in future it had to be stressed this was not fact just an opinon. The world has been warming up and cooling down since time immamorial. I can remember in the 70's hearing of threats of a new ice age coming?

As said nothing but propaganda to excuse taxing people till they squeek

Flame away boys and girls being H2oDunc im flameproof!

[Doza]

Its all a con!Its just a way of taxing the crap out of people

That would be funny if it wasn't so scary. You really think all these scientists from the some of the world's top institutions are teaming up with governments all around the world to "con" people so they can get more money out of them? You really think there is some big conspiracy going on? Jeez....

Grapes once grew in Scotland so there is no way man's pollution can alter the climate. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.................................

I don't know whether its just this forum or what but there are some whacked out people out there who are just too weird for me. I'm over this thread. Later..............

[Chloe82]

Its all a con!Its just a way of taxing the crap out of people

That would be funny if it wasn't so scary. You really think all these scientists from the some of the world's top institutions are teaming up with governments all around the world to "con" people so they can get more money out of them? You really think there is some big conspiracy going on? Jeez....

Grapes once grew in Scotland so there is no way man's pollution can alter the climate. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.................................

I don't know whether its just this forum or what but there are some whacked out people out there who are just too weird for me. I'm over this thread. Later..............

The British government is raising almost double the revenue in so called "green taxes" that it needs to offset the supposed social cost of CO2 emissions. In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the supposed social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope.

The supposed social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion. Meaning that even two years ago taxes were £10.2 billion in excess of the level agreed to meet Britain’s CO2 emissions. This excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain.

The main “pollution taxes” of fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, each have serious flaws which indicate that the government is less concerned about the environment and more concerned with raking in excessive revenues.

the Government gives back in tax breaks just two per cent of the money it collects through environmental taxes. If the government were really concerned about climate change then they would be offering incentives not punishments for reducing CO2 emissions in the form of tax breaks. But tax breaks aren't a giant cash bonanza for our exalted guardians of Mother Earth, the loving government, who are going to tax us to death for our own good and for the very survival of mankind, while lining their own pockets.

Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes, do people realy believe Politicians are serious about the environment and are bringing in new green taxes to change people’s behaviour to help reduce carbon emissions?

Get real.

[JetsetBkk]

...the I-insist-that-I-share-my-fears-crowd...

That's a great one - I must remember that!

Its all a con!Its just a way of taxing the crap out of people

Grapes once grew in Scotland so there is no way man's pollution can alter the climate. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.................................

I don't know whether its just this forum or what but there are some whacked out people out there who are just too weird for me. I'm over this thread. Later..............

Wasting my time, I know, since you won't be reading this, Doza , but the way I read it was, Scotland used to be hot enough to grow grapes (in the Middle Ages, actually), now it isn't, so maybe the cycle will turn a little more and we'll be able to buy a Scottish Shiraz. Hmm, lovely!

[Spee]

The supposed social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion. Meaning that even two years ago taxes were £10.2 billion in excess of the level agreed to meet Britain’s CO2 emissions. This excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain.

................

Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes, do people realy believe Politicians are serious about the environment and are bringing in new green taxes to change people’s behaviour to help reduce carbon emissions?

Get real.

Get real indeed! Well said, Chloe!

[plachon]

Its all a con!Its just a way of taxing the crap out of people

That would be funny if it wasn't so scary. You really think all these scientists from the some of the world's top institutions are teaming up with governments all around the world to "con" people so they can get more money out of them? You really think there is some big conspiracy going on? Jeez....

Grapes once grew in Scotland so there is no way man's pollution can alter the climate. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.................................

I don't know whether its just this forum or what but there are some whacked out people out there who are just too weird for me. I'm over this thread. Later..............

The British government is raising almost double the revenue in so called "green taxes" that it needs to offset the supposed social cost of CO2 emissions. In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the supposed social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope.

The supposed social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion. Meaning that even two years ago taxes were £10.2 billion in excess of the level agreed to meet Britain’s CO2 emissions. This excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain.

The main “pollution taxes” of fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, each have serious flaws which indicate that the government is less concerned about the environment and more concerned with raking in excessive revenues.

the Government gives back in tax breaks just two per cent of the money it collects through environmental taxes. If the government were really concerned about climate change then they would be offering incentives not punishments for reducing CO2 emissions in the form of tax breaks. But tax breaks aren't a giant cash bonanza for our exalted guardians of Mother Earth, the loving government, who are going to tax us to death for our own good and for the very survival of mankind, while lining their own pockets.

Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes, do people realy believe Politicians are serious about the environment and are bringing in new green taxes to change people’s behaviour to help reduce carbon emissions?

Get real.

C'mon Chloe, get your act together, lass. You should know that to directly cut and paste other's work without proper referencing is neither ethical or professional. You give the game away in too many places, reinforcing my impression that your interest in CC is a little more than a passing hobby. Trouble is you're a little too extreme in places (like the bit about "CO2 is good for the planet and not pollution" rant), and lax with your pasting technique, thus destroying what little credibility you ever had. Of course, you'll always have a small audience of ostriches and self-styled, paranoid libertarians to pander to on this board, which no doubt makes you feel a little better and less extreme, even though ultimately you are a dwindling minority who will be laughed at often.

[JetsetBkk]

C'mon Chloe, get your act together, lass. You should know that to directly cut and paste other's work without proper referencing is neither ethical or professional. You give the game away in too many places, reinforcing my impression that your interest in CC is a little more than a passing hobby. Trouble is you're a little too extreme in places (like the bit about "CO2 is good for the planet and not pollution" rant), and lax with your pasting technique, thus destroying what little credibility you ever had.

Ah!! I get it now! You think this is some kind of competition where only the poster's own thoughts and words are to be accepted, and anything quoted from another source is somehow unacceptable, unbelievable and therefore to be ignored - right?

Would it help if I Googled it for you and provided the links, because it doesn't change the facts no matter how much you try to divert the readers' attention from them.

[Doza]

I was going to say the same thing about Chloe. The only thing she said was 'Get real'. The rest was cut and paste but she conveniently tried to pass it off as her own work. Amatuer.

Let's go back to the global conspiracy half the world is in. All out there to fool us and extract more money. Global warming? The Greenhouse Effect? Greenhouse gases actually WARMING our world? Crazy you say - its all a hoax to get you to pay more and Oxford and Cambridge and MIT and the Royal Society et al are all in on it - all in cahoots with your governments. Its one big scam!

Get real indeed......

Now if there is no more plagiarism, I'm really out of here.

[H2oDunc]

I notice SCIENTISTS, just like the ones screming about global warming have now admitted that the great Aids/HIV epidemic which was going to wipe out humanity was exaggerated. It was all a lot of politically correct nonsense. The link is below. It makes you think that maybe in 20 years time these same scientists will be saying the same thing about global warming. Like the aids epidemic scare stories, global warming is big business. People refuse to believe that goverments can lie to people ie PROPAGANDA!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

A said already, no matter how mch you show these tree huggers they will not believe. Its not science anymore, its faith!!

[wilko]

now someone who thinks that AIDS was a hoax!!!!.........This is clearly a magnet for the clinically insane.....and PLEASE try and look -up a definition for PC!

[david96]

Pollution is the more pressing problem esp pollution of our water supplies from chemicals being dumped by irresponsible companies , China is the one of the worst,mulinational companies move to these countries from their own because they would be shut down or heavily fined.

Global warming will take care of itself there is a lot of money to be made on the lecture circuit promoting it.

Strange, the ones promoting global warming are the ones who use and waste the most energy.

[grantbkk]

To answer the original question, I have reduced my carbon footprint by eliminating those long flights back and forth from the United States by staying permanently in Bangkok, Thailand. I no longer drive a car or a motorcycle and conscientiously use public transportation. I vowed not to buy a car or motorcycle for every girl that asks for one though it's had to explain the footprint thing to them.

[JetsetBkk]

Pollution is the more pressing problem esp pollution of our water supplies from chemicals being dumped by irresponsible companies , China is the one of the worst,mulinational companies move to these countries from their own because they would be shut down or heavily fined.

Global warming will take care of itself there is a lot of money to be made on the lecture circuit promoting it.

Strange, the ones promoting global warming are the ones who use and waste the most energy.

I agree - pollution is more pressing problem, from both the crap being pumped into the air and the crap dumped into the rivers and sea.

[kennkate]

I have just been watching BBC world news and its plight against global warming, where by the reporter was in India pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that someone who has more money a car/apartment etc… uses more CO2 then someone who cant afford to buy excesses of food a car etc…. (The BBC had more reporters then any other foreign news network in the last US elections so they don't really care about global warming)

In the UK we have recently had Lord Goldsmiths son Zac, a 30 year old who has wealth in the region of 100s of millions pounds bracket, who I am presuming has several properties throughout the world, servants, flies first class etc etc……, and basically has a huge as they say "carbon footprint".

We have also recently had the hypocrite Al Gore win a Nobel Peace prize for his work on climate change yet in government CO2 emissions in the USA increased. I also would be willing to bet he enjoys the same extravagances as Zac Goldsmith.

Now as it is in the news all the time about the imminent threat of global warming, with the wealthy claiming to care yet living as if there was no tomorrow I am of the opinion that all of us in THAILAND who travel frequently, either couldn't care less about global warming or are just hypocrites.

I am interested to get the views of people who travel frequently to THAILAND on the issue of global warming to see if they really do care, and if so what do they cut down on too prove they care.

Or if it is the liberal media making there own agenda.

[kennkate]

I have just been watching BBC world news and its plight against global warming, where by the reporter was in India pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that someone who has more money a car/apartment etc… uses more CO2 then someone who cant afford to buy excesses of food a car etc…. (The BBC had more reporters then any other foreign news network in the last US elections so they don't really care about global warming)

In the UK we have recently had Lord Goldsmiths son Zac, a 30 year old who has wealth in the region of 100s of millions pounds bracket, who I am presuming has several properties throughout the world, servants, flies first class etc etc……, and basically has a huge as they say "carbon footprint".

We have also recently had the hypocrite Al Gore win a Nobel Peace prize for his work on climate change yet in government CO2 emissions in the USA increased. I also would be willing to bet he enjoys the same extravagances as Zac Goldsmith.

Now as it is in the news all the time about the imminent threat of global warming, with the wealthy claiming to care yet living as if there was no tomorrow I am of the opinion that all of us in THAILAND who travel frequently, either couldn't care less about global warming or are just hypocrites.

I am interested to get the views of people who travel frequently to THAILAND on the issue of global warming to see if they really do care, and if so what do they cut down on too prove they care.

Or if it is the liberal media making there own agenda.

[Upcountry]

the hypocrite Al Gore ...

I feel like I have to respond to this (for those who might be confused, not to fruitlessly attempt to convince Gore-haters). Until anyone has walked a block in his shoes, they should think twice about calling Gore a hypocrite. If he and his family moved to a 'Walden Pond' his message would probably be more discounted for being impractical.

Yeah, the guy is big, and he drives a big car - but it is a hybrid. Yes, he has two houses, or so, but he has made serious efforts to make them energy efficient (he would have solar on the roof, but his NIMBY neighbors won't allow it*) and I know people like to mock this idea, but he says he pays money to "plant trees" to offset things like his private jet. At least he is setting an example to show that if we must use energy, we can take financial and moral responsibility and voluntarily pay for the theoretical impact of our usage.

The message this brings to the average and not-so-average consumer and jet-setter is that every bit of responsibility and effort helps to reduce energy use for the greater good. This makes sense from an energy "independence" point of view, regardless of belief in man's impact on global warming.

* http://www.ecotality.com/blog/2007/gore-goes-green/