Global Warming in July!

I'm wondering how many global warming adherents reading this have done more than just talk about it. Has anyone here actually put their own money where their mouths are, and invested in Mother Earths' future? A simple yes or no will suffice.


for example: http://www.terrapass.com/?gclid=CIP5jv3X1b8CFc07Mgodvn0AZg

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm wondering how many global warming adherents reading this have done more than just talk about it. Has anyone here actually put their own money where their mouths are, and invested in Mother Earths' future? A simple yes or no will suffice.


for example: http://www.terrapass.com/?gclid=CIP5jv3X1b8CFc07Mgodvn0AZg

Does doing research into renewables count?
Or what about making GM crops that need less pesticide sprays?
Both of these things can count.

By the way, "global warming adherents" don't just "talk about it"; they generally study it and know it and accept the scientific fact of global warming as fact.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I said as much.

[b]...you would actually know if what I was saying is true or not.
I know perfectly well that what you were saying is not true.

You would also have to be old enough to start reading and then keeping abreast of these developments as long as I have.
No, I wouldn't.

Or you could go to the trouble of finding this ...[text shortened]... don't know what you are saying. It looks to me like you have lost track of what you were saying.

Now I don't know what you are saying. It looks to me like you have lost track of what you were saying.


No, I didn't lose track of what I was saying. That last part was obviously (or apparently no so obviously) meant to be tongue in cheek, to highlight the fact that you aren't likely to believe anything I say unless it lines up perfectly with what you already believe.

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, I didn't lose track of what I was saying. That last part was obviously (or apparently no so obviously) meant to be tongue in cheek, to highlight the fact that you aren't likely to believe anything I say unless it lines up perfectly with what you already believe.

It doesn't matter whether or not I believe what you say. You made a claim, see if you can support it with evidence. I shouldn't have to rely on your opinion. You said 'global warming' was renamed. Renamed by whom? When? What does my age have to do with this? What do historical documents have to do with this?
I think you were being 'tongue in cheek' because you got caught in a lie and had nothing better to say.

Originally posted by humy
Does doing research into renewables count?
Or what about making GM crops that need less pesticide sprays?
Both of these things can count.

By the way, "global warming adherents" don't just "talk about it"; they generally study it and know it and accept the scientific fact of global warming as fact.

Does doing research into renewables count?

The answer to that question depends on how much of your own money is invested in that research. I'm assuming you know how investing in carbon credits (or carbon offsets) is supposed to work. You figure out how much carbon you are personally putting into the air and then buy the appropriate amount of offsets, which supposedly goes toward planting trees or some other activity that comes close to reducing the same amount of carbon you've been spewing into the air.

Or what about making GM crops that need less pesticide sprays?

I don't know how that would offset your own personal production of CO2.

I think both of these things count.

If you have personally invested in renewables in an area where fossil fuels are burned to make electricity, then yes, you have possibly made a small contribution that could eventually add up to less fossil fuels being burned. Where I live most (if not all) electricity is produced by hydro-electric plants, so electrical consumption here has little if anything to do with the burning of fossil fuels.

As for GM (genetically modified) crops needing less pesticide sprays, I don't know... I have no idea what connection if any there might be between CO2 production and pesticides.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]Does doing research into renewables count?

The answer to that question depends on how much of your own money is invested in that research. I'm assuming you know how investing in carbon credits (or carbon offsets) is supposed to work. You figure out how much carbon you are personally putting into the air and then buy the appropriate amount ...[text shortened]... w... I have no idea what connection if any there might be between CO2 production and pesticides.[/b]

I don't know how that would offset your own personal production of CO2.

your question wasn't about our own personal production of CO2 but rather investment into, vaguely put, “mother Earth”.
GM crops that require less pesticides can be environmentally beneficial because of the possible reduction in pesticide use.
However, I should also point out that manufacturing those pesticides releases CO2 so reducing pesticide use would also reduce CO2 production.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It doesn't matter whether or not I believe what you say. You made a claim, see if you can support it with evidence. I shouldn't have to rely on your opinion. You said 'global warming' was renamed. Renamed by whom? When? What does my age have to do with this? What do historical documents have to do with this?
I think you were being 'tongue in cheek' because you got caught in a lie and had nothing better to say.

My opinion was on another matter, and had nothing to do with "climate change" becoming the preferred term for "global warming". If you go back and read carefully you can clearly see what I was saying was only my opinion.

Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to be getting ready to muck up what I'm saying just so you can come back and accuse me not speaking clearly and coherently... ?

Originally posted by humy

I don't know how that would offset your own personal production of CO2.

your question wasn't about our own personal production of CO2 but rather investment into, vaguely put, “mother Earth”.
GM crops that require less pesticides can be environmentally beneficial because of the possible reduction in pesticide use.
However, I should also ...[text shortened]... turing those pesticides releases CO2 so reducing pesticide use would also reduce CO2 production.

My tongue in cheekiness approach is apparently not appreciated here. But that's okay, I'll try speaking in more literal terms and occasionally stop to explain what I mean. But if I'm called upon to explain the explanations, and then explain what the explanation of the explanations mean, then I'll know it's time for me to quit and move on.

The reference to "Mother Earth" was a tongue in cheek poke at people who habitually speak in vague terms that resonate emotionally (but not necessarily rationally) with people who are easily manipulated.

The main thrust of my question, simply put, is how many global warming adherents have invested in carbon credits (also known as carbon offsets)?
It's a very simple question, and only requires a yes or no answer.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I said consensus was leaning towards global cooling.

But it wasn't.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm wondering how many global warming adherents reading this have done more than just talk about it.

I am not a 'global warming adherent'. I do think the global climate is warming and that we need to do something about it. Talk, is currently all I can do about it - and yes, that is all I have done. For things to change, major policy changes need to take place in the first world nations. The only way I can influence that is by talk.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But it wasn't.

Then why was so much being written about it, and why was it so extensively talked about in the news? Maybe there were an unusually high number of slow news days back then. Maybe that's why...

Yeah, yeah, I know... it's that darn old tongue in cheekiness again.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not a 'global warming adherent'. I do think the global climate is warming and that we need to do something about it. Talk, is currently all I can do about it - and yes, that is all I have done. For things to change, major policy changes need to take place in the first world nations. The only way I can influence that is by talk.

I am not a 'global warming adherent'.

Right, and I'm not a global warming denier. Now aren't you glad we got that all straightened out?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Then why was so much being written about it, and why was it so extensively talked about in the news? Maybe there were an unusually high number of slow news days back then. Maybe that's why...

Yeah, yeah, I know... it's that darn old tongue in cheekiness again.

journalist =/= scientist

Originally posted by lemon lime
Right, and I'm not a global warming denier.

Then why do you talk like you are?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
journalist =/= scientist

What you appear to be overlooking is the fact that when scientists were talking about global cooling there were no scientists talking about global warming.

So if global warming is real, then why was no one talking about it before environmentalists were able to make it into an issue? Were scientists too timid to bring up the subject, and they needed people with a track record of opposing coal and oil companies to embolden them to finally speak up? Wow, what a bunch of pathetic weenies those scientists must have been!

There was no effort made to build a consensus or to apply social, political or financial pressure to ensure the public stay focused on the issue of global cooling. So I wonder just how long the global warming story would have lasted if no one had a vested interest in keeping that story alive and on the front pages.

And by the way, the name change came almost immediately after it was revealed how research data had been fudged, and emails were found encouraging researchers to ignore data that conflicted with the global warming narrative. You've probably seen stories where a company changes its name after getting some damaging PR, in the hope that the public won't connect the new name with that same company. But maybe it's just a coincidence that the leaders of the global warming community decided to call it something else after the scandals became public...

pffft... Yeah, it was just a coincidence.