An Inconvenient Truth

[Tatortot]

Oh my god the sky is falling

Just like back in the 70's. The so called expert scientists that then predicted the earth was headed into an ice age and screamed the sky was falling and that there would be massive food shortages and everyone is going to die are the same scientists that are onto this latest farce claiming humans are causing CO2 emissions that are driving temperatures up. No doubt this latest one will dissappear in 10 to 20 yrs when it is shown to be the load of hogwash that it is. The same as the hogwash in the 1970's with the soon to be happening ice age. At that point the global warming crap will likely be replaced with something new by all of these same scientists that have gone from oh my god it's an ice age we're all going to die to oh my god it's human induced CO2 causing the world to warm up, we're all going to die.

City Lover and his small entourage on here will have something new to worry about then and maybe he can continue to bring up the tobacco and cancer thing some more and bring up the oil companies some more, that will be fun hey, lol.

The mass of scientists need funding to keep themselves employed so they create these myths and then people run with it and then politicians get on board to simply get elected.

There's no point in pointing out the history of climate changes on earth and even mention that the earth has spent considerable amounts of time alot warmer than it is now when people weren't responsible for CO2 emissions because the global warming alarmists can't grasp it. They are just running with the latest scare of the moment.

I totally agree we need to clean up our air and our water but us causing global warming is a joke, you will see.

 

[scubadude]

Finally got a chance to see this film. Everyone should see it. A very engaging, sober & shocking doc on climate change/global warming thanks to our fuel hungry spiralling population. Extra poignant with respect to all the crazy weather we've been experiencing locally this past month.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount_classics/aninconvenienttruth/trailer/

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

Funny, I always thought that VV appreciated a man who was not opposed to deep drilling in the wetlands.

 

[Kationo]

global warming

I have watched both "An Inconvenient Truth" and this latest documentary..."The Great Global Warming Swindle".

I am one of the few who does not believe that global warming is being caused by man. Is the Earth warmer now than before, sure...I just don't think we are responsible.

We still need to be responsible for the environment...and we shouldn't be polluting, but I think the documentary showed a lot of truths that are being pushed aside. When you have Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace step back and say, hang on...a lot of the people (environmentalists) that started this theory realized that they need something even more extreme to fight for and get rallied support for...that says something. He himself is not a moderate who sits back and let's the world go by.

At the end of the day, we will believe what we want to believe...I have a good friend who doesn't understand how I cannot believe in global warming...it is like religion...we all have our beliefs...

Just make sure you think about why you believe in something and don't just join the herd in the latest thought trend or media frenzy...

 

[citylover]

At the end of the day, we will believe what we want to believe...I have a good friend who doesn't understand how I cannot believe in global warming...it is like religion...we all have our beliefs...

really, let's not trust science & experts on anything. Scientists from the
National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are all idiots, we should trust the skeptics & the cranks, even tho nearly every climatology scientists and nearly every organizational body or working scientists tells us different.

next time you go to the doctor's & he/she tries to do one of those silly blood tests to see if you have an STD or high cholesterol or cancer or something like that, tell your doc that you just don't believe in that stuff anymore because you don't have any inkling of the scientific process that led to the conclusions that blood tests mean anything.

leeching worked for centuries, why not stick w/ that?

"Being a crank does not automatically make you a visionary. There is little prospect, for example, that Dr Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang, the South African health minister who has claimed that AIDS can be treated with garlic, lemon and beetroot, will one day be hailed as a genius."​

But if you get AIDS, forget about that silly science cocktail prescribed by those stupid doctors, just stock up on garlic, you'll do fine.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Isn't it kind of CONVENIENT (sorry Fat Albert) that all the news about the earth's temperature is BAD news?

Isn't it CONVENIENT for the ex-politicians-turned-movie-stars who are making a killing and nominated for academy awards by the oh-so-objective hollywood crowd?

Isn't it CONVENIENT for those who receive endless government and UN funding to research the terrible aspects of climate change?

Isn't it CONVENIENT for the eco-nazis who's ulterior motive is to hijack the issue and use it as a premise upon which to build a new global socialist wealth redistribution?

Is climate change the eco-lefty's WMD, but on a massive global scale?

Think about it for a minute. Is it reasonable and scientific to assume that global warming will be a net negative for humankind?

As an example, I saw a report that said a warmer world will be very positive for Canada, resulting in higher yielding cash crops like corn for the prairies. As well, the boreal forest would expand northward to areas which are currently tundra wasteland.

As PJ O'rourke once said: People who's mission it is to save the world want the world to seem alot worse than it actually is, so their mission will seem much more important.

or, to quote an article (whose entire link is below):

'Objectively speaking, any environmental change should have both positive benefits and negative effects. For example, theory predicts and observations confirm that human-induced warming takes place primarily in winter, lengthening the growing season. Satellite measurements now show that the planet is greener than it was before it warmed. There are literally thousands of experiments reported in the scientific literature demonstrating that higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations -- cause by human activity -- dramatically increase food production. So why do we only hear one side about global warming?

Perhaps because there's little incentive for scientists to do anything but emphasize the negative and the destructive. Alarming news often leads to government funding, funding generates research, and research is the key to scientists' professional advancement. Good news threatens that arrangement.

This is the reality that all scientists confront: every issue, be it global warming, cancer or AIDS, competes with other issues for a limited amount of government research funding. And, here in Washington, no one ever received a major research grant by stating that his or her particular issue might not be such a problem after all.'

http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-07-04.html

 

[citylover]

Isn't it CONVENIENT for the eco-nazis who's ulterior motive is to hijack the issue and use it as a premise upon which to build a new global socialist wealth redistribution?

well, at least there's a reason for him to claim belief in impossibly stupid claims and assertions. He's discovered the sinister & cunning plan developed by the evil environmentalist, Baldrick, to foster socialism on us all w/o firing a shot, the cowards! & they're doing it w/ someone so hideous, he actually was a member of the only White House to actually cut the budget defecit!

Cunning bastard!

Baldrick : Don't worry mister B, I have a cunning plan to solve the problem.
Blackadder : Yes Baldrick, let us not forget that you tried to solve the problem of your mother's low ceiling by cutting off her head.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Is it reasonable and scientific to assume that global warming will be a net negative for humankind?

If the lack of snow in Europe is evidence that the earth is warming up, and the huge abundance of snow is ignored, then how can that be scientific?

 

[Randy Whorewald]

A socialist scientist...

.... that you may not know of:

Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.

Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” (For English Translation, click here: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835 ) detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See: http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670 Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

link:

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

 

[sdw]

What, the media lied, how could they do that

One of the scientists who was in the Channel 4 Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle is complaining about how the interview with him was edited:
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/03/swindlers_list.html

That's right, the producers of the documentary took the statements of a scientist who is a believer in Global Warming and cut and pasted until they had him saying what they wanted.

ANYONE who believes the Media tells the truth, or anything close to the truth, is a FOOL.

Right now, the Conservative Media Camp (Fox and their ilk) want Global Warming debunked and us to continue consuming just as fast as we can.
The Liberal Media Camp (CNN, CBC and their ilk) want Global Warming to be true so that we can dismantle all of the evil industry that still remains in North America.

Then there is the truth.

We need to adopt Nuclear Energy, Wind Power, Solar Power and Geothermal solutions to solve our CO2 emissions problem. We need to encourage Rail and Ship transport of goods over other transportation systems. We need to increase the amount of rail public transportation to eliminate portions of the daily commute. We need to stop alienating farmland from farming by putting roads and houses on it. There are plenty of rocky unfarmable places to build housing and we can always increase density.

We need to hedge our bets so that it doesn't matter if there is or if there is not Global Warming. We will have guaranteed our energy independence, reduced the CO2 emissions and developed technologies that may assist with the colonization of other planets.

As most of us know, Greenland used to have Dairy Farms. Well now, they have them again. http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html

Europe is going Nuclear, Power Generation that is. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1495115.ece

It must be hard on the environmentalists. Don't like Nuclear, but it is the solution. Whatever will they protest next.

And a little bad news. As we continue to alienate farmland we are going to discover we can no longer afford the space that is used to grow meat. We will become vegetarians just like Romans were when they controlled the known world. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/ancient/AncientRepublish_1081439.htm

Those fat, vegetarian Italians were growing grapes in England and practically every other area that they conquered. They like their wine, they like their olives, they like figs and they were able to grow them all in England. Try that today. Try again in Ten Years.

 

[therealrex]

There seems to be some question as to how much Uranium there is left in the world which poses a problem for your Nuclear solution.

 

[citylover]

It ain`t hard to find out how hard the "skeptics" have to reach for lies to counter accepted science on global warming.

https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=589018#post589018

it is hard to know what to do w/ that knowledge.

The Liberal Media Camp (CNN, CBC and their ilk) want Global Warming to be true so that we can dismantle all of the evil industry that still remains in North America.

Isn`t it CONVENIENT for the eco-nazis who`s ulterior motive is to hijack the issue and use it as a premise upon which to build a new global socialist wealth redistribution?

Is it reasonable and scientific to assume that global warming will be a net negative for humankind?

*snicker* All bow in the face of such brilliant observations. These are NOT made up, they actually DID post them & think they were being smart! LOL!

Would y`all please send me whatever drugs you are taking so I can live in such a rich fantasy world, too?

Keep the thorazine, tho, it seems like you can use all you can get

 

[OTBn]

… out pops Harper with the $1.5 billion Eco-Trust and Clean Air Fund to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. Wait a minute… why is Harper doing this? WTF, this makes no sense – doesn’t Harper listen to Randy! I was sooooo close to calling Randy on this but he kept the google pipeline flowing and I relented (dammit, I’m soooo weak).

But I can’t hold back anymore… yesterday Harper ventures into his homeland base, into the sanctity of his hallowed Conservative support, the bastion of all that is Right… here’s Harper in Edmonton announcing a $155 million federal grant to study creation of a large-scale pipeline and storage network… Harper’s touting a technique that takes carbon dioxide normally released into the atmosphere and pumps it underground or into aging wells to help retrieve more oil or natural gas. "This is a dream that could truly change the world", Harper told reporters in Edmonton. Harper stated, “it has great potential to position Canada as a world leader in slashing climate-changing emissions.”

I’m just so damn confused Randy… what the hell is Harper doing? … it just makes no sense – there’s no need for any of that, right Randy?

Thanks OTBn for proving my point. This is from a Conservative government.

PocketKings, you’re on the cusp… you’re a visionary – no one… no one anywhere, anywhere in the world, has tapped into your point about the politicalization of climate change. But I am glad to help you out….. especially glad to help out those guys who conveniently overlook the greening of Harper when they slam another political party, other than the Conservatives, for recognizing and responding to the impacts of climate change. Well done Harper!

A socialist scientist... One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic

damn, you know Randy’s desperate when he resorts to “socialists”

Sacre bleu! … Randy… this Claude Allegre fellow… he’s never published anything to do with climate change effects, processes, objects, or materials derived from human activities. So, of course Randy, he’s your science guy … the same guy who has actually been rebuked for attributing the Kilimanjaro glacier changes to the earth’s tectonic motions, rather than your quoted article’s comment that suggests he stated it’s caused by “local land use and precipitation changes”. Don’t let the facts get in the way Randy… easy to find lot’s of unbiased critique of Allegre… google it Randy!

 

[sdw]

It ain`t hard to find out how hard the "skeptics" have to reach for lies to counter accepted science on global warming.

https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=589018#post589018

it is hard to know what to do w/ that knowledge.





*snicker* All bow in the face of such brilliant observations. These are NOT made up, they actually DID post them & think they were being smart! LOL!

Would y`all please send me whatever drugs you are taking so I can live in such a rich fantasy world, too?

Keep the thorazine, tho, it seems like you can use all you can get

How about linking the entire paragraph? Not saying the entire post, just the paragraph. You are as bad as Cable 4.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

damn, you know Randy’s desperate when he resorts to “socialists”

That's the first socialist scientist you have rebuked OTB. Of course you only do that when they don't agree with your twisted left wing logic.

If the lack of snow in Europe is evidence that the earth is warming up, and the huge abundance of snow is ignored, then how can that be scientific?

In the 70's it was global cooling. In the 90's it's global warming. Now, instead of confusing the public and coming up with new excuses to tax industry and redistribute wealth to the poorer nations (ie. global socialism), they call it "climate change" - and EVERYTHING on earth is evidence of it. wow.

What a perfect, unfalsifiable (and unscientific) idea!!!

But the main point is is the framing of the debate. I saw a news story on the snow in the alps on CBC a few days back - and it was framed as a climate change story.

This is not scientific: it's misleading and tugs on emotion rather than science. Climate change nazis know that televising a record 9 meters of snow in Whistler isn't giong to convince people that the earth is getting warmer and that we are causing it. It's much more dramatic to show the LACK of snow in the alps. and it's not very scientific.

You've got good science there OTBn!! It ranks right up there with fat Albert buying indulgences .. 'er credits, so he can continue with his annual $30k waste of fueling his home

I see stupidity comes easy and natural to you. Keep practicing, you may just get to full blown retard soon (no offense to the mentally retarded).

 

[citylover]

Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro”

*snicker* socialists of the world unite! you have nothing to lose but any credibility when it comes to science!

Why don't you cite the real source of the "socialist" ideas, the Great Senator form Big Energy, Sen. Inhofe.

For a comprehensive review of the media’s embarrassing 100-year history of alternating between promoting fears of a coming ice age and global warming, see Environment & Public Works Chairman James Inhofe’s September 25, 2006 Senate floor speech debunking the media and climate alarmism.
​

Who are these damn naysayers who continue to believe in Global Warming in order to Foster Socialist Dicatatorships? Let the Swiftboat Scientists of Big Oil do their job...

A coupla choice quotes from the Senator from Big Energy (or is that RH?):

"Gore is full of crap. Global warming is a hoax... no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."
--- Senator James Inhofe

“What would happen to the Weather Channel’s ratings if all the sudden people weren’t scared anymore?”
-- Republican Senator James Inhofe, on the topic of the Weather Channel’s coverage of global warming

But I think maybe I should be careful, maybe stupid...errr, umm, RH is actually the good senator, his arguments follow his so closely it makes ya wonder:

On September 25, 2006, Inhofe gave a speech on the Senate floor in which he argued that the threat of global warming was exaggerated by "the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture." Inhofe claimed that "From the late 1920s until the 1960s they [the media] warned of global warming. From the 1950s until the 1970s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years." He also accused the media of ignoring scientists such as Roger A. Pielke and William Gray who, Inhofe claims, disagree with global warming.[18]

Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2004 election cycle.[19] The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.[20]​

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

& this is too good to be made up:

"I have been called -- my kids are all aware of this -- dumb, crazy man, science abuser, Holocaust denier, villain of the month, hate-filled, warmonger, Neanderthal, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun," Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced in his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference. "And I can just tell you that I wear some of those titles proudly."

Inhofe repeated his view that man-made global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," and he quarreled with a Bush administration proposal to list polar bears as a threatened species. "They're overpopulated," he declared. "Don't worry about it: The polar bear is fine." His staff handed out supporting documentation, including the claim that "MARS HAS GLOBAL WARMING DESPITE ABSENCE OF SUVs."
​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201619.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=97

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Have you ceased driving your car and buying big oil's products. We all need to do our part c-licker!!

The data you're spewing is very uncientific. See if you're able to digest just a little of the following:

"Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases.

As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies.

. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming.

The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do.

After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world.

On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars. "


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

 

[Tatortot]

Oh No!!!!

The alarmists had better start a thread with Martians because apparently the same kind of warming is going on there too. Those damn Martians had better cut down on their own CO2 emissions, LOL.

Sun and solar activity boys, it's driving any warming, always will. Has been doing it since long before we were around. Earth cools, earth warms, etc, etc, etc., it's a fact, check the history.

Doesn't matter what you do, you CAN'T stop it from happening, period!!!

 

[sdw]

Let's have a look at Mars

The alarmists had better start a thread with Martians because apparently the same kind of warming is going on there too. Those damn Martians had better cut down on their own CO2 emissions, LOL.

Sun and solar activity boys, it's driving any warming, always will. Has been doing it since long before we were around. Earth cools, earth warms, etc, etc, etc., it's a fact, check the history.

Doesn't matter what you do, you CAN'T stop it from happening, period!!!

This site: http://www.fotoausflug.de/en-mars.html
Has an interactive montage of pictures while Rover was parked for the Martian Winter. Once the page has loaded, click anywhere on the pictures and the interactive montage will load.

There are a number of people that think that the Earth stole all Mar's water during some chaotic events about 3500 - 5000 years ago. What they think happened is that Venus was ejected from Jupiter and established an orbit that interfered with both Earth and Mars which was in an orbit similar to the one Venus has now. There was a chaotic period where the three planets interacted with each other, Mars got pushed out, Earth had it's axis changed and gained Mar's water and Venus took over Mar's old orbit.

http://www.firmament-chaos.com/
http://knowledge.co.uk/sis/

 

[rollerboy]

One of the scientists who was in the Channel 4 Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle is complaining about how the interview with him was edited:
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/03/swindlers_list.html

That's right, the producers of the documentary took the statements of a scientist who is a believer in Global Warming and cut and pasted until they had him saying what they wanted.

The article and interview you link to show the views of a scientist taking a middle ground between extremist predictions on both sides. I found Wunch's position largely similar to my own. He's certainly not a "believer" in the sense you imply.

As Prof. Wunch states, the climate models are important and informative, yet very incomplete and currently incapable of predicting the distant future with even a modest degree of certainty. There is a difference between worries and specific scientific knowledge.

I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality. They also are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats. I've paid more attention to the extreme claims in the literature warning of coming catastrophe, both because I regard the scientists there as more serious, and because I am very sympathetic to the goals of my colleagues who sometimes seem, however, to be confusing their specific scientific knowledge with their worries about the future.

I wanted to explain why observing the ocean was so difficult, and why it is so tricky to predict with any degree of confidence such important climate elements as its heat and carbon storage and transports in 10 or 100 years. I am distrustful of prediction scenarios for details of the ocean circulation that rely on extremely complicated coupled models that run out for decades to thousands of years. The science is not sufficiently mature to say which of the many complex elements of such forecasts are skillful. Nonetheless, and contrary to the impression given in the film, I firmly believe there is a great deal to be learned from models. With effort, all of this is explicable in terms the public can understand.

 

[citylover]

While the Great Senator form Big Energy, Sen. Inhofe, & his sycophants continue to believe Global Warming is a conspiracy to Foster Socialist Dictatorships that is directly funded by the Black Helicopter Brigade of the New World Order, SOME business interests are just smart enuff (skeered enough?) to actually deal w/ the issue.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/070319/1434227.html?.v=1

Ceres, a coalition of investors, environmental groups and other public interest organizations working with companies to address sustainability challenges, said Monday that dozens of institutional investors managing $4 trillion in assets called on U.S. lawmakers to enact strong federal legislation to curb the pollution causing global climate change.​

Investors to press Congress on global warming March 19, 2007

big investors will press the U.S. Congress Monday to pass laws attempting to tackle global warming.

The dozens of investors include Merrill Lynch, The Capital Group, which manages $850 billion in mutual funds, and the California Public Employees Retirement System, the largest U.S. pension fund, said a source at Ceres, a Boston-based coalition of investors and environmentalists.

"Investors are seeking strong legislation with tangible greenhouse gas reduction targets," said the source.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17693027/
​

http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2007/02/19/story4.html?page=2

In recent months, there has been a seachange on this issue in the business community around the Bay Area and beyond. Evidence has mounted that human activity is causing rapid global temperature increases, culminating with last week's report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that quick action needs to be taken.

The report was compiled by 500 leading scientists from 113 nations, including the United States, where President George W. Bush has rejected calls for caps on carbon emissions, claiming economic damage would result.

However, some of America's corporate giants are beginning to part company with Bush on this issue. On Jan. 23, the CEOs of 10 large corporations - including PG&E, DuPont, Alcoa Inc., Duke Energy Corp., Lehman Bros. Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and General Electric Co. - announced they had joined forces with environmental groups to urge action from the president and Congress. ​

(I guess Inhofe's neanderthal reaction has NOTHING to do with the realization of the sources of Inhofe's campaign contributions . Inhofe received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2004 election cycle than all but 1 US senator, & that contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars).