patrick.net

The article is a pure fearmongering with very little info.
Just look at the idiotic picture at the top
I can't help laughing at the passages like: "two degrees – about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit". Note that "about", the author apparently is not very familiar with temperature measurments.
It also never defines what are those 2 degrees Celcius warming. I suspect it's about the average ocean surface temperature, but what is the starting point?

All those opposed to the article,hurry and post a comment. I need some entertainment.

I never liked math. There are numbers involved.

George W. Bush: "No more fuzzy math!"

The global warming people need to set a hard date for thier fictional TEOTWAKI event (like the mayan 2012 bs). So we can call them on thier BS when nothing happens.

But it wont happen, its dumb to set a date.

100 years from now they will still be saying 'its still true but we had the timeline wrong, we need to setup a carbon credit trading system with wall street run by goldman sachs or TEOTWAKI sooooon'.

What you mean set a date

We've alfready gone from

Global cooling to
Global warming to
Climate change

OMG the climate is changing! Quick, we need ANOTHER income tax to save us from the climate changing. These are the same people that claim a monopoly on facts, you know, the ones all up in arms about the climate changing,,,,

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

I posted an excerpt from the story to show the main point. It's a good story, should you choose to read it.

Global warming has everything to do with our lifestyle, and China's, and India's... But those companies that profit from drilling for, refining, and selling oil are huge roadblocks in affecting change. They are desperately fighting to keep drilling - even though the temperature on this planet is increasing - and they have money and power on their side.

Would carmakers build more fuel-efficient cars if the oil companies cut production? I think they would...

Nuclear is the answer. You cannot ask someone to act against its own interest. It is not right for a company not to seek profits.

Yes its now 'global climate change'.

So any flood now means we should bicycle to work? redonkulous of course.

I miss back when disasters were 'acts of god'.

Or Global X. If you get dumped by your girlfriend we all pay a higher tax.

jhall says

But those companies that profit from drilling for, refining, and selling oil are huge roadblocks in affecting change.

Surely you're referring to Saudi Aramco and PDVSA, not small-time punks like ExxonMobil and Shell.

Right?

AGW is happening. The only way to meaningfully slow CO2 emissions is with nuclear power. Wind and solar are too diffuse.

See this site for some sobering reality: http://www.withouthotair.com/

Peter P says

It is not right for a company not to seek profits.

Nobody's asking them not to seek profits, just not to buy legislation and tax subsidies.

Surely you're referring to Saudi Aramco and PDVSA, not small-time punks like ExxonMobil and Shell.

Right?

This story addresses American corporations, so I'll leave the Saudis and Venezuelans out of this discussion.

We've given American corporations the rights of individuals, so shouldn't they be held accountable for their actions? Behave in a moral, ethical way, as we expect of our citizens and be prosecuted when they don't? I didn't agree with the decision to grant them citizen's rights, but now that we have, let's hold them accountable.

And I posted this story because I look to Patrick for links to stories I might have missed. I'll check out the link you posted.

It is not illegal to be immoral.

Peter P says

It is not illegal to be immoral.

Point taken. But when one's actions harms others or goes against the greater good, the public deserves to be protected. Corporations have been held responsible for cleaning up their messes, and they should be held accountable for preventing further harm.

jhall says

Peter P says

It is not illegal to be immoral.

Point taken. But when one's actions harms others or goes against the greater good, the public deserves to be protected. Corporations have been held responsible for cleaning up their messes, and they should be held accountable for preventing further harm.

Arguably "greater good" caused more harm than greed in human history. We must tread carefully. Nothing is scarier than a mob thinking they are doing God's work.

Well then, now that "we're all in this together" with AHA, will you have the gubbmint line up all those gluttonous fatties, have them hanged, drawn, and quartered? And then, we feast!

All that succulent lard, mmmmmmm mmmm

Huh?

jhall says

We've given American corporations the rights of individuals

Which is insane, I agree.

jhall says

so shouldn't they be held accountable for their actions? Behave in a moral, ethical way, as we expect of our citizens and be prosecuted when they don't?

Who get's to decide what is "moral" and "ethical"? We're live in a relativistic, amoral society where the only thing that matters is raw power and how much you can "get away with." In America, might makes right.

jhall says

But when one's actions harms others or goes against the greater good, the public deserves to be protected.

I agree. But good luck convincing corporate lobbyists and the politicians they own.

errc says

Well then, now that "we're all in this together" with AHA

Take on me...

errc says

"we're all in this together"

It reminds me of Virgin America's silly song.