Global Warm(cool)ing - The Cash Cow of the 21st Century
First off, this blog post has been in the works for a while, so some of the “news” could be a little old, but that doesn’t mean that it’s outdated, it’s just taken me a while to write this post is all
I’m not one of those people that really trusts most scientists. I mean, they’re really smart people and know a lot more about their fields than I do. But it seems that most scientists have blinders on, they don’t look beyond their lab and don’t care so much about the end results, just that they get their results.
Obviously, this isn’t the case for a lot of scientists, there’s many out there that are not only good at their jobs, but they pay attention to the world as a whole and make sure that their findings actually make sense in the “real world”, not just the laboratory. But in the world of Global Warm(cool)ing, the sad fact is that the scientists that just don’t care about the big picture are not the ones getting the attention. Rather, it’s the ones that are claiming that there’s more global warming (or cooling, depends upon the week) and that we have to stop flying, driving, manufacturing and whatever else, so that we can save the Earth.
Now, before you get the wrong picture (or to correct your view of me if you already have…), I have a healthy respect for the Earth and am all for policies and changes in our society to make it so that we don’t pollute so much. We need cleaner ways to create electricity and whatever that is is great to me provided that it doesn’t cost more than we’re paying now. Plug-in electric, hydrogen, solar, nuclear, wind, wave, etc… They’re all great and I’m glad the money is being spent to develop the technologies further. I’m especially a fan of solar power since, well, there’s a lot of that, but the whole wave power thing that’s being worked on is great too.
However, I think the Japanese and French have it right with Nuclear power. We really need to invest more in that right now because, well, it works, it’s cleaner than anything else we have and it’s dirt cheap. Plus, it’d reduce our reliance on coal, oil and hydro-electric dams, among other things. But I’m getting off-topic here. We’re talking about Global Warming and the industry it’s becoming.
With all the hype these days about global warming and what it’s allegedly doing to our environment, there’s a lot of companies out there trying to make a buck (or ten) selling consulting services, CO2 credits and anything else they can think of. For instance, back in January, some research was done by a fellow named Alex Wissner-Gross. He alleges that two searches with Google produce about 7g of CO2, or the same amount as boiling a kettle of water for tea (he’s English). Of course, this assumes that you do multiple queries per search and depends upon how in-depth it is.
Of course, it’s not mentioned until much later in the article that Mr Alex Wissner-Gross has started his own company called CO2Stats. Their purpose is as follows:
“CO2Stats is the only service that automatically calculates your website’s total energy consumption, helps to make it more energy efficient, and then purchases audited renewable energy from wind and solar farms to neutralize its carbon footprint — all for a flat, affordable monthly fee.”
Of course, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that he’s at the same time come out with this “research” about Google’s CO2 production for searches. But really, who can put a price on saving the world? ESPECIALLY when you can advertise to everybody who visits your site that it’s “green” with their nifty logo.
OK, so there’s one “scientist” that’s trying to make a quick buck, but who can blame him anyway? I mean, he’s just doing what everybody else would do and try to make a little money, right? Well, actually, yes, that seems to be the case. At least, if you really mean “everybody”. Take the Climate Change Committee (CCC). They are a group in the UK that recently advised Parliament on CO2 emissions and advised that they should work to have emissions in the UK reduced by 80% by 2050. A noble goal to be sure, but might there be other motives there too?
According to an article by The Register, there are… To start off, there’s big money to be made in the carbon credit market. To quote the article:
“The group has its eyes on the carbon market, which it says “grew from $10bn to $34bn between 2005 and 2006″, and projects to be worth well over $100bn in the future.”
And of course, there’s many companies that are involved in this whole thing. There was a recent conference for those companies entitled ‘Cashing in on Carbon’ and again, according to the article:
“Amongst these bean-counters-turned-Gaia-botherers were representatives from IDEAcarbon, which offers carbon market intelligence, ratings and advice to governments, organisations and companies. Climate Change Committee member, Samuel Fankhauser, a former climate change economist for the World Bank, is the company’s managing director, strategic advice.”
Conflict of interest? Perhaps so since IDEACarbon’s whole purpose is to provide advice and counsel to it’s clients about climate change and CO2 credits.
Anyway, all this is to say that the next time you hear people talking about new “research”, “studies”, or “advice” on Global Warming or CO2 production, why not take a look at who it is that’s talking and see if they might have a secondary motive? Because call me a cynic if you want, but so far, all this hysteria seems to just be a way to make more money and promote their own products.


![This was [Randall Munroe's] friend David's idea Family Circus](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/family_circus.jpg)





By now I’m sure you’ve seen the news that terrorists have attacked various places in Bombay, India. If not, what rock have YOU been living under?
In March of this year, the Indian government
Just watch and see, it’ll be just another week or two and the Indian government will be calling for monitoring of RIM’s Blackberry network in India and they won’t be put off so easily this time. Next it will be the English government (they’re already implementing 





