Good, this is the start of a good debate. Do most others believe:
"global warming" is no more than a tool used to hold development of many countries"?

My thoughts are mixed.

@jokieone

I like your idealistic view on "green technology".
My view is exactly opposite. You can look at the wind turbines and solar panel markets to see real value fo such "gree technology". As soon as taxpayer money are not used as stimulus to compensate horrid effectiviness of this "new technologies", things become very bleak.

There is no controversy among the scientific community. Notice that this latest contrarian from Berkeley isn't even qualified on way or the other, he's a Physicist, not a Climatologist. This is typical as contrarians who taut scientific credentials in nearly every case are from disciplines other than Climatatology and Atmospheric Sciences OR, they're on the Payroll of big energy companies. Then there are hacks like Willie Wei-Hock Soon, a Harvard Astrophysicist who manage the hat trick of speaking outside his discipline AND accepting gobs of cash from oil companies. He's a Astrophysicist and you can hear him talking about Polar Bears.

The National Science Academies of every major country have already spoken on the issue with unanimity -- right wing propaganda machines like Fox News notwithstanding.

There really isn't even much credible debate remaining on anthropogenic climate change. Naysayers are few and far between, unfortunately it's an upstream battle to get the truth out.

The developing countries I've been in sure aren't experiencing the green revolution and aren't being oppressed by regulation. It's so the opposite of that: developing countries trash their environments like there's no tomorrow. Any and all regulations that might be on the books are easily circumvented with a few cash payoffs.

Here's a video I produced 3 years ago (just prior to DSLR revolution), take a look and see if you think this country looks GREEN. Btw, shot with JVC hd100.

>But look at the latest 100 000 years it has been "stable". These 100 years has not been stable. And from a climatologist perspective 100 years is just over night.

It is false facts. I mean about stabilizy other 100.000 years, and unstability other last 100.
No scientific proof exist that CO2 is responsible for any climate change.
As well as no proof exist that such fluctuations are dangerous and never happened before.

@brianluce

I do not see any scientific proof here.
Problem with such potential proof is what different theories exist.
Many state that CO2 fluctuation is normal for our earth, some state that it is of human origin but will cause colder climat, other state that it is human and will cause warming, and different kind that blame animals and methane for all climate changes. All this is possible because scientists fuckingly bad understand how climate works and changes in reality.

>A few years ago many believed in nuclear plants.

Some still believe in to it. Including me. And, as I am aware, most professionals in large production companies.

@Vitaliy
Problem with such potential proof is what different theories exist.
Many state that CO2 fluctuation is normal for our earth, some state that it is of human origin but will cause colder climate
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Nope. You're misstating what science is saying on the subject. Again, there's near unanimity. I think it's a mistake to focus on the few contrarian and outliers. If you went to 100 doctors and 97 of them told you that your arm was broken, would you accept that?

edit: and note that the underlying principle that the climate is changing isn't even a discussion any more. The dicussion (if you can call it that) is about anthropogenic climate change -- at least among climate scientists. Fox News and right wing media outlets say otherwise of course.

Whether global warming is proven or not, we best take no chance and should invest in fusion power, which will be a clean and nearly free source of energy.
Maybe if we had invested as much money in the research of nuclear fusion as we did for fossil fuels or nuclear fission, we would have those reactors ready by now.
In any case it would help development everywhere.

Remember that Kepler and Galileo couldn't prove the movement of the heavens until Newton. Yet the Earth didn't stop turning.

When the growth is malignant, as is the toxic waste of all types produced by short-sighted exploitation of natural resources, then yes, slowing down population and economic growth will buy some time. Where research has always been sorely lacking is in ecologically sustainable waste disposal. Find politically effective solutions to those problems, and economic growth will no longer be a treacherously double-edged sword.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/06/mf_qagates/all/1

Bill Gates: There’s certainly lots of room for increasing efficiency. But can we, by increasing efficiency, deal with our climate problem? The answer is basically no. The climate problem requires more than a 90 percent reduction in CO2 emitted, and no amount of efficiency improvement is going to address that. As we’re improving our efficiency, poor people are increasing their energy intensity. You’re never going to get the amount of CO2 emitted to go down unless you deal with the one magic metric, which is CO2 per kilowatt-hour.

Some are saying 80% of population reduction will instantly solve all energy crisis issues. Crazy mofos...

@brianluce

Good thing to understand about real theory is that it does not matter how many peoply believe that it is true.
Otherwise it becomes not theory, but religion.

@cosimo_bullo
Yes, I mean environmentally toxic, not just poisonous to human beings. CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas generated as a waste product from the combustion of fossil fuels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Relative_CO2_emission_from_various_fuels