Is The Economy Distracting Us from Climate Change?

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.
See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

The world will not see growth if people like you are so stupid to accept man made global warming/climate change. It is all a swindle. Why don't you rave on about the UN report that cattle produces more damaging greenhouse emmissions than all the cars in the world. I repeat it is a scam aided and abetted by naive fools like you. Get real.

Will try again, my Bangalore based internet connection failed yet again.

Sir:

1. The 400 year long little ice age ended about 1850. It seems a little warning was inevitable.
2. Since 1950 the total global warming has been 0.05 degrees centigrade.
3. If atmospheric CO2 at the start of the industrial revolution (circa 1750) was 280, how was in measured as there was no electricity, no sensitive sensors or weather balloons? Where were the measurements if any taken?
4. Infosys must have 70-80,000 computers and many huge A/C offices, most in India with its heavily polluting coal power plants.
5. How many intercontinental air flights have Infosys people taken in the last year?
6. Does your large fleet of vans and buses in Bangalore operate with natural gas?
7 Specifically how much have your personally decreased your own carbon footprint?

It is better to be historically accurate than politically correct.

Sir, I suggest your read more history.

Steve Bangalore india

I oftentimes marvel at how people have been so duped by global warming. The tremendous amount of information that refutes it is damning. Common sense refutes it. What supports global warming? Largely computer models that never have and never will match the real world. That's pathetic. As a programmer, I know the garbage-in-garbage-out saying firsthand. I want verifiable evidence of global warming, but this evidence does not exist!

What I see if thermometers being moved to hot spots, NASA fabricating formulas (and getting caught redfaced), stories of the arctic melting but ignoring Antarctica's ice growing, suppressed scientific results showing CO2 pales in comparison to water vapor at trapping heat, ...

I've debated people who believe in this idiocy, and invariably they wind up seeing the light. I informed two coworkers, and they were furious for a week that they were fooled. Now they are evangelists. We've got to get the word out because the media (like Businessweek) aren't. If you know the truth, spread the word. Get a copy of The Great Global Warming Hoax DVD and have people watch it.

Sir,

Should we not worry about economic stability first and then may be of low-carbon economy!

For me, Global warming is more of an exaggerated hypothesis than facts. How much should you rely on the scientists who can't accurately predict the weather ahead of 24 hours, on something they talk of 10, 100 or 1000 years down. What if the Global warming is not there, or if the human contribution is only an ignorable percentage, or if it is another phase of evolution on earth? At the back of everything is what Darvin said; the fitter of you and I will withstand the environmental selection.

Economy is the backbone of human sustainability in the world. It gives us better odds in any kind of natural selection. There are bigger problems to solve in the world today. AIDS kills millions, so is Cancer and poverty. A stable economy can invest better on cancer research, poverty eradication and making AIDS medicines affordable for the hundreds of thousands who need it. An approach providing stable and sustainable economic conditions can save these millions.

You talk of reducing carbon footprints which is the driving force for economic growth. Any such reduction, without finding an alternative to fuel the economy, will have an adverse impact on growth potential of every country in the world. Finding renewable sources of energy is the need of the hour for sustainability and growth. Carbon foot-print reduction should not be at the cost of reversal of economic growth. Renewable sources of energy makes sense if it can lower the overall energy cost to the end customer. Similalrly any standards on emmission and carbon reduction should target heigher efficiency of fuel consumption at no heigher cost to the end user.

Infosys is one of the premier institutions in India. You get to hire the best intellectuals from India's universities. Also you mentioned that india and china are spearheading the economic growth in this century. Dont you think there is a responsibility that comes with the privilege you enjoy? Does it limit to asking your investors to use electonic media to paper based communication? How much of carbon footprint do you think this is going to reduce? You should rather spend on a paper recycling plant at infosys campus because that sounds a more responsible way of doing it. The 80K human capital that you own can make a lot more difference in India.

Dont you think infosys has enough economic potential to fund a

- A Non-profit Cancer research center in Bangalore. OR
- An organization to spread AIDS awareness in India and for rehabilitation of families affected.

Bill gates who has a lot more money than infosys does something like this. Probably he should do much more than that.

Hari