Sancho, have a look at pages 11 and 12 on this link
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-sachs-engineering-every-major.html and then descibe the money side of the argument as "petty"

It really is about time someone fixed this server error bug.
Is it a linux or microsoft box ?

J Bower;
The Y2K bug was real enough, it is just that a lot of
programmers did a lot of work checking programs to make sure that there
would be no unexpected crashes, and fixing them if there was a problem.

Green Jobs; We hear a lot of talk about green jobs.
About the only ones I hear about are installing PV cell systems and
adding co2 sequestration systems to power stations.
What are the jobs that take up tens of thousands of workers ?

You know, it all sounds like vapour jobs to me.

IanC, Thank you,I stand corrected with respect to Inigo (not Indigo) Jones! RIP. If only he was still here today to rebuke the current set of global warning climate change charlatans .

Sparkyq, a cap-and-trade system is, in my opinion, the worst possible way of addressing climate change. It's intended to appease industry by maintaining the status quo and ensuring share prices while creating the illusion of action. I don't disagree at all with the argument that greedy institutions, not the environent, will be the beneficiaries of an emissions trading scheme.

What I'm referring to is, firstly, the bizarre claim that the world's scientists are collaborating to fake their results to ensure their continued funding. For one thing, if they were only in it for the cash they could sign up to an industry think tank and make much more for less work by attacking their peers and producing lazy pseudo science. For another, most scientists want to make a lasting contribution to human knowledge. God knows, no-one goes into science for the money, so we're talking about a committed and passionate profession, not one composed of money-grubbing shysters.

Secondly, JBowyer claims that addressing climate change is a cover for increasing the tax grab. That's actually a fair criticism of governments, but he's extending it to include the rest of us, who give a damn about the planet and don't want to see it wrecked for the sake of a few share portfolios. The corollary of that argument is the frankly insane conspiracy theory that says environmentalism is actually communism, with the hidden agenda of destroying the capitalist economy.

That sort of paranoid hysteria would be an entertaining curiosity if the conservative media weren't broadcasting it as a viable claim.