LIVING OFF DIVIDENDS & PASSIVE INCOME

Got to hand it to those politicians. They always find ways to make millions.

No wonder Gore doesn’t want to run for President. He is making some real cash.

Not substantiated…naw. The fact that the entire North Pole is likely to be iceless this year isn’t proof. Yeah, that normally happens, just ask all the Swedes.

Wow…

It is unbelievable that people still think that global warming is not a real occurrence. Most people will find just about any excuse so they do not have to change their lifestyle and let the next guy worry about it. North Americans do not think past their nose or their wallets.

So it is not ok that Mr. Gore makes money from the Global warming issue, but it is ok that the Oil companies, just to name one, to use their power and influence to cash in like never before on the status quo and spend millions much like the tabacco lobby did to claim smoking was not a health issue.

There will be plenty of opportunities to make cash even if we go green.

Thanks for letting me make my comments….I hope you will soon be able to join me on my blog Mr. Plainview.

The really interesting thing is it doesn’t matter if global warming is real or not. Either way we have to find an alternative to oil for one simple reason…national security. Paying dictators and oppressive governments billions of dollars is not in our best interest. Plus, if anything really gets out of control they can shut off 50% of our energy tomorrow. Not to mention the sooner we adopt alternative energy, the sooner we become the world leader in a brand new business. It’s a win for the enviros, business and the hawks. I don’t know if that has ever happened before.

I’m usually in favor of markets, though they don’t always work as well as their proponents claim, this is one instance where the markets will be too slow and inefficient. Plus, they can get distracted. If oil drops back down the markets will forget about finding new types of energy. The market doesn’t care about national security if there is no money in it.

On top of that, you need a counter weight to the oil companies, coal companies, etc. They will do everything in their power to prevent significant new energy from being created.

If we had taken all the money spent on the Iraq War and built an alternative energy grid, we would be hurting the terrorist much more than we have hurt them through military means.

I’m not saying that markets are foolproof, but they are still the best way overall to regulate. I used to think that this oil market is a bubble, but think that less so now, because you DO have China and India using more and more.

The problem we face is that our economy is based on oil, and our infrastructure does not yet support alternative energy. In addition, there really is no alternative form of energy available and perfected to solve our problems short term.

Snerd@ “Considering that since 1895 there have been 4 different time periods where the media have predicted an impending climate crisis, it’s not all that hard to discount warming or cooling. Besides, our time on earth is a mere blip on it’s timeline, and we really don’t know if this is a trend or a cycle.”

First off, basing anything simply by which way the media winds are blowing is not very logical. I agree with you that the globe goes through heating and cooling periods, but the point most people miss is that our polution is magnifying natural processes our earth goes through. And that is where the threat comes.

Snerd: Since we are going down memory lane, I can remember my summers lasting from May to August and never needing a drop of sunscreen. Now I notice that SPF 100 is commonplace on store shelves. So instead of deriving my environmental awarness from TV, I am simply basing my knowledge on what I can see and feel.

As you pointed out previously, we are merely an blip in the earths history, so why is it then that you are pointing out that it has been 30 years and no sign of the end of the earth? Patience grasshopper…

Snerd….

Well i am done…..The Ozone is not depleting?!!?

I suppose there were actually WMD, there was only one gunman on that day and maybe smoking was actually healthy after all. I believe the same scientist are being paid to debunk the global warming myth as were used to dispell the effects of smoking…

Denial must be a comfortable place to lay your head…..

Well folks hope to see you all for the next topic….

LOD,

Where’s the monthly income report that you always post? I already posted mine Even John Chow posted his.

this is a bit off topic, but since someone brought it up, sunscreen is apparently ineffective in preventing skin cancer.

Here’s an excerpt:

Sunscreens do not offer blanket protection from the sun and do little to prevent the most deadly form of skin cancer; reliance on them instead of, say, a hat and protective clothing, might be contributing to skin cancer; and the Food and Drug Administration has yet to issue any safety standards, mysteriously sitting on a set of recommendations drafted 30 years ago.

Subcutaneous homesick blues

Sunlight contains ultraviolet radiation, largely in two forms: UVA and UVB. Aside from sunburn, UVB exposure causes the most common forms of skin cancer - basal cell carcinoma, which is rarely deadly and mostly only disfiguring, and squamous cell carcinoma, which can turn deadly about 1 percent of the time.

UVA penetrates the skin more deeply and causes wrinkling. Recent research, however, has found that UVA exacerbates the carcinogenic effects of UVB and might cause skin cancer itself.

Most sunscreens block only UVB. And the SPF system, short for Sun Protection Factor, refers only to UVB. SPF provides an estimate of a lotion’s level of sunburn protection. If you start burning in about 30 minutes, then SPF 15 will allow you to stay in the sun 15 times longer before getting burned, in theory.

SPF of 1 zillion

Total UV protection is within reach and has been used for millennia. It’s called clothing. Unfortunately this isn’t so convenient when summertime fun calls for minimal clothing.

The EWG report takes an ax to the loose SPF claims. Almost all sunscreen lotions contain chemicals that, perhaps counter-intuitively, breakdown in the presence of sunlight. But in fact this is how they block UVB from penetrating the skin, like a castle wall protecting against cannonballs until the wall crumbles.

Notions of all-day protection, as some sunscreen products claim, or even several hours of protection are ludicrous, the EWG said, because most sunscreens start deteriorating in as quickly as 15 minutes. This doesn’t even account for sweat and casual rubbing, further reducing protection.

Also, few sun-worshipers use the recommended shot-glass-amount of lotion with each application. We merely think we are protected; few really are.

Controversy, not just skin deep

The EWG also trashed any lotion containing harmful chemicals that can easily penetrate the skin. Oxybenzone, which blocks UVA, is a main offender. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found oxybenzone in the urine of just about everyone tested.

This chemical can promote DNA damage in the presence of sunlight. Oxybenzone and similar cancer-causing chemicals in sunscreens contribute to the minority view that sunscreens actually cause more and deadlier cancers than they prevent. Several small studies have found an increased risk of malignant melanoma, by far the deadliest form of skin cancer, among regular users of sunscreens.

Many zinc-based protects appear to be safe, according to the EWG. Until the FDA breaks its silence and offers some guidance, there’s the EWG list of recommendations at http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/special/sunscreens2008. Or you can move to Seattle.