Marketing Global Warming!!!

Will you believe us if we just say none of this is true?

If you post some links where you "heard" such things, maybe we can help you rebutt them systematically. They are fairly humorous, but I'm sure someone will believe them. 1000's of marketing jobs for global warming? More like 1000's of jobs pretending like global warming doesn't exist.

i heard US has created thousands of jobs by marketing campaigns on global warming?

Also in developing African countries like Tanzania, the governments are forced by the UN to use unconventional energy sources (like sun, wind etc.) than conventional carbon based fuels. They are simply banned I heard. This causes such countries to suffer in their development, isn't it?

Also is it true that Carbon dioxide has a tendency to accumulate in heated atmosphere & NOT vice versa? ....

Is it true that the proposed carbon tax will be used to make more weaponry?

i heard US has created thousands of jobs by marketing campaigns on global warming?

Are you against creating jobs?

They aren't being "forced" to do anything. The Global Bioenergy Partnership, which works through/with the UN offers it's services to underdeveloped African countries if they choose to participate to develop sustainable energy sources. It isn't a matter of sustainable sources vs. carbon based sources. It is sustainable sources vs. the status quo (i.e. no electricity, no drinking water, etc...)

CO2 accumulates pretty much everywhere. You'll need to exaplin your question here better.

I am not against creating Jobs but creating them in an ineffective domain of social service raises my eyebrow.

Quote:

They aren't being "forced" to do anything. The Global Bioenergy Partnership, which works through/with the UN offers it's services to underdeveloped African countries if they choose to participate to develop sustainable energy sources. It isn't a matter of sustainable sources vs. carbon based sources. It is sustainable sources vs. the status quo (i.e. no electricity, no drinking water, etc...)

Having anti carbon rules as suggestions is very convenient way to putting direct constraints on developing countries. Wouldn't it?

The "US Government" is not spending to promote awareness of global warming. The current administration denies that there is such a thing.
I don't doubt that NGO's are creating jobs to lobby for their positions, but I interpreted the original question to imply that the US was spending its budget promoting greenhouse awareness instead of trying to reduce emissions. It is doing neither.

The idea that other countries (including developing ones) need to curb their emisions before the US does is just a political ploy from those opposed to limits in the US. There is no effort to actually force anyone to reduce emissions. However, developing in an emissions friendly manner is a lot more efficient than developing with high emissions and then trying to fix it later.

Interesting experiment, but I doubt your results. Assuming two interconnected boxes with equal volumes tied together so that they have equal pressures, the CO2 will defuse based on the appropriate gas law. Just to take the ideal gas law, you have n1 T1 = n2 T2, so the box with the higher temperture will have less moles of gas total and less CO2. Note that this is not a good model for the atmosphere since the atmosphere is not at a constant volume and is free to expand at higher temperatures.