From Pooh’s first Assessment Report on Climate Change

BobK

I'm curious as to where in the article GS mentions where and how much they are investing.
Seems to me, they wanted to talk about environmental issues, with out taking an actual position.

I've found that usually when at the beginning of a paragraph I find a phrase like "we acknowledge" or "we recognise", they're not going to take an actual position on anything of consequence.

The only position I actually saw them take was that the gov. should subsidize alternative energy sources. The gov. already does that.
The article itself seems intended to leave the reader with a good feeling about GS, without saying anything of much substance. Kinda like a commercial.

It's interesting how different people can read the same article and draw varying conclusions about it.

Frankly, I don't mind the gov. subsidizing new tech. for a few years. But at what point do they stop the subsidies and let them fend for themselves. Support shouldn't go on forever.

Astronuc

http://www.horizonwind.com/ourowners.asp

Horizon Projects - http://www.horizonwind.com/whatweredoing.asp

Environmental policy at Goldman-Sachs.
http://www.gs.com/our_firm/our_cultu...ork/index.html

http://www.gs.com/our_firm/our_cultu...116102823.html

I agree.

GS could be benefitting from tax credits and perhaps subsidies, but that would take some digging to find out.

BobK

The alternative sources such as wind and solar have a couple severe drawbacks such as excessive land use and intermitent availability. Thus they will always be only a supplemental source of power.

My personal opinion is that nuclear is the only viable option to oil, gas or coal fired plants even if co2 eventually turns out to be an actual problem.

I'm not convinced there is a co2 problem at this point.

Andre

Then Edward, I strongly recomment this forum here

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/foru...=25682&start=1

with as conclusion (posted elsewhere):

The ice age graphs of spiking isotopes and CO2 have been the previous IPCC's poster child, showing that CO2 and only CO2 was causing the yo- yo between ice ages and interglacials. It may occur that my ice core tale thread has significant more substantiation for a completely different mechanism. Now the scholar (IPCC) view of these spikes and why the CO2 lags is clear: positive feedback. However, and this is essential, the real evidence of the ice age clearly shows that the greenhouse gas spikes did NOT lead to significant temperature changes, as I used up all the evidence explaining the effects of the clathrate gun. Despite the strong greenhouse gas variation there was no significant warming (remember warm dry summers in the YD). This is why it’s safe to say that the current increase of GHG is not causing the warming and will not do so in the future either.