What's the modivation behind "global warming"

[WelshBloke]

aaaaaaaaaaand this adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. It's not even a thinly veiled political baiting attempt. It's just troll. Learn from Craig234. He's quite good at getting us going

Circle jerk ≠ discussion.

 

[Elfear]

"What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. This message must resound throughout the entire Interlink! I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want every man, woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos. I want everyone to remember why they need us!"

Lol. Hit the nail on the head.

 

[Rainsford]

Although it's definitely easy to abuse, there's something to be said for the idea that when confronted with a situation with multiple possible explanations, the simplest one tends to be the most likely.

With global warming, the alternative explanations presented here (power, money, because they hate freedom, etc, etc) certainly COULD apply to some individuals, but those explanations make no sense if you try and apply them to the vast majority of climate scientists, all of whom support man-made global warming. In fact, the explanation that requires the fewest vast conspiracy theories or bizarre suspensions of disbelief is that people support and advocate the theory of man-made global warming because that's what the science supports.

 

[blackangst1]

Whether the climate is changing for better or worse, no one knows. Current "climate change advocates" are after one thing, though: power. That's all. They're not interested in "saving" the planet. They're not interested in "solving" the "problem." They're after one thing only: power.

With that power, they will push their overwhelmingly liberal adjendas, such as global redistribution of wealth and a further push toward global government. Both of these are not good things.

Additionally, there are those such as Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi who stand to make billions of dollars by pushing government funding and regulation toward so-called "green" energy and "green" jobs. It's all about power and greed.

I personally believe that the climate will change regardless of any policy or behavioral changes we as humans make. Our worlds climates and tides and currents are more influenced by the natural cycles of the sun and the moon than we could ever hope achieve, and I believe we display an arrogance of the highest order by believing we could ever attempt to change such in any kind of meaningful way.

That said, there's no guarantee or proof or even hypothesis that climate change will be a net negative at all. There are many benefits that would go along with slightly higher average global temperatures, and there aren't many real negatives (reports of beachfront property in Kansas are highly exaggerated). Sure, we'd lose some species of life, but we would also see new ones pop up. Isn't Darwinism and evolution some kind of creed among liberals...you know, survival of the fittest? As far as slight warming causing massive drought, famine, war, and death...I'll believe it when I see it.

This.

 

[BrownTown]

With global warming, the alternative explanations presented here (power, money, because they hate freedom, etc, etc) certainly COULD apply to some individuals, but those explanations make no sense if you try and apply them to the vast majority of climate scientists, all of whom support man-made global warming. In fact, the explanation that requires the fewest vast conspiracy theories or bizarre suspensions of disbelief is that people support and advocate the theory of man-made global warming because that's what the science supports.

Its not a "conspiracy theory" to see that the amount of money climate scientists get has been going up dramatically due to global warming discussion. Just look at all the scientists working for the coal companies saying that global warming doesn't exist. If you can find it easy to believe they are saying that because they get paid to then why is it so hard to believe that all the scientists working for the wind and solar companies believe in global warming because it makes them money?

I would also just have to argue one other point, its not enough just to think that global warming is happening, you also have to think that it is REALLY REALLY bad for it to make sense to try to combat it. Think of the 400 BILLION a year the current administration wants to spend to combat global warming. I bet that money could save ALOT of lives with better health care for example but instead it will be spent to keep the earths temperature .5 degrees colder, one has to wonder if such a small drop in temperature will really save more lives then the hundreds of thousands who could be saved by spending the money elsewhere.

And I work at a nuclear plant, so I should be in favor of global warming since it would make me more TONS more money if we built more nuke plants.

 

[cwjerome]

The welfare-state religos have not hampered, burdened, and corrupted capitalism enough. But they have found -with environmentalism- a newer, more fearful excuse for the creation of more corruption, more controls, more influence peddling, more harassment of people and business by irresponsible special interest groups... and the more international, the better.

 

[stateofbeasley]

Yep, Power, control, and $

Scientific types IMO are generally not interested in power or control. Money for projects and recognition in the scientific community, perhaps, but not control over people etc.

The type of power hungry control freak you are talking about generally ends up in law school. Why invest years in a PhD program, and why go through all the pain of a doctoral thesis, when a 3-year Joke Degree from Harvard Law will open doors so much more easily?

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Whether the climate is changing for better or worse, no one knows. Current "climate change advocates" are after one thing, though: power. That's all. They're not interested in "saving" the planet. They're not interested in "solving" the "problem." They're after one thing only: power.

With that power, they will push their overwhelmingly liberal adjendas, such as global redistribution of wealth and a further push toward global government. Both of these are not good things.

Additionally, there are those such as Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi who stand to make billions of dollars by pushing government funding and regulation toward so-called "green" energy and "green" jobs. It's all about power and greed.

I personally believe that the climate will change regardless of any policy or behavioral changes we as humans make. Our worlds climates and tides and currents are more influenced by the natural cycles of the sun and the moon than we could ever hope achieve, and I believe we display an arrogance of the highest order by believing we could ever attempt to change such in any kind of meaningful way.

That said, there's no guarantee or proof or even hypothesis that climate change will be a net negative at all. There are many benefits that would go along with slightly higher average global temperatures, and there aren't many real negatives (reports of beachfront property in Kansas are highly exaggerated). Sure, we'd lose some species of life, but we would also see new ones pop up. Isn't Darwinism and evolution some kind of creed among liberals...you know, survival of the fittest? As far as slight warming causing massive drought, famine, war, and death...I'll believe it when I see it.

Utter nonsense and typical right wing hysteria talking points.

So instead of preparing now and acting as if the man-made global warming threat is true, you would rather wait it out until it is too late? We have NOTHING to lose by continuing research and encouraging the world to go green. We have EVERYTHING to lose if we continue our ways and later come to find out global warming is in fact man-made.

Until the human race is advanced enough to inhabit foreign planets, we must do everything in our power to preserve this one.

 

[Moonbeam]

Although it's definitely easy to abuse, there's something to be said for the idea that when confronted with a situation with multiple possible explanations, the simplest one tends to be the most likely.

With global warming, the alternative explanations presented here (power, money, because they hate freedom, etc, etc) certainly COULD apply to some individuals, but those explanations make no sense if you try and apply them to the vast majority of climate scientists, all of whom support man-made global warming. In fact, the explanation that requires the fewest vast conspiracy theories or bizarre suspensions of disbelief is that people support and advocate the theory of man-made global warming because that's what the science supports.

Party pooper.

 

[Throckmorton]

Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and most importantly an independent variable
Fact: Humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%


The anti global warming nonsense is the same as antivax, creationism, etc.

 

[Ozoned]

Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and most importantly an independent variable
Fact: Humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%


The anti global warming nonsense is the same as antivax, creationism, etc.

Fact: The earth and its atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

 

[palehorse]

What's the motivation behind "global warming"

A: The usual -- money, power, influence, ego.

I'm still looking for someone to go in with me on e-offsets.com -- essentially, we'll sell virtual carbon offsets to as many suckers as we can... if interested, send PM. :sneaky:

 

[BrownTown]

Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and most importantly an independent variable
Fact: Humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%


The anti global warming nonsense is the same as antivax, creationism, etc.

Methane is a greenhouse gas and I'm sure humans ahve increased its quantity in the atmosphere much more than 40%, why not blame methane? Actually I'm sure if I had a chemistry degree I could name some chemicals that are greenhouse gasses that have increased several million times in the atmosphere due to humans. None of that has any coloration to the temperature unless you can prove several more facts. I'm not realyl sure why everyone is so worried about it though, humans can just as easily influence the temperature down if they wanted to by releasing chemicals into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight back into space. Purposefully seeding the formation of clouds which reflect light back into space can reduce the temperature far cheaper than coveting our entire economy to non fossil fuel based.

 

[monovillage]

Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and most importantly an independent variable
Fact: Humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%


The anti global warming nonsense is the same as antivax, creationism, etc.

Please cite the relevant studies for these "facts"

 

[Zorkorist]

It's, more than that, because beyond all of that. they wan't to weaken others.

Ellesworth Toohey, from Ann Rand's Fountainhead.

-John

 

[Rainsford]

Its not a "conspiracy theory" to see that the amount of money climate scientists get has been going up dramatically due to global warming discussion. Just look at all the scientists working for the coal companies saying that global warming doesn't exist. If you can find it easy to believe they are saying that because they get paid to then why is it so hard to believe that all the scientists working for the wind and solar companies believe in global warming because it makes them money?

The problem is that the numbers just don't add up. Fossil fuel businesses dwarf renewable energy in terms of how much they can spend to buy positive scientific press, yet actual climate scientists who don't support global warming represent a very small minority.

The money argument requires us to accept that somehow the people with the most money to spend are totally outclassed by people with not nearly as much money. It's exactly like a conspiracy theory because it sounds plausible until you actually look at it closely, and then you're stuck explaining how solar power companies can outspend enormous oil companies when it comes to "buying science".

I would also just have to argue one other point, its not enough just to think that global warming is happening, you also have to think that it is REALLY REALLY bad for it to make sense to try to combat it. Think of the 400 BILLION a year the current administration wants to spend to combat global warming. I bet that money could save ALOT of lives with better health care for example but instead it will be spent to keep the earths temperature .5 degrees colder, one has to wonder if such a small drop in temperature will really save more lives then the hundreds of thousands who could be saved by spending the money elsewhere.

And I work at a nuclear plant, so I should be in favor of global warming since it would make me more TONS more money if we built more nuke plants.

Well I don't know, I think the argument that we probably shouldn't change the Earth's climate is a pretty good one. People are too used to daily changes in temperature that they don't think it's a problem when the average global temperature goes up by even a few degrees. But it's NOT the difference between it being 65 and 67 degrees outside on a particular day. Small changes in climate can have HUGE effects on the planet in the long run.

In any case, the argument ultimately doesn't matter. Even if global warming is a complete hoax, we should STILL try to move away from fossil fuels and polluting practices, because there are MANY reasons beyond global warming that alternative energy is a good idea. Starting with the fact that a lot of our energy comes from parts of the world where they hate our guts. Giving our money to Americans instead of medieval Saudi assholes seems like reason enough to me.

 

[Rainsford]

A: The usual -- money, power, influence, ego.

I'm still looking for someone to go in with me on e-offsets.com -- essentially, we'll sell virtual carbon offsets to as many suckers as we can... if interested, send PM. :sneaky:

Ultimately the same "answer" could be given as to the motivation behind the movement to deny global warming. Add to that the fact that many people who oppose the global warming theory seem to HATE environmentalists with a passion, and it seems like both sides could use a little housecleaning. Conservatives seem to find the whole concept of limiting our impact on the planet silly in the first place, global warming wouldn't fly with many of you guys even if Jesus himself came back and stood behind it.

 

[sandorski]

Methane is a greenhouse gas and I'm sure humans ahve increased its quantity in the atmosphere much more than 40%, why not blame methane? Actually I'm sure if I had a chemistry degree I could name some chemicals that are greenhouse gasses that have increased several million times in the atmosphere due to humans. None of that has any coloration to the temperature unless you can prove several more facts. I'm not realyl sure why everyone is so worried about it though, humans can just as easily influence the temperature down if they wanted to by releasing chemicals into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight back into space. Purposefully seeding the formation of clouds which reflect light back into space can reduce the temperature far cheaper than coveting our entire economy to non fossil fuel based.

Uhh, Methane is blamed. It's just not as insidious as CO2. There's a reason why it's called "Greenhouse Gases" and not "Greenhouse Gas".

 

[Jaskalas]

UN scientist admits unverified data used for politics...

There is a motivation.

 

[sandorski]

UN scientist admits unverified data used for politics...

There is a motivation.

ahh, wut? Dude was misguided, not motivated in the way this Thread implies.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

ahh, wut? Dude was misguided, not motivated in the way this Thread implies.

Misguided like Mann and Jones?

 

[DietDrThunder]

I'm not a global warming critic or advocate. All I want is clean air to breath and clean water to drink. What I want is for all this pollution credit crap to disappear. To me it is hypocritical for Al Gore to pump out 50x more carbon, etc., than the average US citizen, but to make himself feel better by buying carbon offsets. What a bunch of bull. If you really want to tackle pollution, focus in on the source. Whether it is cement kilns, coal/lignite power plants, dry cleaners, etc. Coal burning power plants currently offset the pollution they produce by having automobiles crushed. This really doesn't make sense since it produces more pollution to recycle these automobiles than it would to leave them in the wrecking yard. Make it worthwhile for these industries to drastically reduce their pollution without skirting the issue with stupid pollution offsets

 

[blackangst1]

I would also just have to argue one other point, its not enough just to think that global warming is happening, you also have to think that it is REALLY REALLY bad for it to make sense to try to combat it. Think of the 400 BILLION a year the current administration wants to spend to combat global warming. I bet that money could save ALOT of lives with better health care for example but instead it will be spent to keep the earths temperature .5 degrees colder, one has to wonder if such a small drop in temperature will really save more lives then the hundreds of thousands who could be saved by spending the money elsewhere.

Actually, one should also wonder if that 400 billion is actually saving a .5 degree rise. Unfortunately, there is zero way to quantify it.

 

[drebo]

Utter nonsense and typical right wing hysteria talking points.

So instead of preparing now and acting as if the man-made global warming threat is true, you would rather wait it out until it is too late? We have NOTHING to lose by continuing research and encouraging the world to go green. We have EVERYTHING to lose if we continue our ways and later come to find out global warming is in fact man-made.

Until the human race is advanced enough to inhabit foreign planets, we must do everything in our power to preserve this one.

So, you're trying to tell me that Copenhagen was NOT about global redistribution of wealth? Point to me in the Copenhagen proposal anywhere it says that funds must be used for energy efficiency or cleaner energy production. It doesn't. That means it's not really about the environment, because no one actually believes that these third-world countries who get all this financial aid from the West use that money for what it was meant.

Additionally, I would prefer not to use trillions of dollars trying to fix something that cannot conclusively be determined to be a problem or fixable. There are far better uses for that money.

 

[JeepinEd]

Although it's definitely easy to abuse, there's something to be said for the idea that when confronted with a situation with multiple possible explanations, the simplest one tends to be the most likely.

The simplest explanation would be that our climate is cyclical. We are still emerging from the last ice age.