For Global Climate Change Skeptics?
If global climate change is a natural event, and the woldwide media is being fooled, what do you think is behind it?
Is it the UN and its one world government, or do you think the majority of the worlds media is simply biased?
Do you think other nations have secret agendas in pushing golbal climate change reform?
What do you say is going on, not just here but in Europe, and Asia also.
Answer:
Well, according to scientist and former Climate Change activist Dr. David Evans...
"[T]he evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical. And the political realm, in turn, fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. But after 2000, the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker - better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds."
You can read more at the link below.
So I think that the idea of man-made global warming -- because I do not believe that the fact that the world has gotten warmer is in dispute, only the theory that mankind is the cause of it -- man-made gloabal warming is pushed on the public for three major reasons:
1. By dishonest scientists looking to grab headlines and millions of dollars in government grants to study it...
2. By has-beens like Al Gore who look to the global warming hysteria as a way to stay in the public eye and command large speaking fees and book advances, and celebrities looking to hitch onto the latest hip cause...
3. By socialists and communists who are using the environmental movement as their new base, so that they can contiinue their objective os working towards one world government while undermining societies based on capitalism and free enterprise.
Remember, "If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time," according to meteorologist Augie Auer. So the greenhouse effect is not neccessarily a bad thing.
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said. "We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
Just food for thought.
Wow, buckle up. Let’s start at the basics. M-O-N-E-Y. OK if you’re an environmental reporter and you say global warming does not exist, do you still think you will have a job? Also what is more exciting and will get you better ratings or will make a better headline-, "The world is going to destroy itself!" OR "wow, it’s gonna be a warm summer this year"? Let’s not forget that the media is in it to make MONEY. They don't do what they do out of the kindness of their hearts.
Looking at the history of media and the weather is not a good idea anyways. Remember in the 70's when the media was freakin out saying "An Ice Age is coming! What do we do?!?" Why? Cause it was getting cooler and cooler each year and what do they do, get ratings. Why? To make M-O-N-E-Y. Big oil isn't the only one who is economically interested in global warming, everyone who has a job based around it does too.
As for scientists, again it's about money, but in a different way. We call it FUNDING. With no funding you cannot do the research you want. If you have $100 to give away and there are 2 guys who want it. One guy says, "Hey we may have a problem that is going to destroy the world!" and another guy who says, "There is a unique plant in the Azores that I want to study", who are you going to give your money to? Governments also give their money to the same guy. So if you want your funding to continue the problems have to get worse and the consequences sooner. Do you remember just 10 years ago when it was going to be 100 years before mankind would suffer from the polar ice caps melting? Now its what 20 years?
How do you explain all those iceages scientists say have occured on earth? All Iceages must have been followed by warming right?
Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time.Instead, they are concentrated into four time intervals. Large, important glaciations occurred during the late Proterozoic (between about800 and 600 million years ago), during the Pennsylvanian and Permian (between about 350 and 250 million years ago), and the late Neogene toQuaternary (the last 4 million years). Somewhat less extensive glaciations occurred during portions of the Ordovician and Silurian (between about 460 and 430 million years ago).
During each of these intervals, many glacial advances and retreatsoccurred. For example, over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years.
If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances.
Most people do not have the desire to check to see if the sound bites they hear are telling the whole story. If it sounds good they pass it on as fact. Some find their need to believe in something, is satisfied better by doom and gloom than positives.
It sells so that's what they sell. It all snowballs especially when politicians think that's what the people want to hear.
Have YOU asked your weather man what he thinks? Most meteorologists think it's cyclic. Its only the scientists with study grants that are pushing it as a theory. Prove it wrong and $$ go away.
If you only look for support of your beliefs you will never see the folly in it.
Wow. great answers people! Follow the money. The Senate sites refered to as sources, are interesting yet we don't hear this side in the media. can anyone say AGENDA?
Do you think the whole world could really unite on one conspiracy? I don't see them agreeing on much else.
It's not so much a global conspiracy as it is a bandwagon.
Read: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming", Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left's manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes -- and lays out incontrovertible evidence of the fact that global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science.
No, Al, the sky is not falling...
Proof: media hype and deceptive Al Gore slide shows notwithstanding, greenhouse gas concentrations demonstrably do not determine temperatures
The mainstream media's routinely sloppy, inaccurate reporting about evidence of global warming and other environmental matters
More proof: The hole in the ozone layer -- the 1980s manmade environmental crisis -- was caused by the Antarctic atmosphere's being too cold
How environmentalists throughout modern history have instilled fear over one looming "crisis" or another with the aim of increasing government control over things big and small
Why the environmental alarmists do whatever they can to avoid actual debate
The environmentalist movement: not a grassroots phenomenon driven by scruffy idealists but an elite-driven movement that lards the coffers of pressure campaigns with wealth -- commonly inherited, often corporate, and far too-frequently looted from the taxpayer
Recent studies that have shown that the environment is actually flourishing -- and how the greens have turned even these into evidence of our imminent doom
"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem": the environmentalists' openly anti-human agenda
How real pollution problems can be addressed through the technological improvements that the Left is doing all it can to obstruct
Al Gore's global warming jihad: how it will lead to massively higher costs and direct or indirect energy rationing -- and probably many measures that are even worse
How much of the budget for environmental pressure groups comes directly from taxpayers -- through grants for public "education" and congressional schemes designed to subsidize the greens' lawyers
Green lunacy run amok: how even respectable political figures (and Slick Willie) say that the environmental damage caused by American industry is a greater threat than terrorism
Why, as with other political crusades that fail in the arena of representative democracy, the greens now see the courts and supranational bodies as their best hopes
How environmental policies come with a cost, often to the society as a whole, decreasing wealth, and so harming health -- dangers the average environmentalist ignores
How greens worship primitive lifestyles from afar, while those mired in them would kill to escape them
How, almost without fail, global warming skeptics are charged with being stooges of industry -- a charge that neither addresses the skeptic's criticism or question, nor reflects the fact that most of "industry" now actually supports the alarmists' agenda
Ethanol: sobering evidence that it might not be good for the environment -- and how the damage to soil from single-crop farming is probably more real than global warming
How the risks of climate change policy far outweigh the risks that might realistically be expected as climate continues to change
It's time to stand up to the environmentalist industry and insist: human beings are not the enemy. In breezy, light-hearted and always entertaining fashion, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) gives you the facts you need to do so.
/
Many factors are at play. First, global destruction sells. Remember the 70's? Then it was global cooling will kill us all. Now it is global warming. If I am an atmospheric scientist, I can now earn much more money because my field is in high demand. Twenty years ago, you could count the number of atmoshperic scientist on you rfingers. Now, there are thousands.
Second, I think the UN (the makers of the IPCC) have found a way to mandate a "global" tax. If you doubt this, google "Carbon credits".
"Extra, extra! Credits here! Get your CO2 Credits here for only $10,000. Get them before the world melts!"
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: