If Global Warming is a serious scientific threat to the world, then why is it a political issue?

Question

Why do we never see scientists, meteoroligists, climatologists, researchers, etc. making movies or public service announcements about Global Warming? It's all been political. Al Gore and his movie, "A Convenient Lie" is a great example.

Answer 1

Because there are people who have a political agenda to use the global warming scare as a basis for increased government control of peoples' lives - to use the coercive power of government to force people to follow extremist environmental policy.

So the science is hijacked by someone who earned a C- and D in natural science at Harvard (Gore), to embrace a treaty that experts say would likely have little or no impact at all, but at great economic (and therefore human) cost.

There is significant evidence that there may not be any long-term warming trend, that there may not be any human contribution to this, and that the scare-scenarios are based on very bad climate models.

It is scary when the "true believers" start doing stuff like seeking to remove accreditation from any climatologist who even questions the global warming hysteria. That should give any sober and sane person pause.

Answer 2

This is a stupid question...
you haven't seen the Al Gore film obviously.. he clearly defies the data that he uses.
there is no debate about climate change, only on Yahoo and Fox News... and other such places where the weak minded hordes congregate.

650 thousand years worth of core samples out of the Antarctic show clearly.. through 4 ice ages ... that carbon levels and temperature are higher now than ever before, the argument that we are on a cycle is a false one... we are on a cycle but the pollution that is dumped by the tons daily into the atmosphere is affecting it...
the right has decided to make it a political debate as they are bed buddies with the corporate elite who only value profit on a daily basis above all else. Greed and capitalism are not interested in the future it's all about the now... that is why it has become politicized and for no other reason. At the time of Mr. Gores film there were over 980 peer reviewed paper on the subject without one single contradictory paper from the "other" side... there is no debate only media control and gross profiteering at the expense of us all...
fools!

Answer 3

I think of it this way- if the scientists, climatologists, meteorologists, etc. are wrong and we still go through with Kyoto, we have a net loss of around 0.

If the science funded by the righties is wrong and we do nothing, if global warming (which is overall warming of the planet- you can't say it isn't happening every time it snows somewhere!) happens at the rate predicted without change, then we are in for a world of s**t.

Look up what the warmest year ever recorded was for the US. I'll give you a hint- it just ended.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WEATHER/01/10/warm.year.ap/index.html

Answer 4

There are plenty of outspoken scientist, however unfortunately scientist may not have the notoriety of Al gore and thus may not be notices as much.

I hear plenty and see plenty on television concerning global warming via the weather network, Educational programming such as The discovery Channel and all its incarnations, and regular investigative reports.

If you aren't looking for the information you are not going to find it. Generally there is no mention of Global Warming on American Idol. Basing the idea that it is a political concern over one movie where Al Gore acts as a narrator, presenting information compiles by scientist is a little naive.

Answer 5

as for the people saying this is a democratic ploy.. global warming has been a scientific issue much longer than Bush has been a politician lol so try again... now here we go... Scientists gather and analyze data and come to conclusions as non-biased as they can.. then they present these findings to the world... but most of them go unheard of.. just because of the insane amount of data that is out there ... try going to http://www.sciencedaily.com/ some time and just looking around... it's insane.. and this is just one medium for some of the info that is out there... basically.. scientists are spending all of their time researching and presenting.. they don't have time to go to everybody and say "Hey, this is important.. read it".. so they leave that to other people.. or assume that the people that need to know will take care of it.. have you ever tried to talk to a scientist?? many times not the star of the social arena....anyway.. they also don't have the POWER to influence large scale changes of public thought.. that is up to the media and the politicians.. they are the people who have the power, reach and influence to make these changes.. in this case the changes need to be made in business and private lives.. something politicians can influence.. but the scientific community has no sway over at all.

Answer 6

It became a political issue because large corporations, auto makers (in the US), manufactoring concerns, and investment houses are afraid of the results from laws requiring CO2 reduction. As a result of this the current administration has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the problem.

Scientists, climatologists, and researchers have been talking non stop about this problem. It isn't a bumper sticker or public service announcement kind of problem though. People actually have to read books and reports and studies to understand.

If you want an example of how the problem has been politicized look at the current hearings in the Senate. Member after member of the science team working for the current administration has testified over the past two days. They have testified over and over that they were told to remove any mention of the problem from their reports and to either downplay or deny the existence of the problem. The knowledge of the upcoming hearings is probably what led teh President to mention this issue for the first time in hi State of the Union address.

Answer 7

Up until recently most people didn't believe that global warming was a fact -- they thought it was another y2k sort of thing. Now the facts are out there and the causes? Well the number one causes are emissions from vehicles. And since our political system is heavily intertwined with the oil industry it gives a reason for politicians to be involved.

Scientists are busy finding was to reverse the effects humans are having on the planet, not speaking on television. That is the politicians job.

Answer 8

There is no solid evidence to support the theory that human activities are responsible for global warming. Scientists know the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling it is a natural thing. 1000 years ago the Vikings lived in Greenland and it was warm enough there to grow crops and live year round. It has since gotten to cold there to grow anything and the Vikings had to abandon their settlements there.
What worries me is that if we start messing with the climate we could really screw up the planet. I believe that we should be more responsible, use less energy, have more efficient vehicles, etc, etc but if we can't get emerging giants like China and India to participate what we do here in the US is irrelevant.

Answer 9

Global Warming is the perfect neo-liberal cause.

Like the neo-conservative concept of "Global Terror," it paints a scary picture which threatens all life as we know it and demands immediate action (and funding, by the way).

Unlike the conservatives' approach, however, the "bad guy" in Global Warming is not a particular nation, race, culture or belief-structure. No one is going to brand the fight against Global Warming a "crusade" or "racist war;" no one is going to say that Global Warming is being fought on behalf of rich white fat-cats.

Instead, the "bad guy" in Global Warming is "us." Specifically, the the modern, industrialized, rat-race "us" with our monster SUVs and smoke-belching power plants. For working-class socialists, Global Warming is the fight against capitalist greed. For suburban soccer moms, it is the fight for ecology and a greener Earth for their children.

Look at Hillary Clinton, for example. She should, by reputation, be one of the front-runners for 2008. Her initial support for the Iraq War and subsequent back-pedalling, however, has drawn sharp criticism from the far-left elements in her own party and painted her as vulnerable to attack.

For politicians like Al Gore, Global Warming offers the opportunity to take a firm stand on an issue of global importance without the consequence of offending anybody. After all, Global Warming is not even an "American" issue...so even the most extreme left, those most accused of being anti-American, can fall in line guilt-free.

Answer 10

The scientific questions are (1) is it happening, (2) are we the cause and (3) what will result. It is happening. a majority of scientists believe man to be the cause but there's no tangible PROOF of this, and what will result is open for debate though it's been warmer than it is now without the gloom and doom presently predicted - but that doesn't mean that with another 1-2 degrees F of warming, as we hit uncharted territory, the gloom and doom couldn't happen, plus there is a lot more coastal development than was the case during the last warm period.

It might be us, it's fair to say that we're a prime suspect for at least contributing materially to the warming, but you can't honestly say it's more than "might."

It's a political issue because different societies have different levels of individual freedom, and people within our society have different ideas about individual freedom, thus different standards of proof. Collectivists may believe that "might" is a good enough level of proof to charge in and restrict conduct, while Libertarians would want tangible proof.

Hypocrites have different standards for different issues, like people who would be happy to triple the cost of power and double the cost of my commute but cry "Big Brother" when a Library PC internet search on how to make a bomb induces the FBI to take the PC and try to figure out who was researching that particular issue.

Al Gore would be one of those hypocrites.