Are the global warming deniers motivated by money?

Question

It seems these days the many of the major public deniers of global warming are motivated by money. Senator Imhofe of Oklahoma, home of a large oil industry, Michael Crichton, author of a popular novel, the "junkscience" columnist, etc. While many of the major public figures who agree that global warming is real don't have a financial stake in the answer. Dr, James Hansen of NASA, Senator McCain of Arizona, James Rodgers, CEO of Duke Energy, President George Bush, etc.

Answer 1

In addition to the money, there are some fundamentalist groups that see this as evidence that the rapture is close at hand. There's no need to do anything because everyone that counts will soon be in heaven. "Jesus warned us that the degradation of society would happen in the end days".

In addition, there are many liberarians that (aside from blanching at the prospect of higher taxes) are very (perhaps very rightfully) afraid of more power in the hands of the few.

Bu the IPCC report is due out in a few days and it's punchline has already been leaked. Here's what Ben Witherington III, a prominent evangelical Biblical scholar, has to say about it:

"The Smoking Gun--1600 Page Global Warming Report Out Soon

1600 pages is a big report. Trouble is, it is only the first of four parts, the result of an enormous and some have said definitive report demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that there is human causation of several sorts when it comes to global warming. The first part will be out in early February. America's top climate scientist, Jerry Mahlman joined with Canada's leading climate scientist, Andrew Weaver in saying the evidence is now compelling and beyond dispute. In fact he says of the report: 'This isn't a smoking gun,climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missles.' You can read the AP story here at the following link---
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/.

I will not belabor the point since we have been talking about it already this week. I will simply say this report is written by 600 scientists reviewed by 600 others from 154 countries. That is what we call definitive and compelling. And one important thing about scientists. They tend to be very cautious as a group. They use words like maybe, possibly, or probably. They hardly ever say something is definitive, or beyond argument. This is what makes this peer reviewed detailed report so remarkable.

... perhaps we had better pay attention and see what a proper Christian response should be to this crisis, especially for the sake of being a good witness."

I think the debate is about to change focus to what needs to be done.

Answer 2

for the comparable reson that GW embracers tend to be extremely-liberal. it suits into their international view(Oh, goodie. yet another habit to regulate and legislate.). speaking touching directly to the tails in a inhabitants is stupid. what you're able to desire to debate is the ninety 5% closer to the middle. for the human beings who include it. ask them in the event that they have been confident by using some speech or different or did they actually perform a little checking of their very own? have they executed each and every thing obtainable of their very own lives to mitigate the outcomes? if no longer, why no longer? going to Yahoo solutions and asking whiny, loaded questions helps no longer something. for the human beings you call deniers, the comparable first question is so as. do no longer carry forth after that.advise activities and behaviors which will earnings them in some way and have a edge effect that helps. do no longer even thell them that a CFL will decrease their carbon footprint. tell them their electric powered bill will bypass down. if some data get tossed at you, do no longer only deny them. verify them out. you're able to learn something new. the two.5% at each and every end of a distribution won't have the ability to be swayed by using something. even a gun to the top. the oother ninety 5% could be moved, yet they require some style of knowledge.

Answer 3

So few scientists denie global warming ... it reminds those scientists who denied that smoke was bad for health a few years ago.
Fortunately most of them state that it is mostly caused by GHG and most of them state that GHG are caused by human activity. A diagnose is the first step for recovery. And is a good new that cause is human activity because we can fix it, if it would be natural Earth cycles would be a really bad new for humankind.

See IPCC report tomorrow for more details

Answer 4

Millions of tons of crap DAILY into the atmosphere is nothing to sneeze at. Pun intended.

We are screwing ourselves over for a buck.
Shooting ourselves in the herd.
Stepping on our own ducks.
Cutting off our nose to spite our finch.
Kicking ourselves in the aardvark.

For the almighty dollar we're ruining it for everybody and everything, and people who can't accept it are three fries short of a Happy Meal.
Have a nice day.

Answer 5

Those of us who know global warming doesn't exsist, or motivated by the truth.