Global warming hypocrisy?

Question

One argument people on the man made global warming side use is that people that are against it are paid by Oil companies. Why do they always forget to mention all the funding that governments give to THEIR side. There is much more money to be made by government if they get to legislate the huge CO2 legislation they want to get passed.

Big government is JUST as evil as big business.. why do the Global Warming folk not be more fair handed about it?

Answer 1

Global warming is the gradual increase in global temperatures that has happened over millenia - and will continue to do so, though sometimes cooling, sometimes warming.

Global warming is caused by the sun and, indirectly, by sun spot activity. As a result of global warming, the oceans release more co2 - CO2 is an indicator - or "effect" it is not a cause. This is why global warming or cooling always PRECEEDS the co2 level changes. It does NOT follow it.
Quite right!!

Even if co2 was a cause, the oceans generate > 99% of the co2 in the atmosphere. So in reality, humans can effectively do nothing with Co2.

The myth runs on because governments around the world pour BILLIONS into research, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake - ditto with many of the green charities and causes. The truth is the money is being wasted in researching solutions to problems which we caused by sunspot activity - not by the <1% of co2 that humans generate.

Prevent global warming? Find a way to control sunspot activity.

For a very interesting documentary on this - with some pretty powerful facts, watch this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=great+global+warming+swindle

Of course if you wish to bang on about co2 like the rest of the sheep, feel free to just give me a thumbs down and go turn a few bulbs off :)

Mark

Answer 2

We know for a fact that some oil companies paid scientists to refute global warming and come up with 'evidence' to back up their claims. The reason we know this is because they've admitted it. The tobacco companies did exactly the same thing in hiring scientists to deny it was harmful.

EVERY major oil company in the world acknowledges global warming to be true (visit any of their websites for confirmation), something the global warming skeptics conveniently forget to mention despite it being in black and white for all to see.

It's also incorrect to suggest governments would gain financially. Some government legislation is probably nothing more than an excuse to levy new taxes and financial penalties but this is a standard policy of many governments on a wide range of issues.

Governments are losing billions because of global warming - people are switching to more energy efficient appliances, using less gas, using less heating, recycling more goods etc etc. All of which financially impacts on governments through reduced revenues. Most governments in the developed world subsidise energy efficiency schemes by providing grants for insulation, financial incentives to switch to greener energy sources etc.

In reality, governments would be much better off if there was no such thing as global warming. Like the industries that contribute to global warming they're having to adapt.

Answer 3

I think global warming is based on bad science. I don't own any oil company stock. Yes we do need to reduce pollution. But I'm not convinced global warming is real. The tree huggers are basing there arguments on about 100 years of weather records. The earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. We don't have enough data to support the claims. What REAL evidence is there that it's not just a weather cycle? Science teaches that the entire planet was like atropica rain forest when the dinosaurs were here. Science aso teaches that we've had at least 2 ice ages.

Answer 4

There is no "why". It just is.

It isn't the hypocrisy that is so frustrating, it is the outright deception of the GW lobby.

Al Gore was being interviewed on TV following his movie, and asked about the future of the climate, which his MOVIE predicted will kill us all if we don't act RIGHT NOW, and his answer was "The scientists don't know. They just don't know."

Well, if they don't know, where's this consensus about the problem that "every scientist in the world agrees" about?

No, the hypocrisy doesn't bother me. It's the lies.