what do you think about global warming is it a big con so the government can make money out of us?

Answer 1

Denying it is a big con so that businesses, especially the oil business, can make short term profits. The next quarter is all that matters, they don't give a damn about 25 years from now.

Answer 2

The government is not making money off of us due to global warming. Global warming is a real issue. Haven't you seen a difference in the weather where you live, I know I certainly have and it scares me. I read a newspaper and see the effects on the Great Lakes area and know that all of this is not normal. I see that the polar caps are shrinking, this is not normal. All of this is due to global warming, and if you don't believe it you are one of the people who will pay the most when we are seriously in trouble as you will have helped cause a problem that could have been fixed. It isn't a matter of being a democrat or a republican, an American or a European, the problem is worldwide, read further about it and see what you can do as your part of the human race to save our world.

Answer 3

It's warmer than it was 100 years ago.

It's not warmer than it was 1000 years ago.

Thus, it happens naturally.

However if this time it's us, it could be different - more severe - especially if we're not offsetting a cooling period but exacerbating a warming period.

It has to be partially us - CO2 traps heat and we've added to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It might be largely us.

It might be half us.

Or it might be us but only to an immaterial degree - - after all, it's been warmer when CO2 concentrations were lower.

Most of the people who say it's us and that therefore they must be empowered to limit our lifestyles have sought such power to limit the same aspects of our lifestyles for literally dozens of reasons in the past - about half the time they've been right or sort of right and the limitations have been approved; half the time they're wrong - sometimes they've just made it up, like the Monsanto butterflies.

And the same crowd has admitted exaggerating its case on global warming and some of them have told outright lies. Some of the "compelling graphs" for example are complete BS - they attempt to re-write the more recent warm periods out of the climate history based on cherry picked proxy data and when you use all the proxy data the warm periods reappear (moreover they never attempt to explain the physical evidence of those warm periods, such as higher tree lines and warm-weather plants and animals thriving far closer to the poles than they do today, much less contemporaneous observations that these changes were occurring because the climate was warming).

And the limits they want in place this time are much harsher than the limits that have been approved in the past.

So you tell me, in a free society, should we accede to these limits based on a still-unproven theory put forth by people most of whom have a huge credibility gap?

Answer 4

Unless you're willing to do all the research and studies yourself, you're ultimately going to have to decide who to believe. I've decided to believe Al Gore, becuase the sources he cites are reliable and the graphs and figures he presents are very compelling. The case on global warming presented by Gore leaves no room for doubt--after seeing how identically the CO2 increase matches the climate change, the possibility that it could all be a coincidence is so remote as to be effectively zero. This is a far cry from the contrary claims that global warming is a sham, whose evidence is largely based on conjecture and twisting the meaning of previously solid research.

Answer 5

O.K., so we all go on as before, using up fossil fuels willy-nilly and one day we discover that the stuff is starting to run out. We think, oh that's alright, I'll just buy alternatives, only to find that getting any sort of alternative in place costs a lot more now than it would have done five years ago, because the oil is rarer and more expensive and to manufacture anything now costs twice as much. Should have got them in when the Government was giving out grants.

Right, you think, I'll run my car on bio-diesel, all those hippy types have been driving them for years, doing their bit for Global Warming. But now that it costs so much to transport things, everybody wants to buy local food because it's cheaper than the imported stuff. There's no spare crops to turn into bio-desiel, the yields are lower because oil based fertilisers and pesticides are so expensive. And as the planet heats up, the yields go down further and further. (This is already happening). You don't care about wheter or not you can run your car anymore, you don't want to starve.

Then it hits you. Why didn't the Government tell us the oil was declining? Why didn't they plan for this? If they told us that this was happeniing, we could have prepared for it, fitting wind turbines, solar panels, growiing our own food or buying it locally, changing our cars to fuel efficent models so that we could conserve what's left. Ah, but then you would have destroyed confidence in the market, and as most capital is speculative, not the accumulated wealth of earnings, this would have effectively ground it to a halt, and plunged us into a recession. Better to spout on about Climate Change and get people using less because they want to save the planet. Well, wheter they want to or not, the oil, coal and gas being burned is finite, so they should really get used to using less of it now.

Did you know that 54 of the 65 oil producing nations produced less last year than the year before? Time for the electric car maybe?

Answer 6

in case you are able to clarify the receding ice caps and glaciers international without climate replace, i'm waiting to take heed to. If it is not getting warmer around the ice caps, what's making the everlasting ice soften? Polar undergo flatulence? Gassy walrus? Corrosive penguin poo? It hasn't rained for years in areas of Australia. sure, i be attentive to it rather is a warm u . s ., yet there was once adequate rain for farming in a great area. Now it is so dry the farming is death out one farm at a time. climate is changing international. Deniers will at last ought to have faith it. As for those idiots who say guy is having no result, nicely, there is in elementary terms almost seven billion people in the international, hundreds of thousands of automobiles pumping gases into the ambience... Nah, yet which could no longer in all probability have any result on the ambience. sure, cycle is a certainty, and an oft quoted one specifically because of the fact this is verifiable and thoroughly genuine. what's never quoted with the help of sceptics, on the different hand, is the fee of replace. never, in any of the researched warming/ cooling cycles of this planet has temprature raised so immediately. As for Australia, be at liberty to envision national Geographic cutting-edge subject for the counsel on, exceedingly, the Murray basin. sure, huge areas of Australia have consistently been arid; yet that arid area is increasing, primary rainfall is reducing, and as quickly as marginal arable areas are immediately turning out to be ineffective for something different than leaving to the kangaroos. I reiterate, absolutely everyone who thinks seven billion persons and hundreds of thousands of pollution inflicting automobiles isn't having an result the two has their head in the sand or merely believes this is all a con. The info for it rather is infinitely greater suitable than the info against.

Answer 7

Global warming is not man made. There is no proof that it is and therefore is not a credible claim. Don't buy into Al Gores movie and the countless others like it.

With just a little research, you will see the conspiracy theory theory, that is global warming, has no legitimacy.

Answer 8

Yes. The big con comes from the third world nations because the cold war is over. Those nations are trying to bleed money from the Good Ole USA.

Answer 9

the folks making money off of green house THEORY of global warming are a group of environmental scientists. first 35 years ago they claimed the government should fund their research because there was going to be another ice age, but when the ice didn't show they changed from an ice age to temperature increase. they still want your tax dollars.

Answer 10

Cons will tell you it's a con. Libs will tell you it's not. Which one do you want to hear? Or, do you really want to know?

There is a natural order of things on this planet. Everything is about balance. Humans are unstabilizers of that balance. Yes, global warming is a natural occurance. But, we are exhaserbating that process with our cars, landfills, cattle, manufacturing, etc. There is no way around that little piece of fact. We DO cause damage to our environment. What is wrong with making our world a better and healthier place?