Global Warming - Science or politics?

Question

Regardless of the reality that there are lots of researchers on both sides of the argument that make valid points for and against the theory (I'm not doing your research for you so go find out what is there on both sides yourself) why is it discussed so much in a political context?

When someone finds a new drug that benefits mankind, it isn't political...it is tested, reported, confirmed and everyone gets on board.

When a new planet is discovered...it isn't debated, it is observed, located, confirmed and everyone gets on board.

When advances in robotics are developed...it isn't debated, it is designed, developed, tested and put into production and everyone gets on board.

When a new gene is identified, it isn't debated, it is observed, tested, reported, confirmed and everyone gets on board.

However in the case of those that believe global warming is fact, it is not reported and confirmed...it is debated in political context....WHY?

Timothy...your point is specious...the same thing could be said of those researchers that say GW is a fact...they are paid by environmental groups.

Fact is...some of the biggest supporters of environmental groups are oil companies.

Again, do your own research.

I do read...alot...I even get out occasionally.

CelticEx: Then you do a disservice to your profession if you feel that any scientific inquiry to review/test the findings of another scientist is just "cut and paste" biases. Surely you owe your profession a bit more exactness and honesty.

Fact is, I have reviewed research on both sides of this issue. Both have convincing claims if read in exclusion of other research, which most seem to do.
But, seeing both sides and trying to winnow out the chaff on both sides, I find that A) There is an overwhelming big question mark about climate and no one can state with certainty that GW is a fact or it isn't.

My personal opinion is that I don't think that research will ultimately confirm the claims of GW.

On the other hand, for GW proponets to claim it all is fact just reveals that they have made up their minds and use science to prove their opinions without ever honestly reviewing opposing research.

This is dishonest in the extreme.

Conclusion: There is a political agenda here

My view is that politicians have never "solved" anything, even when they were seriously trying to solve problems, they usually made a dogs breakfast of the problem and it would have been better if they had simply done nothing at all. I suspect that the issue of GW falls into this category also...it would probably be best if government does absolutely nothing at all.

Besides, government doesn't solve problems, people and business solve problems in spite of what government does in the mean time.

Answer 1

Global Warming is a political issue as much as - or maybe even more than a scientific issue -yes, your observation is quite correct. The reason for that is here:

If global warming is accepted as a fact - that is, if politicians/governments claim that global warming exists, it is quite different than claiming the existence of a new planet. Claiming the occurrence of this means accepting the existence of a HUGE problem. When you, as a politician, accept the existence of a huge problem, that immediately makes you responsible for coming up with a solution. In the case of global warming, the sets of solutions are clear: Less gas emission, very careful monitoring of the industry, heavy recycling, and extremely careful monitoring of existing natural resources - which, as you may notice, goes AGAINST the goals of many countries- especially the U.S. with its economy and culture based on frantic consummation. Accepting global warming would mean making big changes in the society as a whole, which naturally includes and heavily affects politics, which is why scientific research merges into political debate in this case.

Answer 2

Obviously it is debated in a political context, the masses have gotten hold of it and do you really expect them to discuss anything in a scientific context?

No one takes partisan sides for or against advances in robotics, but this issue is different, inasmuch as it will require some political will to address.

Just like the 9/11 conspiracists, the global warming deniers have, I have concluded, no capacity whatever for objective reasoning based on scientific argument.

How many of the "so-called" debunkings of global warming have been totally refuted time and again, yet these addled fools just keep cutting and pasting some bogus crap.

Has the debunking of the "towers fell in their footprints" 9/11 conspiracy theory actually convinced anyone and allowed us to move forward?

The thing is that there are many fools out there who think that they are scientists, but have essentially no capacity for analytical thought.

Answer 3

Because all the solutions offered by the man made global warming crowd are of a political nature. They propose higher taxes, restriction of choice(ethanol mandates) , government control of industry(cafe standards), international treaties(Kyoto) to site a few. The believers in this fantasy attempt to silence debate through fear and intimidation, and will only be stopped through a concerted effort that involves political action

Answer 4

it is still being tested and debated.. that's part of the reason.. it's a much larger system with much more to account for than any of the other examples you have listed... but yes... it is science that has been taken up by the government for one side or the other as a political issue.. just another hot point to divide the nation....

.. personally ... I learned about the greenhouse effect in the 3rd grade... just one of the many effects on global temperature....whether insignificant or incomprehensible anyone can logically see that we have some level of influence... my question is why not do the responsible thing and take care of our part.. just in case...

Answer 5

For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they've trumped up haven't been large enough to give the sinister prize they want most of all: total control of American politics, economic activity, and even individual behavior. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only global government can tackle such problems. National sovereignty? Democracy? Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism

Answer 6

Because this has huge political consequences in taxation and regulation policy. This is a money issue. This is a power issue.

Answer 7

Because to fix the problem costs lots of money. The auto manufacturers must increase gas mileage, power plants must scrub their exhaust gasses, and oil companies lose money if we use solar power. It is all about the buck.

Answer 8

It's science.

Look at the literature. The only people who question global warming now are well-paid oil company employees and "consultants." They are the ones who politicize this issue--because they want to stay rich.

Answer 9

People would prefer to believe politicians than the vast majority of scientists.

Answer 10

Politics, but moving closer and closer to extremist religion every day.