Climate change, Why is the U.S. government opposed to the idea that climate change is caused by human activity

Question

Global warming sceptics keep claiming that it's a government conspiracy to make money. But the U.S. government consistently opposes the idea that theres a human cause.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2053521,00.html

Answer 1

More to the point of your question, the US government is NOT opposed to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Regretably, the US Supreme Court has determined that the EPA needs to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. President Bush has stated numerous times that man is responsible for global warming. Most members of the House and Senate (even Republicans) believe that man is responsible for global warming.

The US government is opposed to treaties like the Kyoto Protocol. Being opposed to a crappy solution is entirely different than being opposed to the idea of anthropogenic global warming.

Also, let us keep in mind that James Hanson has given hundreds of lectures since he accused the Bush Administration of trying to silence hime. The Union of Concerned Scientists should be trusted as much as Martin Durkin. They both have a view point that they stick to dogmatically, and when someone disagrees with them they give them the old "F*ck off" either explicitly or implicilty. That piece by Monbiot is a standard piece pointing out the same old strawmen, which is to say it is basically a waste of ink, bytes, and time.

Answer 2

where to start?

The fact that there is science that says that the Sun produces a Warming and Cooling cycle and not the humans?

Mars polar ice caps are melting just like our are. Why is that?

Martian SUV's?
Martian Deforestation?
Martian Cow Flatulence?
Martian Global Industrialization?

I mean come on - When there were Dino's here, there was a high level of greenhouse gasses.

COuld maybe the Green house Gasses not be the cause? What if the gasses are the Effect?

The thing is NO ONE is saying lets all pollute and not live cleanly.

Just on the 18th of April this year - an AP Science Writer covered a report that the use of Enanol may produce more smog and deaths then Fossil Fuels. Why is the press not covering this?

What is very funny - in 1966 a Think Tank said that to get rid of war, and to complete the process of Globalization, that the Global Environment would have to be the issue. I was the only thing that could replace the $$ used in the war machines. They said it would take 1 - 1.5 generations before it would become accepted.

Then in 1970 - Earth Day
Late 70's they pitched global Cooling and Ice age and everyone laughed.
Now in 2006 Gore shows up (40 years after the 1966 report) and wham - it is global heating and it is humans fault.

Yeah - Warming -
NY had 11 feet of snow in less then 4 weeks. Thank god for the warming - that would have been what 32 feet?
The Midwest had blizzards and freezing temps in April. Wothout that warming the Midwest would have been in an ice age with glaciers and temps of abolute zero.

The world has lost its mind and can no longer have a discussion based on facts.

Answer 3

I think that the US government is against the idea because it places the blame on human kind. This then results in taxes from cheap (but highly taxable) fuel being invested in new technologies to research new ways to reduce the carbon footprint, which are more expensive than the current standard of living established in the US.

Other countries are investing this money already, and are developing these solutions, which most skeptics would say that this is part of the "master plan" of the US, as then no money would be invested by the US to DEVELOP the solutions, but merely to IMPLEMENT them based on the ideas of other countries as any imperfections would have been ironed out. These countries would then be worse off than the US, as it had to invest money twice (once to develop, and once to implement). It could also be argued that the countries would have to invest three times (once more to rectify any problems in the solutions). This "leeching" on the part of the US would also bring a more stable economy to the country and allow then to invest in other "more necessary" services - defense, etc. This is the desired outcome for any country, but the US would have an upper hand in this matter.

There is also the theory that, for the US to accept a human cause as a huge factor in global warming means that the US takes the bulk of the responsibility. It has been stated (albeit on the Internet) that the US holds 5% of the worlds population, yet uses 25% of the worlds resources. Accepting a human element would then place a larger spotlight on the US, amplifying the pressure already placed on the government to adapt to measures in place to combat global warming. Think of it as "passing the buck", or as escaping the blame from any wrongdoing you made as a child, when you would blame your younger siblings for things that you would have done.

I hope that this is what you are looking for. I must, however, emphasize two points:

1) At any point where I mention only "the US", I refer to the US Government, not the people of the US.
2) These are only suggestions, not defined reasons. There are many different theories available, the majority (or most popular) will, no doubt, appear on this page.

Answer 4

its been proved the climate used to be warmer in medievil times, they used to grow certain plants in areas that are too cold now. Also the sun gets hotter and colder depending on volitility

So global warming is debatable

I dont belive in a government conspiracy, maybe a few shock tactics are needed (a few white lies for the better of everyone...including them)

Pollution is still a big problem tho. I'll probably give a s**t when or if i have kids.

Answer 5

Because "global warming" is a political movement designed to move manufacturing jobs from the industrialized countries to the third world.

China is one of the worst polluters on earth and is free from any environmental restraints. Currently the air is so dense from pollution in many chinese cities that you can't even see the sun. And China was excluded in the Kyoto protocol.

Global warming = global socialism.

Answer 6

Its not that the government is opposed to the idea its that the information that they have claims that the two are not related. Know the politicians maybe pushing the scientist to find evidence that it is not man driven, but I find this highly unlikely. If you think about it if people really cared about the environment we would all be driving around in cars which use renewable energy because people would push the government and companies to be environmentally friendly.

Answer 7

Actually, the global warming skeptics have looked at the science and concluded that man has nothing to do with global warming. We're not going to sit around and watch our way of life compromised by a bunch of irrational alarmists.

Answer 8

the government is working particularly ardently to regulate each and every component of our evil little lives by using passing Cap and Tax. quickly, we would have "clever meters" related to our domicile. If we use too lots electrical energy or gasoline, the government.will cut back back our utilization then nice us. Our government loves and cares for us lots. we don't have incredibly brains with which to think of. we can quickly be residing like third international international locations. i do no longer for one 2nd have faith that people are inflicting international something....different than war. Utter nonsense...all of it.

Answer 9

Because right now it's all conjecture and opinion. No one can say that the world's population is contributing let's say 18% to the temperature rise. In fact, the sun's output has risen .2% in the last 40 years and Mars and Pluto are heating up. Is that due to us also ??? Read here ...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

Answer 10

Does it really matter if its true or not? We still need to be moving in the direction AWAY from petroleum based fuel. I would love to see the politicians with direct links to "big oil" be banned from government. I bet you everyone would be in agreement.