What political agenda do alarmists have to gain from crying "Global Warming!"?

Question

There seems to be a lot of media attention on Global Warming lately and a lot of it seems to have a political agenda. I'm wondering what that agenda is (or if there are multiple agendas).

Don't get me wrong. I'll agree that the planet is currently warming up, but it seems the causes are dominantly natural and the process is a lot more gradual than the media would have us believe. And I agree that we need to conserve natural resources, but for other reasons like reducing pollution. Try and be open minded.

Answer 1

Sadly there is a mixture of political groups and agendas at work.

There are both natural processes and human activity that contribute to Global Warming.

We are still coming out of the last ice age. We are very fortunate that we are in the Global Warming phase of the natural cycle.

About 10,000 years ago much of the North American continent including much of the Northern United States was under an ice sheet over 1 mile thick.

Fortunately the environment warmed and melted the ice sheet.

Human activity does make a contribution to the amount of Global Warming, however the amount of the contribution is in dispute.

There are several political groups and several agendas involved in the alarmist predictions.

One group is the Utopian Socialists who hate Capitalism and our competitive society. They believe that it is necessary to wreck the United States economy so that they will be able to install their brand of socialism in the United States.

The way they see it, the alarmism over Global Warming is a useful too to get the regulations put in place that will restrict the economy and cause it to fail.

An example of the people involved in this group are the goofy people who sit in redwood trees for months to prevent them from being cut down for lumber.

Once the economy fails they belive they will be able to impose their concept of Utopian Socialism on the United States.

Another group sees it as a source of political power. If you have the power to regulate an industry you also have the power to grant special favors to selected campaign contributors. They see it as a simple trade
of campaign contributions in exchange for political favors to selectively relax the regulations for favored political contributors..

An example of a politician from this group is Nancy Pelosi. The Pelosi family has become a political power house over several generations using this technique.

A third group sees this as a secure way to make money without having to deal with the complexities, risks and difficulties of a competitive market economy.

An example of a politician from this group is Al Gore, who just set up a company to sell phony carbon credits to rich liberals.

The purpose of the carbon credits is to permit the rich liberals to continue to live in their enormous mansions that use ten times the amount of energy that a family of 4 uses and fly their private jets which use over 1,000 times the amount of fossil fuel as the most wasteful SUV without feeling guilty over their wasteful energy and fossil fuel use.

Al Gore will make several hundred millions of dollars from this venture.

Each of these groups selects only the scientific data that supports their pre conceived positions and dismisses the rest as somehow suspect or not competent.

Then they engage in time wasting propaganda campaigns that accomplish little other than to cement their base and annoy their opponents.

It is a shame that these political groups are dominating the debate. If you can have a serious discussion without all of these political extremists inserting their propaganda, you can have a very pleasant and very enlightening discussion.

Answer 2

There are different groups with different agendas.

There are political parties that campaign on the issue that global warming is a threat. Do you think these people want to see evidence that contradicts them? Is that why Tim Patterson, professor in Canada lost his grant money? I had a professor in Economist , who was also an adviser to the Canadian government, and said that governments love going green for the extra taxes.

Environmentalists have been campaigning for years, even when global cooling was the consensus, about the dangers of co2 emissions. For them any emissions, no matter how small is immoral. They romanticize the idea of living with nature and think that humans are the worst thing that can happen to this planet.

The Kyoto accord does not address the issue of global warming as much as it is a redistribution of wealth. Rich countries can still pollute by buying carbon credits from poorer, non industrial countries.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, said he left the organization because it became too confrontational and anti-capitalist. Reducing co2 emissions is a great way for these ex-communist to attack the capitalist system.

But most people fall in the "it can't hurt category". You hear this argument a lot. Even if global warming is not a threat, "it can't hurt....". They support small reductions in co2 emissions, to stop our dependency on foreign oil, to clean up the smog in the cities, stop the depletion of a finite resource, so future generations will need it. These are all worthy goals, but implementing the Kyoto accord will be very costly and will not do anything to stop global warming (if it is co2 based). Environmentalist who are concerned say we need a 60-80% reductions in co2 emissions. That is the real concern. If we leave this hysteria unchecked, people will start listening to these alarmists, and follow their suggestions and that will be
desasterous.

Answer 3

Global warming is very bad news. Why would scientists "make it up"? That makes no sense. Scientists are consumers too, they love their cars and air conditioners. They would be very conservative about forwarding news so dire.

And they've been saying it loud for 20 years, long before it became anyone's "political agenda".

Yeah, global warming benefits some political agendas. But it hurts many more, in fact, it hurts the establishment.

And establishment vs. eco's -- establishment wins. Everytime.

And the establishment went "Holy smoke! Katrina was bad for business! Maybe climate change would be bad for business too!"

Then they noticed how preventative anti-emissions efforts, like were forced onto the auto industry in the 1970s, actually resulted in a more robust industry making better products. (the American automakers' current woes have more to do with pension funds than emissions.)

So the establishment is starting to think "We still don't like it, but maybe it's not something we need to completely deny."

And now look at the American political debate today. 5 years ago nobody thought about it; here we are debating it.

Answer 4

Power, baby, power.

It's the same power kick that a mob gets after a football game when they rush the field and tear down the massive goalposts. Or a group of hackers bring down a website with a DOS attack. Or a group of bicyclists intentionally obstructing automobile traffic in San Francisco.

They do it because they are all somewhat powerless or insignificant as individuals and want to feel they are making a difference. "If I can somehow change the world, then I really am somebody!" They've approached GW as a man-made problem because they know that if it isn't, then all their trying won't make a difference. They can hope for a normal cooling effect, that they'll promptly take credit for.

Kind of reminds me of Disneyland's jungle ride where they let some young child take the helm, letting them believe that they are actually in control of where the boat will go...

Answer 5

First, you are absolutely *correct* about the lack of proof of anthropogenic global warming. See ref 1 for accurate information and a list of *thousands* of scientists that think this is all malarkey.

*Anyone* can understand the weakness of the argument by looking at scientific data of paleoclimatology but I doubt that those already convinced will be able to change their religious beliefs.

One of the best examples is based on the Vostok ice core records, as follows:

*look at the graph of temperature and CO2 (ignore dust) in the first Wiki reference
*notice the periodic increases in temperature and CO2 over the last 400,000 years
*ask where the SUVs and coal-fired plants were in the previous *four* global warming events

Another good example based on the Vostok data is to ask *why* CO2 concentrations lag behind the temperature increases by 800 years?? (ref4)
(One generally accepted answer is that *after* the oceans heat up they release dissolved CO2).

Finally, why are the other planets in our solar system all warming at the same time (ref7)?


****opinion, based on research****

Global warming is about the money and the hypocrites and weak minded are feeding for all they are worth.

GW also is a way for global socialists to try to control the US economy instead of reforming their high-tax economies. This crusade against capitalism is one of the main reasons Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, quit the organization (ref 8).

Like many myths and fallacies today there are usually more negative effects than positive (e.g., DDT doesn't help birds {see summary in ref25} but *does* allow malaria to kill more Africans than aids does).

Just for political giggles, guess who is more eco-friendly at home - like using geothermal energy - Gore or Bush; then read the Snopes reference below (ref 6).

Answer 6

What you 'have faith' and objective certainty look at odds. The 'media', opposite to the main appropriate wing communicate coach those that seem to think of that the 'media' is solely the enemy of certainty has 0 to do with the certainty that we survive a planet with an extremly skinny ecosystem. Our ecosystem in terms of the size of the Earth is approximately as skinny simply by fact the floor on an onion. it incredibly is why it receives problematic to breath above 10,000 ft. by utilising burning vast quantities of 'stuff' to maintain the wheels on the line and bring electrical energy we produce extensive quantities of CO2...C02 that different than for burning stuff might stay under the floor. it may no longer look like plenty, yet given the thinness of the ambience it does not take plenty. Then there is the comments factor. simply by fact the planet receives 'much less chilly' permafrost melts and releases CO2 and methane etc. the only deniers of this are persons interior the industries that produce CO2 in such abundance...and that they have the ear of the Bush administration. If there is an 'schedule', it incredibly is the place to look!

Answer 7

Geesh, what a load from the previous answers. The answer is that the socialist have changed from red to green. Look where all the socialists are. Gorbachev is now an environmentalists. I am a true conservative and environmentalist but I am not a socialist. I believe in free markets and a free society. This is what the global warming is about. They want to change our society from a consumer driven one. The costs of following them would be extreme. I don't think I am overstating it.

Answer 8

I think the agenda is to ensure we have a planet on which we can practice politics, and other activities that humans and animals like to partake in. Scientists have been warning about global warming for a few decades (remember the decline in population of frogs?) but no one likes to hear bad news. Especially, since it's probably to late to do anything about it except slow down the inevitable.

Answer 9

The agenda is quite obvious. Global warming is the current standard bearer for liberal and socialist politicians in their continuing efforts to put the government in charge of every aspect of our lives.

Answer 10

Money and fame. Gore spearheading this in the way that he is is obviously lining his pockets and getting back in front of the cameras. He will announce that he is running in the future, mark my words.

Do I think he believes what he is saying? Absolutely not! If he believed that it is as devastating as he claims, he would NEVER fly private. He would take real measures to reduce the effect...not throw money at it and claim that he is having no impact.

Are humans to blame? Perhaps partly, but why are other planets warming? Why did the majority of warming pre-date the intustrial revolution? (Yes, most warming of the last century was in the first 1/2)