Why are there so many alarmists on both sides of the global warming debate?

Answer 1

A. Because you are reading Y!Answers.

B. Because although a person may be rational, people are panicky and ridiculous.

C. Because the second there is one alarmist on one side, alarmists will arise on the other side claiming conspiracy and manipulation.

Answer 2

Both Sides of the Global Warming Debate
Global warming is in the headlines again. No one disagrees that warming is actually happening. There is a scientific debate however, as to the actual cause and the possible results of global warming. Here is a great summary of BOTH sides of the debate. We almost NEVER hear the other side in mainstream media. They prefer the more alarmists’ view and yet there is a large group of scientists who don't agree with that view. Good to know both sides of any argument. I especially like this one.
Personally, I remember Paul Ehrlich's doomsday predictions regarding population growth in his book called "Population Bomb." None of his alarmist’s predictions proved true. None I feel the dire predictions of global warming may well fall into the same category as Ehrlich's. I guess wild predictions sell papers!

Answer 3

I disagree.

There are alarmists only on one side of the debate. The other side of the debate is being shut off from being heard.

If you check wikipedia on the subject of Global warming, you will see a new section called Global Warming Conspiracies.

What is being done is that legitimate questions as to how governments and big business intend to solve the so called global warming crises is being discredited by being labeled conspiracy theories.

There are actually many groups on the left that question Global warming solutions as well. For instance, this group will lead you to many other liberal activist groups as well questioning the carbon trade solutions to Global warming and the possible damage to third world countries in need of energy to solve their problems:

http://www.carbontradewatch.org/

Unfortunately the loudest voices critical of global warming and the proposed solutions is coming from radical right wing sources thanks to the media. They know that Bush is not popular in the world and therefore make it a debate between republicans and everybody else. This is simply convenient PR for the world stage of our global village.

There is much emphasis on Exxon/Mobil funding for instance and little investigation on the activities of oil companies such as British Petroleum (BP), Royal Dutch Shell (Shell), Sunoco, Con Edison, Duke Energy, and Alcan - all of which are in the business of making tremendous money from Global Warming and are competitors of Exxon/Mobil.

There seems to be lots and lots of money available to spend on media. There are people who can afford not to work but be on the web 24/7 to dominate discussion boards, write for wikipedia, blog and dominate all the possible sites on the web. PR takes lots and lots of money. Money is being spent on movies, Live Earth concerts, television specials, endorsements, private jet travel, expensive resorts where they hold conventions, etc.

There is only one side that has that kind of money to create that kind of alarm and spend so much time discrediting the other side. Don't you wonder where all that money is coming from?

Why would so much money be spent on alarming everyone unless there is a lot of money to be made?

Which side is saturating all media and spending all the money?

Answer 4

Basically it goes something like this, one side actually gives a flying crap about the planet and they are in bitter dispute against people like Bush and Cheney and all of their oil buddies who say there is no global warming, so that they are able to keep trashing the planet. It all comes down to a game of money really, and people who are in the game are in it to see how much they can make. With that in mind, the opposing side wants to understandably put an end to it so you can see there is a long very passionate battle for both sides.

Answer 5

I would say partly because of the media which tends to sensationalise things, partly because they don't fully understand global warming, partly because they think it has a greater impact to exaggerate the facts.

I've always beleived that unless a claim can be backed up by a credible source or substantiated by some other reliable method then it's probably best to ignore it, or at least treat it with some skepticism.

Answer 6

Because a lots of peoples lived in an emotional state, while another portion is living in a rational/conscious state.
Both can fall in the extremes, but otherwised I think it reflect well the disparity inside our populations today!
Also, they are some peoples stuck in between!
And they are doing so, here, because they have an audience... All in all, its only a matter of communications.

Edit: as for me, I prefer to say that they are all wrong, and me too, but maybe this guy got it all!

Answer 7

For Global Warming:
Get people to change their ways and fear the global warming, and you make a profit. Just like with the light bulbs idea, you have millions of lights getting their bulbs changed with "Global Warming Green People" and you make millions of dollars. Or with Carbon Emissions, just buy "Carbon Credits" and you are OK with polluting, and can feel like you are "Green".

Against Global Warming:
Science has proved that their has been many times that the earth has warmed and cooled off. It is part of Mother Nature. And rather then see allot of people fall into the trap and spend millions of dollars to "Go Green", just telling everyone so everyone doesn't get caught in the scam.

Either way you fall on it, you are still suppose to live your life, and try and take care of yourself, and your family, and try and leave behind something to make the world better. My belief, maybe "Man-Kind" may help Mother Nature speed up the process of warming and cooling........but you cannot blame it all on Man-Kind. I mean if you did, who do you blame the last Ice Age on.....the Dinosaurs???? I don't think too many of them had S.U.V.'s and or polluted with Carbon Emissions too much. So it is just part of nature, and all the nature freaks want everyone else to be as nutty as they are.

Answer 8

Because there is the possibility of real danger to life on Earth?

The alarm on the other side does seem a bit overblown. We must deal with the end of fossil fuels sooner or later anyway.

Answer 9

Because the stakes are very high.

Answer 10

What do you mean?