What exactly are the libs looking at when saying we are in a global warming crisis?

Question

It seems the data keeps changing and I'm wondering what they are pointing to right now. Hottest years in recorded history, storms, etc have all changed.

Answer 1

Hey Celticexpress: Who cares what President Bush says he's a politician not a climatologist.


Man-made Global Warming was a political tool created by Maggie Thatcher to suppress the miners unions in the 1970's. Then the good little Marxists embraced it as the perfect vehicle to destroy Capitalism. The UN grabbed ahold of it as the perfect catalyst to impose global government on us.

The Europeans have completely jumped on board because they are all about government intervention into their personal freedoms. Remember these are the same people who have needed us to come to their rescue in WW1, WW2 and would have just laid down to the USSR if we didn't hold them in check. So its logical to them that governement should further supress their very limited freedoms.

Our biggest problem is that our kids are being taught that man-made climate change is a fact just like 2+2=4. When the evidence is a) simply nonconclusive and b) arrived at with a very political and societal bias. Science promoted by politics is not science, anyone can take a few pieces of evidence and form a conclusion that supports their particular politics, if that is how the research is started, with a political outcome as the true goal.

Pretend if you will that I gave you $1,000,000 to prove that Rap music was a positive influence on today's youth and I gave someone else $1,000,000 to prove it was a negative influence. I guarentee you would both come up with very convincing arguments using essentially the same data. Our problem is there is no government paying anyone to disprove man-made global warming, because disproving it doesn't support any governmental agenda. The nature of any one in government is to gather more and more power, its simply human nature. Proving that the actions of man effect global warming gives government the opportunity to impose more regulations on the individual which gives them more power. Disproving it gives the opposite effect. So I ask, why would any politician whose sole reasoning for existing is to gain power support something that gives them less power?

The global-warmists talk about a "consensus" of scientists that say our CO2 emissions is the cause of climate change. But consensus is a political term it goes completely against "good" science where there is always dissenting opinion and always the option that the "theory" will be disproved. But the climate facsists can't have it disproved, at all costs they must perpetuate their mythology or their whole house of cards will come crumbling down. Doesn't sound much like science to me.

Of course we should treat this planet well, of course we should limit C02 emissions, of course we should conserve, but the doomsday BS that leftists espose to destroy Capitalism is politics not science and their is not enough evidence that their draconian agenda will do anything to stem climate change all it will do is suppress human freedoms a bit more.

Answer 2

Wow, you ask a lot of questions.

After having reviewed both sides of this argument I find that the supporting evidence does not prove an anthropogenic cause to whatever change is ocurring and in fact it appears that the actually cause is more activity on the sun.

As for this almost religious fanaticism of some in supporting this "crisis", it appears they are all reading from the same bible, and it is by a false prophet. Not to sound too critical but these supporters appear to have a completely closed mind on the issue.

In studying the major supporters and promoters of AGW it appears they have something in mind that resembles damaging the American economy. In reading some of their public statements they are unequivical on the issue that even if they are wrong on AGW it will at least hurt capitalism. So from that you have to believe them, they are seeking to hurt America from a purely communistic perspective.

Answer 3

It's not "the libs", it's climate scientists. I'm not sure where you get the idea that "the data keeps changing", except maybe from inaccurate media reports.

If you'd like to get a better understanding of the science behind global warming, I recommend reading the IPCC Report Summary for Policymakers. It's a summary of the best climate science (over 4,000 scientific papers) by the best climate scientists on the planet, and the summary is just 18 pages long with lots of useful charts and graphs.

Answer 4

The data can be controversial, but more and more scientist have come to the conclusion that the world temperature is rising. Even the White House has stated that global warming is real, and a concern. The same white house that changed EPA reports to minimize the perceived threat of global warming.

Answer 5

For the millionth time, even Bush has said, again and again and again, that "global climate change" is a problem, although he's done nothing about it.

I really don't know what you're referring to about things having "all changed". No one ever said that the glaciers were going to all melt next month. This is along term trend.

You global warming deniers have about as much credibility as the people who say Bush planned 9/11.

Answer 6

Why is global warming a conservative vs liberal thing to begin with? Because 99% of the people out there have no basis for understanding any of the science involved and will just spout off whatever factoid their favorite talking head feeds them.

Answer 7

Didn't Gore make a website offering prize money if someone can prove global warming? Odd isn't it

Answer 8

What they are saying when they state that we are in a crisis is that they want to raise your tax payment and take more of your hard earned money.

Follow the money.

Answer 9

Simple.

They have all the facts. They carefully select certain facts and exclude others so that the sum supports a position for dismantling the industrial complex, democracy and the free market for the sake of anarchy or socialism.

They justify those dishonest means to an end that will diminish some for the sake of including others who have chosen not to participate.
In other words, people on both ends of the spectrum will have something they don't want forced on them and the environment will continue to change one way or the other in spite of it.

Answer 10

I don't know. I keep asking a question that no "global warming" proponent ever answers:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Anq16hwWMHWVUsn.LjyxeUjsy6IX?qid=20070820072240AAyibnJ

Maybe none of them can.