Who, amongst the global warming proponents on here, has an aggenda or 'world view'?

Question

Many times GW believers are told they have an aggenda, world view or some desire to create a new world order.

If you believe in manmade global warming, do any of these attributes apply to you?

Answer 1

I'm an old guy who has done well in life. I have children and grandchildren.

I'd like for others to have the opportunities I've had. If we do nothing and global warming hits full force, people will be scrambling to cope, and the present prosperity will be a memory.

Answer 2

no its ok you can do all the burning you want and those miles of glaciers that fall off and those bodys they keep finding that were in ice and those ski resorts that are now flowers really mean nothing cause it dont apply to you besides theres no real policy changes since people were on there roofs waveing for help at katrina and you can fill in all the wetlands you want and build houses like they are doing to the bay in san fran the water will magicly go somewere else that outline of a flooded truck underwater from the airial footage it was all just a dream you can drain all of it you want matter of fact maybee they should keep a bunch of people out of work not restore the everglades anytime soon instead of a 30yr restoration make it a slow mo mo any mo 60yr restoration and maybee have a marathon runner go back and forth with red tape and you carry the barricades and we can git nothing done then say daa point to everything than what it really is and then say daa how can we create jobs the answer pick up the recycleables and restore it how many rock

Answer 3

It doesn't start out as a political agenda.

The economy is a subset of the environment. You can’t have an economy without natural resources and a functioning biosphere. But our socio-economic system treats economics as separate from the environment; and that resources are unlimited. Capitalism does not protect the environment because Capitalism rewards people for exploiting the environment. Libertarianism does not protect the environment because it fails to consider the interconnectedness of society and the environment. Socialism is not Communism. Communism is just another form of totalitarianism, totalitarian collectivism. Socialism is democratic collectivism. Socialism forces us to work together for the benefit or all, regardless of the benefit or detriment to a particular individual or stakeholder. Of course, Socialism would take power away from current stakeholders and so they are vehemently opposed to it. The reason (as others have said) that people resist the new idea is because it goes against the vested interest. However, it this case the vested interest is the entire world economy and political system. The entire modern world civilization is based on cheap, concentrated energy - oil, coal and gas. There are entire treatises devoted to the rise of modern civilization and fossil fuels. Environmentalists are not crazed Communists trying to create a one world government to force you to submit to their wacky beliefs. They are trying to save the world, which means they are trying to save us from ourselves. If you think we don’t need to be saved from our destructive and unsustainable ways, then that is my definition of denial. Who has fomented this idea that the Socialists are using Environmentalism as a ruse to scare the masses into giving up their God given Capitalist freedoms? As soon as you realize that the economy is dependent on the environment you can see the argument for a sustainable socialistic system. Reactionary minds, searching for a rationalization, blame the messenger. In any case, we already live in a mixed economy, it's just a matter of degree.

So you see, if you are honest with yourself, it's difficult to separate the two issues of environment and politics. I believe that the deniers (and the rest of us who advocate half measures) can't accept the fact that we can't continue business as usual (politics or otherwise) and expect to survive.

Answer 4

NO! people who believe that global warming is a natural process, and in the past 200 years or so \we have effectively sped it up, do not want to create a new world order, but many of us do have an agenda. That is to make the world a safer, and cleaner place, by getting the world to go green.

Answer 5

No. for an identical reasons the others have given. I do, in spite of the undeniable fact that, locate it unusual that the AGW doubters bounce up and down and demonise Al Gore as a non-useful, non-professional, non-scientist as a effect not qualified to have an opinion approximately human beings's artwork yet then gaily trot out their very own non-useful, non-professional, non-scientist persons and assume us to alter our finished international view because of this guy or woman.

Answer 6

Oh Trevor, obviously none of us have a desire to bring about a new world order. That's just a silly exaggeration.

No, I think we would be happy with merely the downfall of the developed world. You see, first on our agenda is to funnel all of the west's money to developing nations. A turning of the tables, if you will, hopefully destroying America in the process. This goal will obviously be furthered by pushing AGW theory.

Another other goal of ours, of course, is to destroy the economy of developing nations like Africa and China, and funnel all of their money to the developed world. It should also be obvious how global warming will help us accomplish this, so I won't go into further detail.

There are also a small number of us who are hoping we can push through some considerable tax increases. After all, us global warmists don't pay taxes; in fact, we actually collect a large portion of them. No doubt, any extra money attained by raising taxes will go straight to our eagerly awaiting pockets.

And of course you of the scientific clique among us aren't to be left out in the cold either. Indeed, you may just be holding the long end of the proverbial stick.
Grant money. Glorious grant money! The reason a scientist becomes a scientist. It will flow like wine, Trevor, as long as people can be kept scared by your constant fear mongering. The idea of anthopogenic global warming fits only too well in your devilish little scheme.

I know we all signed a non-disclosure agreement when we joined The Conspiracy™, but I say it's time we let our true intentions be known.

Answer 7

Not I. My only motivation is the belief that you should leave things in the condition you got them, if not better. We got the planet in pretty good condition and have subsequently begun altering the climate in such a way that future generations will likely not have the benefit of the easy lifestyles we live.

We know we're doing this, and yet we're doing very little to minimize or reverse our damage. I think that's extremely irresponsible.

I suppose I'd fall under the category of "fooled by those who want to create a new world order". Of course, the people who designate these categories simply don't understand the science behind global warming.

Answer 8

Privately I have a schedule and an Agenda spanning 1 year
with a specific goal in mind
It relates to the issues discussed.

Apart from that
i function merely on behalf of the issues,in presently a minor way,

And spend too much time here trying to unbend minds that are probably best left bent

The new world Order is the epitome of oppression.
True freedom and Independence must start from the base line up,self sufficiency within sustainability
Not from the top down.

Answer 9

Pick me, pick me, I have got one, I have got one I have an agenda.

PERMACULTURE is my world view, Agenda. To HELP people live as self sufficiently on the smallest amount of land possible.
To leave the natural environment alone.
To promote Permaculture Ethics of Earth Care, Fair Shares and People care promote social justice, equality, less over consumption, self limiting overpopulation by limiting family size.
Less demand on finite resources, less man contributes to global warming.
Healthier environment for everybody, our children and grandchildren.

Answer 10

If we have an agenda in regards to GW, it would be to halt it so we can carry out our personal plans for our ife and our childrens'.
I don't agree with a monotheistic religion so I certainly won't be holding my breath for some new world government that wants ONE government over all.
As far as world view goes, obviously, most minds do not think alike so I think a 'world view' could be out-ruled w/o putting too much thought into it.