Is global warming a liberal plot to force us to have clean air and water?

Answer 1

Hmm, lets see.

Liberals have blocked the construction of nuclear power plants for 30 years.

But they are ok with the construction of fossil fuel power plants.

The same fossil fuel power plants that are the largest contributor of green house gas's on earth.

Yep, sounds real clean air to me.

I guess thats why the Clean Air Act was Republican legislation..

Those liberal Republicans wanted clean air and water.

Answer 2

What's this 'force us to have' business, Leroy. My problem with the whole global warming crowd is the fact that the United States has some of the strictest pollution control laws and arguably the cleanest factories in the world. And, we're constantly working to make them even cleaner. Anyone who was around back in the sixties would recognize the remarkable change.

So the problem is, these whack jobs are preaching to the wrong people. They think if we make our factories and cars even cleaner that we can compensate for the incredible volume of poisons produced by Russia, China and India, to name but a few. They need to be talking to those guys and so the question is, why don't they? Because it's too far from the nearest starbucks and they wouldn't listen anyway.

Answer 3

The "Global Warming" campaign is a really bad way to do the right thing. I think that "Global Warming" is based on junk science and falsified data. Even scientists admit it is a theory. However I think some of the things that "we must do to save the earth from global warming" are good ideas for other reasons:
1. I replaced all of the bulbs in my house that are not on dimmers with compact florescent bulbs. This reduces my power bill, pollution from power plants and may help to slow the need to build additional power plants.
2. I am the person at home that makes sure the outside doors and windows are closed when we are heating the house. This saves me money on natural gas used to heat the house.
3. I am the person at home that turns off lights in empty rooms and other unused appliances such as TVs. See #1
4. I car pool half way to work and take the bus the rest of the way. This saves gas and therefore cost me less money.
5. I turn off the water while I am brushing. This reduces my water bill.

I'm not out to save the earth based on "global warming"; I'm out to save a buck. I believe that bucks are limited.

The problem with using "global warming" as a battle cry is that sooner or later the scientific community will come out with an opposing theory (remember global cooling in the 70's). If everyone is doing the right thing because of "global warming" they will stop when it is proved false.

Answer 4

properly, it isn't. that is an incorrect concept it extremely is getting used to push for draconian and severe priced legislations that no longer purely received't benefit the alleged objective, yet ought to reason well-known human suffering in failing to achieve that objective. There are too many scientists who question the alarm. there has been no open medical debate. pressure and intimidation were used to target to silence critics of the global warming hysterics. this can make a rational human being get somewhat skeptical about the reality of global warming, and question if there changed into extra hysteria and hype than documents.

Answer 5

What?? Do you need to be forced to have clean air and water??

Global warming is a scientific issue, not a political one.

Answer 6

Yep, damned liberals will stop at nothing to deny our right to breathe CO, NOx, , to deny us our rights to drink polychlorinated byphenyls, heavy metals, TCE, MBTB, or any of the other tasty flavorings we've grown fond of. How would we know we are breathing if the air has no smell? How do we now we are drinking if the water has no taste?

Well, barring a major effort on the part of the environment, at least we'll always have New Jersey.

Answer 7

The hysteria will never end.

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted: "‘Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise."

In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."

"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again." That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade." The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."

On February 19, 2006, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. "60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was "0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average."

In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

Answer 8

Yes; how dare they try to keep the planet fit for human habitation? Next thing you know they'll be trying to promote some other new-fangled thing like the Bill of Rights! LOL

Answer 9

It's a liberal plot to force us against capitalism and to live in a more primitive state.

Answer 10

So you have to be forced into clean air and water?..... Next thing ya know they'll want you to be happy too