Is Global Warming a socialist conspiracy?

Question

This is a quote from an article discussing a new proposal at the current UN Climate Summit. ---

The scheme outlined in "The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World" reiterates what climate scientists have been stating - emergency action must be taken to halt the rise in CO2 emissions.

However, the report emphasises that the global response, "must take care that it does not threaten to lock in today's vast disparities of wealth and income. Just the contrary: It must drive down emissions globally, even while the lives of the poor are improving and ambitious development goals are being met and surpassed.

"To this end, it must slash the emissions of the already wealthy and, at the same time, prevent the unbounded emissions growth of those rising out of poverty. And it must do so without stifling their development aspirations."

---

Sounds like a socialist conspiracy to me. I hope America doesn't agree to this.

Answer 1

Yes, why should we be bothered with these trivial things. So what the planet is getting warmer, seas will rise, animals will die, future generations will have it harder. I'm not going to live enough to be here when that happens so why should I care?!? There's always Mars right?

That was sarcasm btw...

Answer 2

"To this end, it must slash the emissions of the already wealthy and, at the same time, prevent the unbounded emissions growth of those rising out of poverty. And it must do so without stifling their development aspirations."

The truly alarming thing about that statement is that if implemented, a system that punishes the United States will not affect the truly wealthy at all, but it will hurt the making-ends-meet middle class as the cost of essential items goes up, and as the industries that employ us are impacted.

Consider the American poor... any increased cost of energy and goods will absolutely slam them, but on a global scale the UN would consider them rich, so they're out of luck?

If "development aspirations" mean developing a higher impact lifestyle, and we've just realized that's killing the planet for humans, what inherent right does any country have to "develop" using the current damaging technologies, at the expense of all other humans on the planet?

As a species it appears that we may need a "time out" from development to see how climate change progresses (regardless of what causes it), and as we try to figure out what causes it (looks like CO2, but could involve other factors), and while we try to figure out how to react (at least handle rising oceans).

Any UN agenda of social engineering that includes the redistribution of wealth should be completely off our plate for the moment. If this truly is a global emergency, it's not the time for indulging in special interests and agendas.

There are a lot of statements being made that claim that what we need to change is our "lifestyle," as if our lives involved a lot of frequent and frivolous choices that we could change if only our mindset were different.

How will any of us substantively change our "lifestyle" since in the big picture what we're really talking about involves the houses we live in (but typically own only 10-20% of and can't easily replace), the jobs we commute to (but we didn't individually choose the regional planning to place), the power plants that are in operation and can't easily or quickly be replaced, and a lot of other historical quirks that people going about their daily lives don't individually choose?

Answer 3

There are three basic conspiracy theories about global warming.

1. Left wing - who use it as anti-capitalist propaganda

2. right wing - who use it to suppress competition from a developing third world.

3. Medieval environmentalists - Who romanticise the peasant way of life before any powered machinery.

You pays your money and takes your choice.

Considering all the political interests the science becomes irrelevant.

As a biologist with 30+ years experience in environmental science, I think that both the degree of warming, and the contribution of man's activity have been grossly exaggerated, for the above combination of reasons.

Answer 4

Has anyone here heard this in the "main stream news media"?

U.N. Blackballs International Scientists from Climate Change Conference - from:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22401
"The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN's alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming. As the debate on man-made global warming has been heating up, the UN has tried to freeze out the scientists and new evidence, summarily dismissing them with the claim "the science is settled.""

If you haven't heard this in the "News" - then maybe there is a CONSPIRACY by the Biased towards Socialism news media?

Answer 5

The AGW theory as presented by the IPCC is a very bad attempt at a conspiracy, but they have managed to make it a minor political issue, that does not appear to be a major concern to the general public in the U.S., otherwise you would hear more about in the bickering between presidential candidates.

Answer 6

Yes. Environmentalists secretly installed big heaters at the north pole to melt it so they can hold the world ransom for...one millions dollars!

Answer 7

No. Here's proof.

The following want you to call them. They're very angry about being called "socialists".

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"Republican governors team up against global warming"

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Republican_Governors_team_up_against_Global_0716.html

"the overwhelming number of scientists now believe that there is significant human cause,'' Giuliani said, adding the debate on the existence of global warming "is almost unnecessary ... ''

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/13/GIULIANI.TMP

"(from Republicans for Environmental Protection) The consensus of almost all climate scientists is that global warming is already happening, that human actions are causing it, and that it will cause major problems for our planet."

http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html

Answer 8

I will even be less polite and say that SOME COUNTRIES HAVE A REAL CULTURE OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES...

There are countries where people believe they can become an expert on a given topic by watching youtube movies while being barely able to do simple math.

TODAY, THE US BEATING THE US at what it´s the best for: conspiracy theories

Answer 9

Yes. Global warming is a political issue. There is very little science that supports the theory.

This is the reason why liberals overwhelming support government action in finding a solution. If it were scientific, all that would be required in to identify and replace high emitting ghg's sources.

But instead, the liberals demand signing of the Kyoto treaty which does nothing to cure global warming, while at the same time they prevent the building of nuclear power plants.

Answer 10

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, environmentalists want people (especially those living in capitalist countries) to believe their conduct is causing global warming and, thus, destroying our planet. Therefore, environmentalism has capitalism in its crosshairs. It is those of us who benefit from the fruits of Western Civilization that are being turned into enemies in the daily sociological and political discourse of environmentalists. Americans, including President Bush, must come to understand that environmentalism is a serious threat. If we succumb to the global warming propaganda being thrust upon us daily (with our left-wing press wittingly or not being used as the primary tool of terror/propaganda), then Green Socialism stands a chance of dismantling Western Civilization and throwing us back into the dark ages. Our rights to life, liberty, and property are at stake here.