Global warming deniers oppose action on global warming because of political implications and not science...?

Question

What are some of the political implication that comes with dealing with this problem?

I’ve outlined a few below:

Political implications include the costs incurred with reinvesting in America’s infrastructure (transportation, energy production); eliminating our addiction to oil will also eliminate the necessity of military bases around the world and the occasional show of force in the Middle East and elsewhere; they are scared of regulations (which they see as “an attack on freedom”) for such things as CAFÉ standards (fuel efficiency), dirty coal (which for the short term would increase electricity costs); moral questions such as if Americans are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, then are we also mostly responsible for impacts such as decreased fresh water availability in countries that rely on glacial and snow melt, decreased crop yields in Africa, spread of tropical diseases?, etc…

What are some other implications?

Answer 1

The very concept of "Global" warming is a political scare tactic.  Having seen the weather in the U.S. Pacific Northwest cool drastically over the last 10 years is proof in and of itsself.   That the climate is changing is a given, Vostok ice cores prove it (historical data), Malcovich proves it (Earth orbit physics)  Just what percentage of the climate change is due to the burning of fossil fuel is the big political football  and rife with government paid testimonial.  Follow the money trail....  (thank you Mr Gore)

Answer 2

Wrong.  Even if no political action were planned, science clearly shows solar cycles are linked to Earth's climate change.  Man can not explain the force linking the two, but CO2 has been ruled out as the likely culprit.

Answer 3

Why would you think we oppose GW on political grounds (only). Some of us oppose them for three simple reasons ---

1. Even the scientists say we need to cut carbon emissions by more than 50% in order to effect a change in the global atmospheric concentration of CO2--- this action would throw the world economy into a DEPRESSION and cost (by their estimates) up to 50 TRILLION dollars.

2. No one anywhere has indicated what the optimum temperature of the Earth should be-- probably because there is NO optimum temperature.

3. No one has the slightest idea what actual affect altering the global concentration of CO2 will have on the Earth's climate. In other words they do not know where the thermostat is located!

Answer 4

There's the issue of being the largest contributor to global warming (overall) and yet being the only industrialized country  not to ratify Kyoto, and the one holding up international emissions reductions agreements.

There's the political consequences of delaying action in addressing global warming, which will just make our response that more expensive down the road.

Answer 5

Actually virtually everyone ignores what science tells us to do about the problem.  Even scientists.

Science tells us that reducing soot from burning is our fastest and least expensive first step to combat global warming.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/...

http://www.igsd.org/docs/BC%20Briefing%2...

Unfortunately soot is primarily a developing nation issue, so the U.N. advocates insufficient CO2 emission cuts instead that fail to address the problem instead of pursuing the most easily addressed culprits: black soot emissions and global population growth.

We can't pretend that only deniers avoid the science while China, the world's largest CO2 emitter, shows from their published 1990-2004 CO2 emissions growth that they on track to have 8X the emissions of the U.S. by 2050 and 2X the per capita emission rate by then (assuming the U.S. passes Lieberman-Warner for a 66% emissions cut by 2050).  Politicians around the world are rushing to get in on the wealth redistrubution.

That's the legacy we have from the IPCC and Kyoto, and the complete lack of incentives for developing nations to limit emission.  Now that we've institutionalized that unrealistic and unworkable scenario, it will be very hard to bring developing nations into any substantive agreement.

Here's one result:

Unemployment rate jumps to 5.5 percent in May, biggest rise since 1986; payrolls cut again

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080606/economy.h...

Essentially we're asking the poor in developed countries to shoulder the brunt of the cost for a problem they did not cause, so we can let 80% of the world population off the hook (including the richest residents of developing nation cities such as Hong Kong).  That's not equitable or ethical.

Answer 6

if global warming is such a huge problem, and is truly man made, then why did the kyoto protocals exempt countries like china(currently the worlds largest polluter) and india? why did the bali talks also exempt china and india? why is europe building 40 NEW coal to gasoline power plants? why is china opening a NEW coal fired electric power plant every two weeks? why is brazil drilling for oil off its coast?

the answer to all of the above questions is that the wacko environmentalists and the liberals in congress care NOTHING about the people of this country. they care ONLY about power. and if ruining the US economy can give them the power they want, then that is what they will do.

by the way, while our oil companies are not allowed to drill for oil off the coast of america, CHINA IS drilling 50 miles off the coast of key west. we need to tell congress to get off their butts and allow the energy companies in this country to work towards energy independence for this country.

Answer 7

I can think of two...

- The economy: a lot of people think it would be a huge blow to the American economy to shift the focus towards clean energy

- You've got countries like Russia that want global warming because it could lead to more crop land and the possibility of drilling for oil in the arctic

Answer 8

Have you ever thought of the many advantages that come with supporting man-made global warming? Why don't you be fair and accept scientific debate?

Answer 9

1.)Total and unpredictable( panic), promoted by extremist. 2.)The lack of credibility, from those that have no clear cut or defined recourse's/solutions. 3.)Those that wish only to play on the fears of others. 4.) Using speculation as a instrument of discord. 5.) Using isolated instances to express demise. 6.) Self gratification at others expense whether for monetary gain or not.