Is it a coincidence that AGW is blamed on the fuel required for man to develop further?

Question

Yes I've noticed that all these things your blaming AGW is all the stuff we use to develop like coal and oil and petrol and is that a coincidence or is there more meaning behind it? In this answer i'd like some AGW and skeptics to help answer this.

Answer 1

It's not a coincidence that fuels release carbon. It would be nice if they didn't. If we found a cheaper way to convert water to hydrogen we could use that with only water vapor as the exhaust. But carbon is cheap and easy, which is why it was used in the first place. No it's not a coincidence.

Answer 2

I think you have hit the proverbial 'nail on the head'!

I have suspected  the same thing for years now.

I am glad I'm not alone in my suspicion.

The believers in the AGW theory however, will not agree because most of them actually believe all of the BS and really think that man is causing a massive impact.

I would be on their 'bandwagon' also if I had their beliefs.

Fortunately, I understand some basic science, and believe in facts and not myths.

Answer 3

I'm a "greenie" as you put it, and I don't want to stop anyone from developing. As a property investor and an independently wealthy individual, I would like to keep making money, but do so in a way that doesn't damage the planet.

CO2 emissions just ARE responsible for climate change. The only serious people trying to convince us otherwise are the oil companies (in fact mostly just ExxonMobil) and the politicians that are in their pockets.

See here for information about scientific consensus on climate change ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_... ).

See here for information about ExxonMobil almost single-handedly funding the climate change denial movement ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20... )

The biggest part of research into so called "green" technologies is being done to try to find a way to keep our standard of living and economic growth without being reliant on fossil fuels. It has been well demonstrated that this can be done in the area of electricity production, and also in cement production (another major source of CO2). It is less easy to solve (but people are working on it) for transport.

Answer 4

Yes

Answer 5

I think you're confusing cause and effect but it's hard to tell exactly what your question is...

Burning fossil fuels = more greenhouse gases = climate change: Definitely not a coincidence but there isn't any more 'meaning' behind it - it's that clear and simple.

Answer 6

I can't give a straight yes to this question, since it seems more complicated than that. Have you noticed all the hate being lobed at the USA's proverbial head? They like blaming the USA for everything and this is just the newest thing they can find to try and pin mainly on the USA.

I think you're aware that the UN is the loudest voice trying to convince people of this lie. The UN is the biggest force that dislikes the USA, due to the fact we went into Iraq. If you'll also notice they haven't blocked India or China from building new power plants and these plants are from outdated blueprints and don't have all the technologies that the USA has put into our powerplants to clean up the emissions coming out of them.

That's why China is starting to see an awful pollution problem.

I realize India and China are still developing countries (Although in my humble opinion China should've been leaps and bounds ahead of us, due to how advanced their culture was during the middle ages.) and supposedly can't afford the newest technologies. But I keep thinking isn't it cheaper to build the best instead of having to go back in and upgrade the plants they built?

So in actuality it is only the USA that they want to bring down that's why we didn't want to sign the Kyoto treaties, but I think they finally forced the USA to do it this year, since they were afraid of the truth of their lies showing up, before they cornered the USA into believing that AGW was occuring.

I'm not saying we haven't gotten some good out of this farce, like looking for good sources of alternative energy. Like Solar Energy, I knew about his technology when I was in 7th grade when I did an english paper about it, which was  a very long time ago. And vehicles that use less gasoline (E85 is a joke so don't buy into it) and powercells (I'm looking forward to this one.) I also think it's cool that they are looking at creating car seat foam out of soybeans (Although I want to call that car company and tell them to take out the use of the word NOW from it's commercial, since people hate being told what to do.)

Okay I'm going to get off my soapbox now, but I did appreciate you giving me a platform to let you know what I think is going on.

Answer 7

The reason is that any organization strives to perpetuate its existence long after the original reason for its creation no longer applies.  The environment has been steadily improving through the 20th century to the point where the biggest threats (deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, toxic chemical waste) were abated by the 1970s.  The environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club needed to invent a new threat in order to maintain their funding and influence and the AGW scare was ideal for that purpose because it enabled them to label CO2, a trace gas that is essential to life, as a pollutant.  Since it is impossible to stop CO2 emissions without destroying the human race, the AGW theory guarantees that there will always be "pollution" to fight.

Answer 8

Scientists concerns over CO2 causing GW originated in the 19th century. I hardly think that could have been caused by greenies or any desire to stifle development because the US was "evil".  And further concern came about during the mid-20th century through research by military scientists.

Sometimes, even extremists like greenies can be on the right side of an issue. It doesn't mean they created the issue, it just means they recognized the scientific truth of global warming fell into the umbrella of environmental concerns.

Answer 9

I think mankind can develop further once it finds alternatives to fossil fuels, which will be essentially gone by the end of this century.  Almost every country in the world produces more oil sometime in the past than it does now, so we can see the end of oil isn't far away.  With coal it's a little murkier, there are lots of claimed reserves, but the actual reserves may be far less.  I definitely don't believe fossil fuels are the energy source of the future.