Is the global warming movement a perversion of the Unabomber Manifesto's goals?

Question

http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm

Answer 1

No!  Global warming is an inaccurate description of a serious matter in which AAAS, NAS, and USCAP all agree. We need to prepare for drastic weather changes now.

Answer 2

It's funny you mentioned this, because I was talking to Teddy one day, and I asked him if he thought that global warming was a perversion of his Manifesto's goals.  He said " Glabble glurk uhhhh, SCLORCH!" He then bit me on the calf and I needed a crowbar to pry his jaws from my leg.  Besides the tetanus shots, I found it to be quite an insightful  discussion.

Answer 3

This is a very interesting question. There are some interesting details there, but I will answer your question with a few points of TRUTH about global warming:

1. In everything we have learned about history, the planet has went in short-term 11-15 year cycles, and long-term 10,000 year cycles or so, when the planet has gone from hot, to cold, to hot, to cold, etc.

2. The historical record of these transisiton dates back millions of years in some cases that we have been able to extrapolate the temperatures of the planet through ice, rock, and fossil records.

3. The planet at this moment is not nearly as hot as other points in the past (since animals and wildlife have prospered the earth).

4. There is a great debate and a lot of scientific proof that CO2 levels rise as an after-effect of the planet warming, not the other way around.

5. The "hole" in the ozone-layer above Antarctica has all but completely disappeared (according to NASA) since NASA's first photos of it in the '80's.

6. Although there has been ice melting in the northern hemisphere, the continent of Antarctica as a whole has been colder (and record-cold at the center of it) in the last two years compared to any other point in our records.

7. Scientists agree that the LACK of harsh pollutants in our atmosphere could potentially cause this warming... these natural pollutants include dust and noxious gas from volcano eruptions, meteor impacts, etc. Man-made circumstances would include coal-burning and other "dirty" activity from mineral energy usage, or land-based nuclear explosions. The more pollutants in the air, the less sunlight reaches the ground, causing "global cooling," or "nuclear winter." ... this has not been apparent.

Take it as you will, but there are many people, politicians, and countries that easily profit off of the "global warming" kick. Even in 2007, the head of NASA said something to the effect that he couldn't make any comment on the theory of it at all because "How do we know that the climate we live in now is or is not the ideal climate for our planet?"

If the planet's average temperature rose a few degrees more, it would not be enough to flood the earth or even come close. It owuld however, modify the climate enough that the forcast of heat-exposure related deaths worldwide would rise by 35,000 per year, but the winter-related deaths on the planet would drop by over 150,000 per year... that's a difference of 115,000 people a year who would not be killed by freezing to death, compared to those who die from excessive heat exposure.

It's up for interpretation, but there is NO smoking gun behind "global warming." There is more evidence to support that it is the effect of the sun and the planet itself balancing itself during a time of little or no adverse activity, like volcanos, meteor impacts, etc... including the fact that the solar output from the sun is constantly increasing, and CO2 levels (as thown from THOUSANDS of years ago) are natural effects from temperatures rising, not the other way around.

Do some research online, and yes, there is a conspiracy, but a little bit of digging shows just how many people are profiting immensely from promoting this claim of man-made "global warming." A very hipocritical Al Gore is just one of many many examples.

Don't get me wrong, I think we should do every part we can to preserve the environment. But I also think that our actions are very insignificant compared to a much bigger picture of what this planet constantly moderates itself to. Unless we start a nuclear war, we cannot drastically effect the planet that quick, if much at all. We have not approached the point yet of even putting a dent in our environment. We should plant more trees, and more importantly... stop killing each other. But the fact is, this planet will not kill us from our actions... we will kill ourselves long before that anyway.

Answer 4

Wow, that is one crazy long manifesto!  it is amazing the things you have time for when you lock yourself in a cabin in the middle of nowhere.  I didn't even have time to read it. I guess in ways ole Teddy was right, except the big difference i noticed it he seemed to hate the left and socialism where as the AGW freaks seem to embrace socialism.

Answer 5

The environmentalist movement and the unabomber have some similar views of the world. The difference I see is that the unabomber was a terrorist that detested scientists and the technology they developed, because he saw the scientists as self serving and the technology as destructive. The environmentalists have found a way to use science and the scientists to promote their socialist agenda.