Is the global warming propaganda espoused by opportunists like Al Gore based on fear and faulty science?

Question

I have never believed that global warming is real. Neither do the real climatologists out there. Virtually every climate scientist who is not compromised by monetary gain does not see any warming taking place. How many believe it is a scam perpetrated by power-hungry creatures who pass themselves off as human?

Answer 1

Yes

Answer 2

The only climate scientists who stand to make money off taking a certain side are the deniers funded by Exxon Mobile.

There is virtually no skeptic who believes the warming isn't occuring--it's been proven.

What people debate is what the cause is.

Answer 3

"Several lines of evidence, including those outlined in the following sections, point to a strong human influence on climate. Although these individual lines of

evidence vary in their degrees of certainty, when considered together they provide a compelling

and scientifically sound explanation of the changes to Earth’s climate.

Bush Administration's report issued two days ago.

"Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States"

Answer 4

Nope.

Forget Gore.  The National Academy of Sciences is 1800 of the US best scientists, elected by their peers.  Being elected to the Academy is like winning the Oscar in science.  Few of them receive any funding related to global warming.

And they say it's real, and mostly caused by us.

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Answer 5

I feel the awnser lies in your instincts you should search within yourself and ask if this is true for me i have felt it everyday getting warmer and other countries suffering major catastrophies this is more than just an issue it is a plague

Answer 6

I think your argument is exactly backwards.  Here is some of the science involved from untainted organizations?. Do you have one credible reference?

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessmen...

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Answer 7

No, and that's the problem with allowing the "debate" to be centered on the science.  The science isn't faulty, but the scientific indications of global warming are being blatantly misused to promote schemes that can't work, so your suspicion of a money-making intent may still be right on the mark.  

Here's some of the evidence:

- We're told to focus on reduction of CO2 by developed nations, yet elementary school math shows that growth in the 80% of the world population not covered by all curent and proposed treaties (including growth in China and India) will easily wipe out all potential CO2 savings in the remaining 20%.  The failure of the current approach is measurable: measured CO2 levels have increased in spite of Kyoto.

- Each person has an impact on the carbon cycle, from cooking fires to heating homes to transportation, yet population growth is never discussed as a factor.

- Mankind's black carbon soot air pollution, such as Asia's "brown cloud", has been determined to have as much as 60% as much warming influence as CO2.  The removal of black soot takes effect almost immediately while CO2 remains a warming force in the air for hundreds to thousands of years.  

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

Yet CO2 is the poster child problem we're told to fix, instead of the easily addressed and proven step of cutting air pollution.

- The IPCC reports claim that human breathing is a "closed loop" that we should not be concerned with, because that CO2 comes from the crops we eat, which pulled that CO2 out of the air.  

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

However, those crops require cropland and land use changes as human population skyrockets.  Clearly with 6.6 billion people to feed today there has been a huge carbon cycle impact since 1970 when we only had 3.7 billion people on the planet to feed, or 1900 when we had 1.5 billion.  Here again the topic of population is avoided, hidden under the disguise of "land use changes", and we're expected to miss or ignore the cause of those changes.

So if a substantial portion of the problem boils down to population growth, and our most effective way of taking a first step would be to reduce black soot air pollution, why is the IPCC focusing so much on CO2, which we can't remove from the air and for which all current proposals result in a global increase in emissions(!)?  How stupid could we be?

I can't help but notice that the IPCC is a United Nations organization, and that population growth and black soot emissions (heavy industry and cooking fires) would require the third world to participate in a solution.  In fact, addressing CO2 clearly requires third world participation as well, but we're told to pay no attention to the guaranteed continued global CO2 increase behind the curtain.  The situation would be laughable if the consequences of climate change weren't so deadly serious.

The bottom line: current CO2-only, developed nation only proposals would be a fool's errand to pursue.  Claiming current CO2 treaties and tax proposals would address the problem is a blatant lie, one which needs to be exposed before we can get serious about addressing the problem.  By giving people false hope at a high financial cost, the U.N.'s designed-to-fail proposals may be more dangerous than the original problem itself.  

We have a shared, global responsibility for creating it, and only a shared, global effort will stand any chance of addressing it.

This is not a CO2-only issue; the current U.N. proposals only delay the day when all nations globally will recognize and work on reducing their share of the problem.

The U.N. nations that are exempt from CO2 treaties will enjoy lower manufacturing costs and stronger economies, and the U.N. politicians representing those countries are probably from the wealthiest local families that will benefit the most.  

In the U.S. we implement a new tax instead, so politicians can hand out the money to special interests in exchange for payoffs ("campaign contributions").

Corruption knows no boundaries.

In my opinion it's a grave tactical mistake to fight the science.  Let's stop wasting time and energy picking nits on the science, and see if we can agree to fight the blatant attempts to profit from absurd plans to target CO2 first, in developed countries only.  

We can't afford to get this wrong while we're also adapting to oil that will soon be 2X what it cost last year and 4-5X what it cost only 7 years ago.

Answer 8

No, it's based on sound science and basic fundamental physics:

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...

You claim the "real climatologists" agree with you.  Yet your one reference is written not by any climate scientists, but by the right-wing think tank Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, which has coincindentally received $445,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact...

And the book's editor - John Baden - is not a climatologist either, but an economist who has coincidentally served two terms on the National Petroleum Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Bad...

No conflict of interest or hidden agendas there!

So where are these supposed "real climatologists"?  Fact is, they simply don't exist.  Virtually all climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, as shown in the 'Consensus' section here:

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...

Answer 9

Global warming is real as another said most of us wouldn't be here if the last ice age had continued.  Surely we can all agree on that.  The SUV caused global warming crowd don't like to talk about the end of the last ice age because there were no SUV's or Industry to blame for a temperature increase on the order of 18 degrees as opposed to the 1 degree per century increase they are talking about now.

So no global warming is not a scam and yes some politicians are using it to further their marxist aims.  If global warming is naturally occuring and there is nothing we can do about it then, there would be no excuse for trampling individual rights and shifting power to a central authority.  Which is what its really about.  Its about a few marxist elite trying to leverage global warming to gain control of our everyday lives.  I say let freedom reign and I hope the current trend of the earth cooling continues so that the marxist will be exposed for what they are not green but reds.

Answer 10

Yes, but let us differentiate between global warming and manmade global warming. 6 billion of us are here because of global warming, there would not be so many of us if icecaps were covering New York and Manchester, which, it appears, has happened, believe it or not.

Answer 11

You forgot to list a single one of the so-called "real climatologists" that you claim exist.  And your link doesn't work either.

Here's a few real climatologists that think you are wrong:

David Archer University of Chicago

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/

Stephen Schwartz Brookhaven National Laboratory

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.ht...

Steven Sherwood Yale University

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/...

Stuart Jordan NASA

http://hsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/staff/bios/cs/S...

Kevin Trenberth National Center for Atmospheric Research

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.htm...

Kerry Emanuel MIT

http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/home.html

And here's at least 619 real climate scientists that seem to disagree with you:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/01/list-...

Answer 12

No