What is the REAL reason for the global warming hoax?

Question

Greed or Power?

Answer 1

Neither, because climate isn't affected by individual biases.

The facts and the graphs don't lie, temperature is rising:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instr...

And CO2 is the most likely culprit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

Answer 2

Money and power of course...  and the hope that a legacy may occur as a result.

Answer 3

My guess:  To create another parasitic financial derivative product known as Carbon Credits.

The current derivative market is only $500 TRILLION and that is not enough........lol

Warren Buffet has been warning about this for years

Answer 4

Starbucks Coffee.

The corporate honchos at Starbucks decided to start the Great Global Warming Hoax so they could justify raising the price of a tall to $1.90.

The b******s.

Answer 5

The Bush administration just released their summary:  

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

It says:

"Several lines of evidence, including those outlined in the following

sections, point to a strong human influence on climate"

"An increasing body of scientific research supports the conclusion that, while greenhouse gases

are but one of many factors that affect climate, they are very likely the single largest cause of the recent warming."

"This evidence suggests a substantial human contribution to recent hurricane activity."

This is from that bastion of liberal tree-hugging that is our current administration.  I don't think they have anything to gain by this.

Answer 6

Al Gore's insatiable lust for power.

Answer 7

I've thought about this a lot, and have come to the conclusion that the real reason for the global warming hoax is Al Gore's father.

He didn't wear a condom when he should have.

Answer 8

The warmnig part isn't a hoax, but the serious scientific indications of global warming are being blatantly misused to promote a very dangerous agenda.  

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 as 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.

Answer 9

Political greed (Al Gore), Greed for Money (kyoto pact), and Power. All that.

Answer 10

There are actually four reasons in play.

Power = Al Gore

Greed = Foolish Corporations believing they can profit from the Socialist mentality that will eventually destroy all capitalism.

Ignorance = Dupes that will only read one perspective and believe CO2 is more important than El Ninos & La Ninas.

Eugenics = Depopulation for the sake of 'Mother Earth' - Gaia Theory - James Lovelock.  

The Alarmists Dupes all parrot the same thing - "the world is overpopulated".

Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Ar...

See the same Crackpot Scientists today active in the AWG movement given credibility by the leftists news media.

Answer 11

It's both. But it isn't global warming that's a hoax. The hoax is Anthropogenic Global Warming. Global Warming is only one half of the natural climatic cyclic changes the other half is global cooling.

What I think we humans are starting to witness is an increased pattern of these two cycles. Why it's happening faster I couldn't say for sure, but I'd first point to the sun and see if its cycles have increased. Then I'd look at if the El Nino and El Nina patterns are starting to increase in frequency. Both of these two things cause the overall climate to fluctuate from colder to warmer and back again.

Answer 12

to make more people aware cause we are very close  to that point of that hoax becoming reality...i say power.

Answer 13

Greed and power.  None of the people pushing global warming would do so if they did not make money from the issue, either by book sales, speaking engagemnts, or nobel prizes.  And none of the others would push the "idea" is they did not get recognition in magazines and press coverage.  If they were gaining nothing, they would be a little more believable.

Answer 14

In British Columbia, the pine beetle is moving northwards, killing pine forests as it goes.  All it takes is a few days of really cold weather to kill them, but it's just not getting cold like that any more.  It's heartbreaking to see hundreds of square miles of green turning red, then dry brown.

If that's part of a hoax, I'd sure like to know how they managed to pull that one off!

Answer 15

I suppose all the scientists and information technology people could get jobs doing something else, so that must not be it . . .

Maybe too many slow news days?  

No earthquakes, no rigged elections, no hurricanes?