Who is politicizing the issue more?

Question

1.) A political movement spearheaded by politicians and talk radio hosts who have never taken a science class in their lives who insist that an overwhelming science concensus concerning an issue which threatens the well being of the planet is wrong for reasons they faintly and only shallowly understand at best.

2.) Or the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who look at the data and agree that AGW is a serious problem that needs to be addressed and have a political spokesperson (Gore) who translates their findings in a way the public can understand and in a way in which these same scientists agree is well done and accurate?

Answer 1

You don't know that Gore's movie is a lie. Some of the ice sens were computer generated and not true.

Answer 2

The UN funded and pro AGW folks.

Answer 3

you forgot 3) the crazy whacko neo-commies who hate our system, and are using the environment to achieve their political aims.

Love Jack

Answer 4

Yea - Instead we should listen to well educated men of science like Prince Charles who says we only have 18 months until the world ends,

Or Ted Turner, that genius in climatology who says that by 2030 everyone will be cannibals because it will be too hot to grow crops,

Or the pothead Algore who's family made their fortune from their ownership in Occidental Petroleum who for the last 30 years has told us that we have just 10 years to act,

Or the genius Dr. Stephen Hawkins who tells us that temperatures will be 450 degrees and raining sulfuric acid.

Let's see who's accurate.  Let the warmers tell us what the temperature of the climate is going to be in 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years from now.  If they're right, then we should listen to them.

But since none of their predictions from increased hurricanes to increased temperatures have come true it proves they have no idea what they are talking about.  Face it, not even you would place a bet that people will be cannibals in the near future.

Answer 5

Those who wish to pass laws and regulations over the issue, of course.

Answer 6

Al gore, no brainer.

Answer 7

So you think Gore is a science expert and not a politician.  Thats a good one.  Thanks.  I needed a laugh this morning.

Answer 8

I think it is being politicized most by:

1.  Eco-Political figures such as Al Gore that I believe has about as much science knowledge as my beloved grandmother and by scientists who are paid by the government to come up with pre-desired outcomes.  Most meteorological research is funded by the federal government and those scientists who want to get federal funding had better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because they stand the chance of not getting funded.

2.  Actually I think the majority of meteorologists do NOT believe in AGW.  It is interesting how many of the scientists who subscribe to AGW are not involved in meteorology.  One of the things that meteorologists understand is that weather models are so complex that it can be difficult to predict what the weather will do beyond the next 48 hours.  The belief in man-made global warming goes down as the knowledge of meteorology goes up.  One citation estimated that 90 - 95% of TV meteorologists who work daily on the study of weather do not agree with AGW.

Edit:  Nice Bubba, I appreciate your put-down.  Yes, thank you, I do know what a meteorologist is, do you?  Many of the TV weathermen are meteorologists and members of the AMS.  I am not a meteorologist but did take two meteorology classes.  One of the meteorologists I talked to back in November of 1990 was the state meteorologist for a western state.  This was before the global warming issue was so "hot"  (pun intended).  I have had extensive conversations with 2 meteorologists over a number of years. They both say that there is incredible pressure on them and their associates to "toe" the line from scientists and others who are not meteorologists and do not have the same background.  In their eyes this is politicizing the issue instead of using valid science and specifically the science of meteorology. They decry that politicization.  One example of what happens is that a chemist will say that he knows what happens in a lab or closed system with carbon dioxide and other reactants.  That is all fine and good according to the metorologists, BUT it does not account for many other factors involved in climatology.  There are many other examples, but because a scientist is a specialist in chemistry or other science field definitely does not mean they have an understanding of all the factors that influence climate.  In fact what other scientists know of their field of speciality can seriously mislead them when they try to migrate over to meteorology and climatology.

Answer 9

There is absolutely no doubt that the 'skeptics' are the ones politicizing the issue.  When was the last time you even heard an AGW proponent mention Gore?  It's the 'skeptics' who talk about Gore on a daily basis, while the proponents always have scientific references.

In fact, the only reason the 'skeptics' are 'skeptics' is for political reasons.  Just look at their Q/As.  They're almost universally political with virtually no scientific content.  In comparison, virtually the only time proponents bring up political issues is to

a) point out that most conservatives agree with the AGW consensus, to disprove a denier who is claiming it's all a communist plot to take over the world.

b) discuss solutions to the problem, which to a large degree must be political.

I also find it amusing that Stanley is so obsessed with me, yet doesn't seem to listen to anything I say.  In particular, this question from over a month ago disproves his entire rant:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 10

Before Mr. Gore made a so called documentary that was designed to scare people, global warming was not the emotionally charged issue it is today.  The fact that your liberal and do not like right winged talk radio personalities only shows your bias about what you chose to believe.  For me I will side with  John Christy when it comes to global warming and he is a climatologist.

Answer 11

Politicians who listen to the environmental alarmists and want to do all sorts of things to reduce global warming without looking at the consequences these actions will have on the average american.  I'm all for clean and alternative energy, but it needs to be readily available, affordable, and reliable.  We cannot tax, carbon trade, or conserve our way out of the problem without wrecking our economy.  We need to keep using our current forms of energy, and expand production and use of them to keep energy at affordable and reliable levels until alternative energy sources can be implemented at a level to meet our needs.

Answer 12

The Warmers are.... of course!  I have to give them credit..... they have done a masterful job of marketing the AGW craze.  A lot of fairly intelligent folks have been conned by the Madison Avenue tactics of the Warming Cult.

And by the way..... when are the Warmers going to apologize for the Ethanol s***w-up???.......... it's just hilarious that they are going to have to buy carbon credits to off-set the additional pollution caused by the process of putting ethanol into our vehicles!!

"•I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute

Answer 13

Wow, you really know how spin your questions. Obviously there is no convincing you of anything. Looks like this is a politicized question in and of itself. Good job!

Answer 14

1) Most of the radio talk show hosts have interviewed many climatologists who are skeptics.  They have also asked the doom sayer climatologist to appear on the same show, but the doom sayers refuse to appear on the same talk show with the skeptics.  So their info comes from qualified experts, and not something that they have made up, as you claim.

2)  There is no overwhelming majority of climatologists who support doomsday scenarios.  The problem is that doom sayers have been saying this peace of propaganda for twenty years now.  In other words they have been saying this things, way before the study of climate science even began.  Why would they do that, unless there was political motivation.

Answer 15

The scientist have already won.  It is an issue and people are seriously thinking about it.  They will continue working to get better information to make decisions with, but it is in the forefront of politics now.

The issue of "is AGW occurring?" is over for the political establishment too.  The Republican party as finally accepted the science and gotten over the Al Gore thing.  The debate is now shifting to what are reasonable courses of action to take.  That may really get nasty (compared to "Is AGW occurring?").  

Talks show host care about ratings, not about science.  They will say anything to get a rise.  Politicians will pander.  They will eventually fall in line because the science is in.  They will see the opportunity to claim "leadership" on the issue.  Bush is a great example.

Answer 16

Those are some quality answers up there.  My favorite is the one who says you claim Gore is a scientific expert when in fact you explicitly refer to Gore as the political spokesperson.  Talk about not reading for comprehension.

Most skeptics are skeptics because of the politics.  Meaning they find reasons to disbelieve the science because they don't like the socio-political implications.  Here is an example of a usenet skeptic who continually calls for experimental verification of the greenhouse effect.  So someone dug out a paper where they had actually measured the effect of CO2 on longwave IR transfer through the atmosphere (in effect, they measured the "shadow" of the radiative forcing from anthropogenic CO2):

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.globa...

and the skeptic calls the paper, which appeared in Nature,  "propaganda."  Clearly, this skeptic, like most skeptics, is incapable of objective analysis.  His objections to climate change are political and emotional, not rational.  The answers to your question listed above reflect this mindset.