Why against protecting the Earth?

Question

Why is it that the only people who seem to think this are completely stupid or completely ignorant to any form of science? I understand the reason why oil companies are against saving the planet but I have no idea why individuals are against doing something good.

If you don't agree with Global warming can't you at least agree that the things to combat it are good: Clean air, clean water, more green areas for children to play, better fuel efficiency (lower costs of living), lower power consumption is only a good thing no?

Answer 1

This doesn't seem like a question, regardless:

Clean air?  since when was c02 a pollutant?

More green areas?  c02 enhances plant growth.

There is no evidence at all we are responsible for the current warming.  Ignorant to science?  Or are you?  Google:  inconveinient truth innaccuracies.    Also, here:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Science is supposed to be neutral and open to all forms of evidence.

I'm not against protecting the planet.  I'm against brainwashing the masses and degradation of science.

I'm also against spending billions to protect it from mythical threats, when that money could be better spent lifting poverty from Africa.

Who do you want to save:  People, or Earth?  (The earth has been in much hotter periods anyway, it'll survive) because that's really what it boils down to.

Answer 2

The points you make about 'Clean air, clean water, more green areas for children to play, better fuel efficiency (lower costs of living), lower power consumption........' are issues which everyone wishes to see!

None of these issues have anything to do with 'Global Warming' however.

The fact is that your first 3 issues 'Clean air, clean water, more green areas for children to play' are all local issues.

As far as clean air and water is concerned, the US cleaned up their act many years ago, as have most of the developed nations.

In the 1960's for example, Lake Erie was a dead lake.

In fact, it was so bad that it was not right to call it a lake anymore. It literally was just a huge open cesspool which all industrial waste and sewage was being dumped.

Action was taken to stop this abuse of nature and is now recovered.

As far as your comments about 'better fuel efficiency (lower costs of living), lower power consumption', these are technical issues which are being addressed, developed, and improved all of the time.

The question quite often is, 'At what cost are people willing or capable of paying for it'?

Again, this has nothing to do with 'Global Warming'.

There are many things that mankind has to answer for, and many things that are within his grasp to improve, but 'Global Warming' is NOT one of them.

If there was even a shred of actual scientific evidence that mankind was able to impact the environment on a global scale, I would be much more vocal than Al Gore and his type.

After all I live here too!

I have no vested interests to protect!

If you can avoid the trap of 'Following someone who is following someone who is lost', then you will be on your way to much better things, and begin worrying about the important issues that you can have some control over.

Answer 3

I agree with Peter Reefman that there is a "denialist" mentality whose leadership has either a political or financial stake in the debate.  It boggles my mind to read or listen to irrational rhetoric trying to establish their credibility as being equal to peer-reviewed scientific debate.  

My personal thought is that nuclear energy is going to have to play a more significant role in our overall energy and climate solutions.  Big oil and government played their roles in the misuse of nuclear energy and propaganda against nuclear energy; effectively making the term "nuclear" synonymous with evil, dark and bad.  A number of years ago, I was a Naval Flight Instructor and we were having a conversation in the ready room about nuclear power.  One particular instructor was going off about how opposed he was to the U.S. having nuclear reactors.  I asked him why, to which he replied "because it is bad."  I asked him why it is bad.  His response was, "because everyone knows it is bad."  Oh, my.

My point is that the masses will follow whomever they believe will provide them the most easy solution with the lowest personal cost.  Our trouble is that it is too easy for those in power to manipulate the public mindset.  We definitely need a collection of individuals to rally behind the truth, whatever that may be.

Answer 4

Nobody is against protecting the planet and nobody is against improving energy efficiency.

If Nicholaus Stern of the world bank gets his way, Trillions of dollars will be spent combatting man made climate change.  Why spend that much money on something that is very likely not real at all.

Answer 5

I'm not against clean air, water more "green areas"... I merely say its not the problem that you people have declared to be and some of your ilk shun, discriminate and threaten those who know the truth of this lie.

Why worry about a cycle? Why ignore the mounting evidence that say there is no man-made global warming. I know why algore and his cronies do... its because of all the money they swindle with it...

-edit-

Yes a cycle, our population compared to the area of the earth is almost, insignificant. Several studies all point a cycle, and its been warmer than now.

Answer 6

We keep saying we must save the planet, the planet will be fine it will just kill us of and then heal itself. Maybe we should start saying save ourselves.

Answer 7

because it means giving things up

Answer 8

I agree the science behind man made global warming is poor and doesn't take in to light that the planet has been cooling for the last 10 years.

I also agree that the environment is important which is why I refuse to follow the global warming crowd and destroy it.

man made Global warming believers want to destroy the natural environment buy building on areas of natural beauty. You would find it very hard to build a factory in the highlands but a wind farm and you get the go ahead to bull dose thousands of acres of protected land.

The plantting of thousands of trees on land which was prevously scrub land or medow. This not only kills millions of animals and insects but also removes there habitat so stopping them making a recovery, if this continues then thousands of spieces could become extinct.

These trees also produce methane and are only a store, once they die the CO2 is release either by burning or decomision or simply turned into methane. Methane is worse for the green house effect than CO2 so trees have a negitive inpact in Climate changes.

The green fuels that are developed that use plants are having a great effect on nature, farm animals and humans. The local nature is having it's habitat destroyed by the plantting of only a few crops, lots of animal require a certain plant which is not popular. The farm animals are become more expensive to keep as food prices rise. This means that many rare breds are not being keep as they are to expensive. Humans are also going to starve as food becomes less avalible only the rich will be able to eat in places in Africa.

Edit ---

Your total right I had never thought that during the middle ages, when the tempurature was warming there wasn't as much industries. Mind you I wounder what the dinosaurs produced in there big industries when CO2 levels where much higher than they are today.

Also wasn't there a fall in temperature for several years after the WW2 roughly the same time must industries were at there most productive and produce the highest levels of CO2?

Since the world is still coming out of the last mini ice age, 1650 - 1850, are you suprised that the temperature has increase.

Answer 9

irishinvenice, you're beating your head against a brick wall with these people. There is nothing that will sway their opinion. No evidence will ever be enough, because they have collectively come up with the 'scientist conspiracy' theory, which means they can happily ignore everything that suits them. And that of course is EVERYTHING except what the tiny handful of paid off ex-scientists who scream the denialist lines.

Forget about them. They've already lost the scientific, the public opinion, and now even the polictical battles. All they have left is to try to confuse and delay. It really makes me wonder just how many are payroll denialsts (I'm not saying you all are, but am sure quite a few are dancing to the tunes of the fossil fuel giants).

Instead irishinvenice, people like you (and I) should be spending our time trying to help the HUGE amounts of people that have already made up their own minds that climate change is real, that we are causing it, and that we need to desperately need to do all we can to reduce it's impacts. There's a LOT of confusion out there (thanks, denialists), and a LOT of people that really don't know where to start.

Look for a sustainanbility group in your area and get involved. If if there isn't one, start one! (like I've done where I live). You'll be amazed how positive and productive they can be, and the more groups springing up the better. The planet certainly needs all the help it can get.

So why are the denialists against protecting the earth?  They're either paid to think like that, or they're so brainwashed that they'll never accept anything else. Leave them behind.