Why do the AGW alarmist always bring up politics?

Question

Bob you just used politics again.

Answer 1

Global warming is political, not scientific.

For example - NASA is a gvmt agency.  They get their money from politicians.  The more fear they invoke, the more funding they get.

Remember when NASA claimed an ozone hole was opening up over Kennebunkport, ME before the 1992 elections?

Answer 2

They may be trying a different way to punch through ignorance.

Answer 3

You mean alarmists like these?

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.  We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

EDIT - Yeah, but they're your kinda guys.  Waas Up has my number.

Answer 4

if you ever ask a scientific question you would not such a hipocrate.

Answer 5

I fail to see how the National Academy of Sciences, NASA and other organizations in my links constitute politics.

BTW, with all your propaganda flying around, could you be THE "Baghdad Bob" of the Iraqi Information Ministry we heard all those quotes from during the invasion of Iraq?

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationmini...

Is it really you?

EDIT - Jello, thanks for mentioning NASA. NASA, the organization run by a republican administration that could care less about GW.

Answer 6

Second time you have asked the same question.   Same answer.

The vast majority of the politically motivated arguments that I have seen here are those of skeptics.

Saying things like that environmentalists are communists or are advocating a world govt or socialism are just not based in fact or reality.

They are environmentalists because they are concerned. And they tend not to vote Republican because that party hasn't shown the political will to do anything about environmenatl problems. That's not politicalizing, it is a fact.

I'm not trying to polarize the issue, it already is.

Republicans seem more interested in protecting the interests of the oil companies and others who have the vested interest in not changing. Why else would they have not approved the recent energy bill proposal to extend the tax credits for alternative energy?

Oil companies get about $80 billion a year in subsidies paid by your tax dollars.

The proposal was to take $21 billion of that and put it toward the alt energy tax credits. That would represent about 1% of oil company profits. Exxon just reported over $40 billion in profits for 2007.

How can anyone justify any subsidies for these hugely profitable companies. Especially when you have a constructive use for the money that would actually do some good. Bush was going to veto it, but didn't have to because 40 Republican senators stripped it from the energy bill. So they are obvioiusly more concerned with oil company profits than with the environment. What other plausable explanation could there be?

If you are concerned about the environment ,you vote for those who will do something about it. It's that simple.

That has absolutely nothing to do with communism, socialism, world govt. or any of that nonsense. That's just what right wing extremists are ranting about and confusing you with. That's the only political motivation I see.

I sometimes listen to Air America a liberal talk radio show. I don't even like the more extremist ranters on that show, and I'm a liberal. Ed Shultz the main host of that show is very reasonable and moderate. The right wing talk show hosts are no such thing. They are extremists. They are ideologues. I am not. Nor are most environmentalists. We are alarmed at what is happening to the earth because it is true. With or without global warming. Some of you don't seem to understand that we are already threatening the survival of every ecosysem on earth, without global warming. And the solutions are the same.

We are in a mess even without global warming.  

As someone pointed out on one of these questions, some conservatives are starting to see the light.  

  from wikipedia

According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused mass extinction, known as the Holocene extinction event. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028). Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years.  More significantly the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth; moreover, this current rate of extinction is thus 10 to 100 times greater than any of the prior mass extinction events in the history of the Earth.

-----------

Current Endangered species U.S. and territories

These are the listed species.

373 vertabrates mammals birds reptiles amphibian fish

238 invertabrates clams, snails, insects,

713 flowering plants

31 non-flowering plants conifers and cyads, ferns and

Source:  U.S Fish & Game

When you consider that each and every one of these species is an integral member of an ecosystem that may be compromised by even one of it's member's demise, you can see how it can snowball.  I would guess that many of these are indicator species, meaning that they are seen as indicators of how their particular ecosystem is holding up.

While this dire prediction is hopefully just an extreme one, it gives an idea of the scope of the problem. I don't think they were predicting this because of global warming, or at least not exclusively. The estimates had to be at least partly based on the level of extinction already happening as a result of habitat loss, pollution, deforestation etc.

Not exactly natural selection at work, as someone said.

Answer 7

I know.  Have you noticed at environmental rallies all of the anti-capitalism slogans they chant?

Answer 8

Maybe because people benefit politically if they go along with it as oppossed to those who denounce it.  When politicians not expert in a subject go and make a movie about it loses all credibility.  There is no concensus on the issue so who is to be believed thouse who want bigger government, taxing, and banning to those who want freedom and not big brother telling us what to do because they "believe" global warming exists? I say DUHHHHHHH the Earth is warming some but not at the fault of man but the big shiny orb in the sky called the SUN, not my car or CO2 or carbon or cow farts or breathing or power plants.

Answer 9

Because the middle classes of the world are just like the former feudal peasantries... They only hear what the aristocrats want them to hear.

Answer 10

Both sides in this debate are lead by politicians whose rehash of the positions of scientists they have to believe is the gospel according to us.

Because AGW proponents are not seeing direct contradiction from any scientists, only reworked papers digested by political hacks, they can not find any really credible scientist telling  them anything in their own words.

Answer 11

They usually try to claim science but it is clearly a political issue when they start talking doom.

Answer 12

Only in the US. Nowhere else is this a partisan issue. And why would it be?

Several scientific academies in the world under very different governments agree on the scientific consensus based on the present extent of scientific knowledge and empirical evidences.

Answer 13

its all not true its all lies