Why does it seem the alarmist always bring politics in the global warming debate?

Question

Why does it seem the alarmist always bring politics in the global warming debate?

Answer 1

Believers are followers.  They follow the word of Pat Roberson, Newt Gingrich, and Algore to mention a few.

They have the need to have others tell them that they shouldn't pollute as they are not capable to make a decision about this on their own.

Answer 2

Global Warming has become a buzz word.  Al Gore's glow will fade and the politicians will forget about the environment.

Some of us were shouting that we are killing the earth while Al Gore was inventing the internet and Tipper was putting ratings on songs and videos.

Answer 3

It is unfortunate that what should be a purely scientific debate has become so highly politicized, as it obfuscates the truth. Politicians ballyhooing the AGW ‘cause’ certainly isn’t helping. The AGW crew would do well to tell the politicians to back off, as the politicization of the science is one of the greatest drivers of AGW skepticism.

Answer 4

How can you NOT include politics?  It's politics, hand in hand with big business, that has created our reliance on petroleum vs. other energy sources, that has allowed a lifestyle in which we suck up more than our fair share of non-renewable resources, and that rewards our leaders regardless of performance.

Answer 5

I don't know that the AGW Alarmist community necessarily brings politics into the debate.  Sure, Gore's name will come up in posts....not because of politics....but because he is the pitch-man for AGW.  I don't have a problem with including politics in the debate......and really.... none of us have a choice in that regard.  The politicians will ultimately decide what resources will be thrown at the issue.....so it is difficult to exclude them.

Answer 6

Like it or not global warming is a political issue.. and its not the first of its kind.  The same people that brought you global warming also presented:\

If we have to many children we will drain the earth of resources.

heterosexual aids will kill off our population.

second hand smoke kills more innocent bystanders then it does smokers.

They all have one thing in common... they are either lies are huge fabrications/overestimations.

The reason these go political is simple... They are agenda driven falsehoods perpetrated by groups with other motives.  Hysteria gets the biggest reaction.. makes sense really.  Wanna get someone on your side.... scare the h**l out of them

Answer 7

Because they are of the class of people who hate themselves for being human beings.  They have been deeply, profoundly influenced by the Christian theology that says that every human being is personally responsible for every evil in the universe and deserves eternal suffering as punishment.

They are people who hate humanity, who feel guilty for existing, and who project that self-loathing onto all who do not share it.  They invariably attack any and all who manage to find the slightest success in the universal struggle for survival.

It is obvious that there has never been any planet in the universe that does not experience climate change.  The temperature will always be trending up or down.  If you had to choose which way it would go right now, which would be more beneficial to people and other living thing?  Warming would be better than cooling - there is absolutely no question about that.

So, the people who hate mankind naturally find evil in what is good.  They would prefer that people continue to freeze to death.  They want to keep increasing the need to mine and burn fossil fuel.   That is the inescapable conclusion to be made from the evidence.

There is a certain class of reality-evading, self-hating humans who will call anything a crisis if it gives them power -- those are the people you are asking about.

Answer 8

The correct answer is "Observation Bias". Scientist know quite a bit about this phenomena.

Because you (as do many people) have an inherent bias against anything or anyone you feel threatens your lifestyle, you are always looking for evidence to support your bias against the science supporting AGW.  Thus, you have a built-in filtering mechanism that will remember any statements that support it, and discount or forget any statements that will contradict it.

The best way for you to eliminate this erroneous idea of yours would be to read through 3 - 5 days of actual posts and log how many political statements are made and by whom.  Then you'll experience cognitive dissonance and with any luck be cured.

Answer 9

I don't know Andy but I know he is a liberal.  How do I know that if global warming isn't about Politics?  How do I know that Dana and Bob are liberals and will probably vote for Barak or Hillary unless those two are too conservative for them.  If GW were about science, there is know way I could know that?  The alarmists certainly think they are right about both issues.

Answer 10

How else does one argue about an overwhelming scientific consensus? Emotional appeal.

Answer 11

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

who mentioned AL Gore first in your question and refered to alarmists?

sorry what were you saying?

Answer 12

The classic transference strategy of the right.  Declare seriously that your opponent has been fighting unfairly and accuse them of using the very strategy you have been using and perfecting for years.

I can only stare and scratch my head and think how can people be so stupid as to fall for that.  And they do, over and over.

Answer 13

Why? well becuz its one of the few topics that everyone can have an opinion on and not be educated about it... particularly your politicians. its one of those things that has the potential to impact everyone and not just us but the entire planet. its not just a local few scraggly groups of people but everyone! its a political issue becuz its driven by numbers, and politics are governed (mostly) by politicians and they make their lives by having the most popular answers.

scare tactics work.

so does dirt tactics.

letting people make informed decisions on nothing but the facts is a concept that is never really considered becuz its governed by logic and not popular catch phrases and plat forms.

Answer 14

Are you willing to present examples of your charge? Maybe I answered my own question. Of course not, you would have shown many links.

In the weeks I've been blogging here, I have noticed allot of those supporting AGW theory post links to NASA, NAS, NOAA (Bob, Dana and myself included) and so on. Most of the deniers post opinion pieces, blogs and rant about Al Gore. Throughout human history, groups have slain the messenger. We haven't evolved.

If agreeing with a theory supported by NASA, GPU, NAS and NOAA (among the many) is bringing politics into the debate, I feel sorry for this country, for it's beliefs are clouding rational thinking.

Answer 15

The alarmists are the ones that believe in man made global warming.  They bring it into the debate so they can gain profit and power.  Why else would I have to pay $4 per month on my utility bill for potential environmental legislation?  Why else would they blame USA first?  So since the liberals bring politics into it, the people getting messed over have no choice but to point out what is happening.  Ask yourself this question, what do carbon credits/offsets do and why were they created?  Then ask yourself if instead on trying to tax people and burden the economy why not give people free solar panels on their roofs or great discounts on hybrids?  I don't believe that this would have any effect on global warming either but it would have actual benefits instead of taxing people for no reason and hurting the economy.

Answer 16

Who gets funds/grants from the UN?

Tough to keep politics out of anything UN funded.

Answer 17

Why is it that those in denial of Climate Change cling to hardcore conservative "values" that are destroying not only our nation, but the planet?

Wow.  Answering a loaded question with a loaded question of the same weight.

Those that have a grasp on Climate Change hardly touch on politics.  There is no need to bring that into the picture when you have solid science  backing the information up.

I'm sorry you don't agree or see the "big picture" on this issue.  You're entitled to your own opinion.  I just think it's petty, shallow and childish to toss out such slanted questions here.

Answer 18

You know what is weird, since most alarmists are also communist anarchists intent on bringing down western civilization, it is *doubly* weird they are also bringing politics into the debate.  So not only do they support global warming because they hate America, technology, and your god-given right to a guilt-free lifestyle, they also are willing to use those same institutions they hate and are committed to destroying to deprive you of the things you love.  My guess is they kick dogs when you aren't looking too.  

Thank you for pointing this out.  Four stars, a little smiley, and a whole lotta love coming atcha!

Answer 19

Because now scientists are questioning in greater numbers than ever the man-made global warming theory.  Politicians, who are threatened by losing their funding from scared and concerned environmentalists, have no other course but to continue the threatening aspect of "We are responsible".  

The unfortunate part about this is that I feel strongly about the pollution we are putting in our air and water but the global warming spin has directed our attention away from the pollution and poisoning of ourselves and our environment.  

The scare tactics is being used to effect more government control and taxes on energy so we line the pockets of those who are continually putting this spin in the media.  These same people are now being backed in a corner, much like a cornered snake spitting out more venom, knowing that the end is coming.  

I drive a Prius and I love solar energy advances.  I don't believe in the man-made global warming theory and I feel that it is hurting environmental efforts and not helping them.  

PLEASE read the attached info regarding to the increasing number of scientists that are voicing objections to the man-made global warming political spin!

Here are some of the 400 scientists quotes regarding their objection that there is a consensus.  Some of the them are even former proponents of the man-made global warming theory.  Good for them for continually seeking the truth!

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."  

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.  

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."  

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." Wojick added: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."