Why is the issue of the environment or global warming so criticized?

Question

I mean...we NEED this planet and this environment to survive, do we not? Man cannot exist without oxygen and air and water.

Yet the whole issue of protecting the environment has become a big political mess. and it's been looked down upon more and more until now it's some "liberal agenda" by "hippie eco-n**i terrorists"

Global warming or not, does anyone realize this is tantamount to criticizing a fireman for saving you from a burning house? Do you actually WANT to see this planet destroyed? I don't anyone does

Answer 1

Many do not want to cede all control of our lives to a UN like supernational global power, pro environment or not.

Answer 2

When this occurs petrol will not be needed and...

Answer 3

Some are just natural skeptics and or contrarians. But most semi-consciously, including customers and corporate interests alike, don't want to have to change a lifestyle that might be inconvenient and perceptively expensive.

Yes, it is an extremely important issue, and until some of these people are flooded out of their homes, had their crops fail, homes destroyed by unusually weather patterns they simply won't believe, and even then they still might not.

The trick is not to try to convince everyone. 70% percent believe Global Warming to be a real issue. That is plenty enough. Remember there is still a flat earth society out there. I say let them believe in their ignorance.

The best thing you can do now is lobby for environmental change. Because if only a few people decide to continue to trash the environment at the expense of the whole it's not going to really matter what those who are educated chose to be responsible enough to do.

For example we use 380 billion (a number so large non of us can even conceive of it) plastic bags a year in America. Most of these are not biodegradable and will just sit there in land fills for eons.  But the entire country of Ireland the instituted a 33 cent tax on grocery bags and surprise surprise saw a 94 percent drop in use.

Just think of how tremendous this type of impact this made. All the environmentalist in the country could not have made a fraction of the difference that one simple law made. And now the very same people who lobbied against it are lobbying other countries to follow Ireland's example. In other words once the law was instituted and everyone started carrying green totes in which stores actually made money on instead of giving away free "disposable" bags, they saw the light that being green actually makes moral sense but fiscal as well.

Answer 4

an excerpt from a post by Jack H

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )

UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science."

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that "solar changes significantly alter climate." (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 - 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period "0.3C warmer than 20th century" (LINK)

A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )

With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the "silent majority" of scientists."

So there you have it

sloegin says

Sacred Mother Earth

Is a no brainer

Recycle humans

Couldn't be plainer

On this gentle Earth

Humans are a cancer

Get rid of them

Is the only answer

Answer 5

You are making a common mistake.  You believe that if you don't accept the dogma of global warming, then you must be for polluting the planet.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Free markets work better than gvmt force.  Here's a story about gvmt force being used in Sweden and the increased taxes and additional pollution caused by the gvmt policies.

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

Just like the war on poverty has given us more poor, the war on drugs keeps street drugs prices high and profitable, a war on pollution will only give us more pollution and carbon.

The free market is the only solution to reduce pollution, it works.

Here's a great example of the free market in action

http://www.nucor.com/

Answer 6

The most valid (and seldom used) criticism is SOLAR WARMING and it's proven and also effecting other planets...And there's no way greenhouse gasses on earth are causing mars' polar icecaps to melt. But this is no reason to end efforts on reducing greenhouse emmissions and pollution in general. Opponents of Global Warming claim "it's a natural cycle", this may be but current trends in global temperature are warming (within a period of 50 years) while the Milankovich cycle (iceage cycle) indicates we should be cooling over a period of thousands of years. Another factor that cannot be overlooked when discussing global warming is Operation: Cloverleaf, the airforce operation beginning in the mid 90's to remote control auxillary compartments in commercial aircraft that distribute aerosol particulate in the atmosphere. This is all linked with HAARP testing and The Weather Modification Act of 2005. But mixing environmental issues with partisanship is so heavily biggoted and idiotic...Trust me, whenever Curtis stubs his toe he blames the liberals.

Answer 7

Your analogy is fallicous. It's like a fireman saving you from your heater turning on when the temperature drops.

Fact: There were glacers where I'm sitting hundreds of years ago.

Fact: It warmed up and the glacers melted.

Fact: No one was driving SUV's at the time.

Given that the planet has gone through warming and cooling spells for as long as it's exsisted; it's foolish to spend all this money trying to prevent something that occurs naturally.

Answer 8

Global Warming is a controversial subject and there are no proven facts about it, either pro or con, some people of critical for it, others against it.  Time will tell.

Answer 9

With the exception of socialist countries and third world, we have been getting cleaner.  Gorbachev ran to the environmental movement to push his socialism since it was rejected by the Soviet people.  Seems we have had a bit of a step backward in Russia recently, but still that doesn't change the fact that leftists use the environment to try to push their anti-capitalist agenda.  Many leftists are simply parroting their so called leaders.  Listen to Crabby.  He is a good example of a leftist that thinks the oil companies CEOs actually conspire to pollute the planet as if that would make them sleep better at night.  I don't criticize conservation or keeping the planet clean and being responsible, but I will not stop criticizing those that try to push their agenda on a relatively ignorant populace under the guise of science and consensus.  Their agenda is extremely harmful wherever it has been tried.  Socialism is like a cancer on society.  It will eat away freedom and wealth.   Perhaps you should study more what it is you claim to be defending.

Answer 10

Quite simple. People refuse to believe they are doing any harm whatsoever.

Answer 11

The criticismis motivated by two things. One is greed. Much of the "criticism" is motivated by or prompted by special interests such as the oil companies. The other factor is political power. The neoconservatives adopted a view--and spent the last three decades reinforcing it--that "environmentalism is liberal." Now they are stuck with a situationin which any action on the environment is being credited to liberals, rightly or wrongly.  So they are in a no-win situation pollitically. Even if a conservative is willing to take action, they've spent so long convincing their followers its "liberal and evil" that they would be commiting poliitical suicide.

Not tha tthey really care.  If you look at the ir rhetoric closely, you will see (and some come right out and say this) that they believe the consequences of their actions will not hit within their lifetimes--and so they simply don't care. It won't affect them--and gaining money and poer for themselves is all they are concerned with.

Answer 12

You are the reason, just look at your rage. Just as the home for the pedophile is in the Catholic church, the home for the socialist communist party is the environmental groups. No one wants dirty air or water or to destroy the earth, come on use some common sense, but the environmental movement has gotten too extreme, and now is doing more harm then good. Just look at the Kyoto Protocol, to reduce greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels, do you realize what that means? That would devastate the economy and people around the world would starve and die of illness and disease.

If you are so worried then why are you still using electricity and driving your car, and using products and materials made from fossil fuels? Maybe you should try leading by example, instead of following the Reverend Al Gore.