It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global Warming opposition is ideological in nature.

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
The issue of global warming is a contentious debate, especially in America.

This is an issue where the left and right in America cannot agree about anything, not even facts.

Liberals and the majority of scientists claim that man made activity is creating an excess of CO2 by burning an ever increasing amount
of fossil fuels. This rise in CO2, particulates and other compounds absorb sunlight, trap the heat from the sun in the Earth's atmosphere and
increases terrestrial temperatures, yada, yada, yada (extremely simplified).

Conservatives, a small minority of scientists, and the fossil fuel industry itself claim that global warning is a hoax that has been created to
line the pockets of politicians, and initiate a tax scheme to divert money into the pockets of the politicians who promote the "agenda".
This theory often times flows into something to do with a New World Order that will use environmentalism to tax humanity to death and
inflict an insidious agenda based up this "hoax".

The problem with this theory is, the vast majority of experts, called scientists, are in general consensus that global warming is real. Even NASA, the same group of experts that put a human being on the moon, believe that there is a strong correlation between global warming and human output.


climate.nasa.gov...



Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.


I have spent countless hours arguing the finer point of global warming; science, data and research is often times ignored and dismissed as a vast conspiracy based upon an international cabal of corrupt scientists, or some sort of liberal agenda that I don't completely understand to be honest.

The thing is, I think the truth about this political conflict over the existence of global warming does not dwell in good or bad science, it dwells purely in political ideology.

In this case, I believe American conservatives are not honest about the basis of their opposition to global warming. Outwardly they express the idea that global warming is a liberal conspiracy used to advance the NWO, destroy freedom and make AL Gore rich, but I think that is a real load of malarky through and through.

First of all, it is much more likely that Global Warming (as a concept) is a real and existential threat to the profits of some of the most rich and powerful people in America. It is a simple calculation to determine that reducing consumption of Oil/Gas/Coal will have a negative impact on profits of the people who have become some of the richest men in the entire world. It is not a wild leap to realize that if the American population believes that gas consumption is "literally destroying the world"; that policies will be put in place that will not only reduce profits for the Oil/Gas/Coal industry, but that such a realization will usher in a new era of renewable energy. While one scenario is very threatening to entitled businessmen who make tens of millions of dollars a day selling these particular commodities, the later is potentially fatal to the The Federal Reserve and the entire economic basis of the American (fiat) petrodollar. In short, if America and world leaves fossil fuels behind, the entire global power structure will be undermined and the men who constitute that power will lose the "global ATM" that literally helps them rule the world. Moving from fossil fuels would impact our currency system and have far reaching effects on American supremacy in the world, especially when it comes to militarism and banking. (but we can focus only on fossil fuels for the sake of sanity)

Second, American conservatives are generally speaking, very pro business . It just so happens that fossil fuels constitute one of the largest international business in the world which makes the Fossil fuel industry and America conservative natural allies . We can see an obvious allegiance in the conservative body politic and the fossil fuel industry, which regularly champions new drilling (drill baby drill), fracking, coal mining and the abolishment of environmental regulations that CUT INTO THE PROFITS of the fossil fuel industry. From my perspective it is easy to see that the symbiotic relationship between the current fossil fuel industry and the GOP/Conservative America as they are fundamentally aligned regarding policy. Fossil fuel industrialists fund conservative propaganda (adhering to the idea that everything is a liberal conspiracy) and in turn back politicians who will create policy to assist in promoting the industry's goals. Whether that is fracking, expanding drilling, opening up leases, blocking regulatory efforts; to even positioning American military assets in parts of the world with considerable fossil fuel resources, the GOP consistently assumes policy that is directly defined by the needs of this particular industry.

Here is a great thread I found highlighting the successful attempt to block a simple investigation into the insane gas prices during the summer of 2008. This is one case where our government could of advocated for the pocket books of the American people, but instead, the GOP voted to prevent an investigation into allegations of market making and price fixing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I believe there is a real conspiracy surrounding global warming, but the conspiracy is not that scientists across the world are working together to present false evidence. The conspiracy is that the fossil fuel industry and conservative America are conspiring to maintain the status quo and all that entails. There is considerable more financial motive to back this premise, and there is far more evidence connecting American conservatism to the fossil fuel industry, than there is connecting the entire academic world to a secret cabal/NWO or whatever you call it.

I think the political discourse and sanity in America has been seriously damaged by the way this political debate has evolved. It used to be that science could be trusted to give an unbiased account of scientific issues, but we are to a point where even mass scientific consensus is called propaganda which is a new construct IMO. Science used to be the one place you could turn to be a neutral harbinger of truth, not any longer...




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

ok your going to get a big dose of reality from some people on here. Data can be misconstrued to show any correlation they see fit. The fact that this topic is made into a money making deal is just stupid and opens a door that nobody wants open even you. First off how far do you think it will get pushed into taxing us normal people? If you think its just going to be the businesses your clueless all the businesses will do is push the cost on us. #2 after all the businesses are in line the final push will be the population. How long have your lights been on? How much gas did you use to heat your home? how much water are you using? How many cars do you own? How far do you travel to work? ok your total carbon footprint is = to this amount of dollars? #3 they will just make agencies who do nothing and spend your moneypolicing this crap.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

Though a conservative, I think you're absolutely correct in regards to the dismissal of the scientific evidence, particularily on the right. If anything, conservatism should be about protecting the environment, given that its root concept is conserving and conservation.

I would also agree that the motive behind such dismissal is political, or at the very least, lucrative, if not a product of pure human stupidity.

Good thinking.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: jobless1

There is an argument to be had that taxing people, reallocating funds, and government intervention will do little to help the environment – China is a good example of such central planning only making matters worse – but not turning and facing an obvious problem regarding the very environment we are situated within is dangerous. This might be one of those cases where erring on the safe side is the better idea.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: jobless1
a reply to: yesyesyes

ok your going to get a big dose of reality from some people on here. Data can be misconstrued to show any correlation they see fit. The fact that this topic is made into a money making deal is just stupid and opens a door that nobody wants open even you. First off how far do you think it will get pushed into taxing us normal people? If you think its just going to be the businesses your clueless all the businesses will do is push the cost on us. #2 after all the businesses are in line the final push will be the population. How long have your lights been on? How much gas did you use to heat your home? how much water are you using? How many cars do you own? How far do you travel to work? ok your total carbon footprint is = to this amount of dollars? #3 they will just make agencies who do nothing and spend your moneypolicing this crap.


Your response is a very good example of what I am talking about, you start off attacking the scientific basis of global warming, but then you reveal that your concern is taxes and a lack of trust in the government. Why can't you just start with your opposition to taxes and government regulation and leave it at that? To me going after science is where reality starts to be disturbed in a not so good way, your other concerns are ok, it is ok to be honest up front and not create fantasy for the sake of muddying the waters to black.

I understand that data can be misconstrued, but what makes you think that the vast majority of scientists (who have dedicated their lives to pursuing science) would be motivated to paint a false picture? For one, scientists do not gain accolades from being wrong, and faking information ONE TIME can ruin that scientists credibility for a lifetime.

I personally think the solution to global warming is not taxation, but innovation. I do not see how conservative would be against create a new business frontier as it would create jobs and profits, etc..



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: jobless1

There is an argument to be had that taxing people, reallocating funds, and government intervention will do little to help the environment – China is a good example of such central planning only making matters worse – but not turning and facing an obvious problem regarding the very environment we are situated within is dangerous. This might be one of those cases where erring on the safe side is the better idea.


Like I think I told you before, I have a great del of respect for Tory-like conservatism, measured and reasonable.

I actually agree with you for the most part, I don't think intervention, especially in the form of taxation or cap and trade will do anything we need. You and I might disagree of ending the subsidies that go to this industry, and I might consider a complete overhaul of America's infrastructure but not until technology improves a good deal.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

Without the pleas from the scientific community, and the politicians not heading their warnings, we'd probably still be using leaded gasoline to disastrous effects.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

I think this is an issue all sides could come to a consensus on. Maybe the best thing to do is convince liberals that global-warming is a conservative conspiracy, and convince conservatives that socialism is ruining the environment, and we'd all arrive at some sort of consensus.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

its both why should I pay more in taxes for bad science? you say its political? let me ask a simple question do you eat meat? this simple answer will tell me everything i need to know about your political stance



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: yesyesyes

Without the pleas from the scientific community, and the politicians not heading their warnings, we'd probably still be using leaded gasoline to disastrous effects.


I agree.

I think scientific exploration and innovation has been one of the primary reasons America has become what it is.
Science and industry can be very good partners indeed.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: TheTory



Maybe the best thing to do is convince liberals that global-warming is a conservative conspiracy,

Problem. The science and evidence say it's happening.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It was a poor joke on my part.

Despite the evidence, not much seems to be happening. Maybe political gain would compel one to do more, since the promise of a better future seems to be doing very little.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

since the promise of a better future seems to be doing very little.
That's part of the problem I think. At this point the best that can be promised is a less bad future. Which is the other part of the problem, it can be hard to get a horse to drink when the water is decades away.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Without a viable solution there is little as of yet a government can do except keep funding the scientists, which seems to me the prudent solution. I would pay more taxes for that. The solution will come from them in the end.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: TheTory
The primary "solution" now is to reduce the rate at which CO2 is being produced. It's not feasible to do more than that.

While this will not actually solve the problem it will slow the rate of change, allowing more time for actual solutions and means to adapt to be found while mitigating the impact.

edit on 1/21/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   


I understand that data can be misconstrued, but what makes you think that the vast majority of scientists (who have dedicated their lives to pursuing science) would be motivated to paint a false picture? For one, scientists do not gain accolades from being wrong, and faking information ONE TIME can ruin that scientists credibility for a lifetime.
a reply to: yesyesyes

how many scientist said Einstein as wrong? that the theory of evolution is wrong? lol look an old science book from like the 30's tell me how correct they are always! The problem is science has to be paid for? Do you have any idea how many BS scientific articles have been published that are later proven to be total fabrication. Are you paying attention at all?

You should question any science finding especially environmental sciences when the subject of their research keeps them in a job.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: jobless1



I understand that data can be misconstrued, but what makes you think that the vast majority of scientists (who have dedicated their lives to pursuing science) would be motivated to paint a false picture? For one, scientists do not gain accolades from being wrong, and faking information ONE TIME can ruin that scientists credibility for a lifetime.
a reply to: yesyesyes

how many scientist said Einstein as wrong? that the theory of evolution is wrong? lol look an old science book from like the 30's tell me how correct they are always! The problem is science has to be paid for? Do you have any idea how many BS scientific articles have been published that are later proven to be total fabrication. Are you paying attention at all?

You should question any science finding especially environmental sciences when the subject of their research keeps them in a job.


What do you think scientists get out of lying about this conclusion?

Also, who organizes and convinces 95% of scientists in this field to put their reputations on the line for this?

Do you know university scientists will be fired and ostracized for taking money to point to false conclusions?

It is much more feasible that the BILLIONAIRES who make BILLIONS from fossil fuels are the ones fudging the information because it can impact their income.

They have much more motive here.

Once again, you are being dishonest I will remind you, as you have already exposed that your opposition is based upon government and taxes.

You don't have to do mental gymnastics to defend those grounds....


edit on 21-1-2016 by yesyesyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: jobless1




You should question any science finding especially environmental sciences when the subject of their research keeps them in a job.

Ok. Good idea. Questioning is good. Disregarding is not so good.

Do you think it's a good idea to buy a house? After all, the only reason people build them is that it keeps them in a job.

edit on 1/21/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Dude, green energy type technology is going to eventually be the future. Maybe not in 5, 10, or 20 years -- but BP and the other big fossil fuel companies are HEAVILY invested in them. Why? Because these behemoth companies plan far, far into the future. These companies know the direction things will eventually go. BP and Exxon plan 50+ years out into the future. Contrary to conspiracy theorists, it's not because they want to "squash" green energy -- they just want to be the people to profit from it when it becomes something people want/demand down the road.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheTory
The primary "solution" now is to reduce the rate at which CO2 is being produced. It's not feasible to do more than that.

While this will not actually solve the problem it will slow the rate of change, allowing more time for actual solutions and means to adapt to be found while mitigating the impact.


sure its the CO2 and not the nuke they ignited in the upper atmosphere that killed the ozone lol. The government has a lot of reason to blame the population and not themselves.




top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join