GW a possible starting point for war??

I have pondered this more then a few times in recent months. I currently do not full support the idea of humans causing global warming, but thats not what this thread is dealing with, I am trying to see if anyone else can see the potential of what the belief of global warming could result in...war.

I am basing this on the fact that, our world governments, seem to not only believe global warming is humans fault, I am more and more seeing the idea that they are not even considering the fact that it may be caused but natural climate cycles..(which has not been fully proven either direction).

I feel that the current governments almost blindly support many scientists claims, and that if a major catastrophy occured, and destroyed a major, lets say British area, resulting in enormous deaths. That if a scientist, or teams or scientists, linked this "global warming" event to say the U.S. or a future big pollutor, China. That it cold result in mass propaganda, which blames these countries for the damage, and loss of life.

One can only assume that these countries would not agree, and say sorry, we will pay for the damages, but they would spread their own propaganda against the British. And we all know what mass propaganda results in..eventually, hatred of the propagandized country. Which builds support for views of war.

This is how wars start, it usually comes from right under their noses, look at the coverage of global warming in the news, it is something people deal with hearing almost on a daily basis, I feel it will eventually lead to a finger being pointed at one country or another.

Nah, they could just pass blame to a volcano...

way to constructivly contribute to a discussion
Im glad to see you took the time to think about what I wrote.
mods I believe thats a one liner, no?

Constructive?

Hows this for constructive...Research how much green house gas the last major volcanic eruption put into the air.

Then you can flame my one liner. It was ment to educate, not enrage.

I admire your idea, but I don't think we need to reach that far for justification of conflicts.

there is no justification to conflicts. I am mearly speculating on a possible future cause of war, judging on the way that it effects us today. Thats not me pushing for war, just would like to hear from some people who would actually like to discuss the topic I started, not about your volcanos.

so please, any members with some real insight please post!!

no one can see what I'm trying to say? perhaps I should move this to another forum on ATS?

personally i think you may have a point. Global warming is big news everywhere, wether the belief thats is caused by man or nature (i believe that both factors have caused it). I can see that down the line the finger could very well be pointed at individual countries. They would use that as a foothold to slander said countries and try and get others on side with them, indeed creating a huge rift between major countries.

Mabe they would use the excuse to try and tople the big guns of the world ie the US and the UK, you see it in the new every day, increasing unrest against us and the US.

i hope i made sence and not sounded like a mumbling mad woman

I do see what you are saying, but if Global warming does start a war it wont be over damages wrought, more likely due to resources as almost all other wars are fought for. Global warming will lead to a strain upon our food and water supplies, and that would start a war.
But it is an interesting idea that you have put forward, a war based on damages inflicted by pollution.
Might I recommend you use it for a bases for a short story. You have the premise now run with it.

I think it's just as valid a reason for the world to hate us as any of the other jillions of reasons we're so danged popular.
What a genius idea, sneakily cause more pollution and take global warming to the extreme, blame it on the evil Yankees
(or whoever we happen to be setting up if we're the scumbags behind it)
Man, sounds like it would make a great movie plot if it werent so scary-realistic.

Seeing that the two biggest polluters are US and China and will be for some time to come who is going to go to war with these two juggernuats?

I mean if you piss off either of these two countries you could very well be facing a nuclear event that will make GW look like the good old days.

the problem would arise if these to major polluters turned against each other, then you would have the koreans,iraq's etc who do you thinl they would fight for.

it is indeed a serious thing if it were to happen and i believe the state of the world today anything is possible.

finally some people agree! ahah. I think its such a possiblity, like I said before, I think war will come right from under peoples noses, and not daily reported like Iran, or Iraq. Things that get constant coverage allow people to form some sort of opinions on the subject. Were as global warming is generally a one point of view subject, and it will suddenly shift to blaming another country for the problems.

Yeppers, sure. The last anchorage major eruption expelled millions of cubic meters of silicon dust into the atmosphere that caused the 'scream' sunset I saw three days later.

Unwilling to take responsibility for mans part in the bastardization of our environment is however unacceptable.

My point of contest would be.

Alien ufo tech. Yay or nay. With supportive documentation. Perfect for this site.

[edit on 9/13/2008 by jpm1602]

Hmmm... well, I wouldn't agree with the theory that Government leaders are all suckered into "believing" in global warming. What they do "believe" in is all the money that will come with the "carbon credit" scam an all the power it gives a government to do as it wishes against the will of the people in the "interest" of mankind.. get it?

With ALL due respect. Yooz guys that say man is a non player to the detriment of the planet really tickle me.

They have eyes. Yet they cannot see.

I will go with you here. Pollution causes detrimental effects on the environment. Carbon Dioxide in itself is not near as bad as other chemicals produced burning coal though.

Here is my problem. Read up on the carbon credit scam & so called cap and trade. This "creates" a whole new paper trading / subsides industry. If this is allowed to happen there will be to much money in it for it to ever go away. Which means we will NOT have real levels going down.

Think of it this way.. . do the oil companies an OPEC want us to produce "algae oil" unless it is their company / they get their money. Or hydrogen burning (water) cars utilizing a combination radio frequency / electrolysis power plant where you can use plain old water in a car? No, you will get hydrogen fuel cells that require you buy hydrogen from a station because there are to many people involved who will get their money. Sad reality really. NO, that technology will be bought up and buried.

Same goes here. If there are billions / trillions to be made selling "NEEDED & MANDATED" carbon credits, then those people in no way want carbon emissions eliminated!!!! That is counter productive to their profit model. Do you see what I mean here? We are letting the paper traders create a monster that will never go away.

We can all agree or disagree on what carbon output should be but letting these creeps pass off this carbon credit scam will not help carbon emissions one bit and will actually be counter productive to really doing it!