Why do some take belief in Global Warming as a political issue?

[JoeB131]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

I think the problem there is that once you accept that Anthrogenic Global Warming is real, then you really have to accept huge government controls on many aspect of your life. It becomes the kind of crisis that liberals frequently long for.

For instance, during the Great Depression, FDR desperately wanted to get control of a lot of aspects of the economy, and was frustrated by the courts and Republicans in Congress at every oppurtunity. Then WWII broke out, and pretty soon, he got to do Keynesian spending and government regulation of business on a level that European dictators envied.

I don't think it's the science that is in disputes, so much as the implications. If it is real, then ultimately, privilages we take for granted like car ownership, will be subject to government mandate.

 

[The T]

Be Fruitful, Multiply, Replenish the Earth. It is a Temple. You are not going to go wrong in maintaining it. Hi-Jacking the cause for Power and Control is another matter.

Why take care of it? Jesus is coming back anyway.

Because we should. You cows...er clowns don't give a rats ass about it. You just want to bludgeon people into a socialist state. Look at how the socialists fucked up their environments and you will get an idea of why we want to prevent that.

The Ex-Soviet Union is still a mess...and look at China?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The AGW movement is all about control... they know that nobody will willingly give up their rights. So, they manufacture the myth of Environmental Armageddon and hope to scare the bejeezus out of everybody so they can start mandating every aspect of our lives from light bulbs to cars.

 

[Sweet Willy]

anyone who can't SEE the damage "we have wrought" you have stated your position quite clearly. ....



........Your protestations of innocense do you no service.

My protestations only serve to say again, you LIED. I never said what you quoted. I never said anything close to that, you made that up.

What do you call that science? Liars Anatomy?

Ah yes, the ever popular "you lied" meme. No, I didn't. I read between the lines and told you what your carefully selected code words mean in the real world. What are you 10? You need to get out more and learn something about what you speak. You are far, far out of your depth on this matter. And that is sad.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and ascribe your ignorance to simple lack of knowledge and not a willful ignorance. Go out and read some other stuff on the environment than what you have been getting in your high school or community college classes. Hit a good library. READ!

No, that's just a bunch of words you use to dance around a lie.

You misquoted me. You lied.

anyone who can't SEE the damage "we have wrought" you have stated your position quite clearly. ....

See where you quoted those words? I didn't say that. You care certainly free to think whatever you will about things but lying is lying.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Let's put some pictures back up.

No scientific claims, no warnings that you should listen to me because " I am a scientist".

No special books you should go read, no long list of scientist to ignore.... just a few pictures to look at.

No politics, no suggestion of regulation. Just some pictures.

If you can look at pictures of the Earth, from space, and see smoke from man made fires cover nearly an entire continent, you can easily see that man can directly influence his environment.

If you can see the lights from a massive network of power lines and power plants, bright enough to light up the dark side of our planet, you don't need a scientist to tell you if man has the ability to influence his environment on a grand scale.

Do I care about the politics of global warming? Do I pick a side for any reason on that issue? No, I don't.

I am simply demonstrating that with three simple photographs you can eliminate a swath of ignorance that claims man hasn't the capacity to influence and change his environment on large scale, global impacts. It's evident to anyone who doesn't have a political stake in the matter that their is an absolute truth that man does affect his environment profoundly. Can he melt the ice caps? I don't know. But I do know that there was a time when the idea that we could kill every passenger pigeon, or log every tree on the continent was scoffed at just like you see the folks here scoffing. I don't deny or defend the idea of AGW. I merely recognize that we can can impact our planet, in fact, we can;t help but do so.

 

[daveman]

Again, human shit is a fine example. Left for the Earth to correct on it's own, the Earth will. The Earth has little problem with shit. Humans on the other hand, have a bit of a problem when too many humans are shitting in the same water. People get sick and die.

Does this little group of posters here reject sewage treatment? I mean... do you guys apply the "never mind, the Earth will take care of it" to shit? Or is it just other select human activities your are reluctant to accept as detrimental to human existence? Where do you guys draw the line of taking care of our own impact? Terracing and other erosion control techniques? Do you guys believe in that science? I mean, the Earth will take care of that too. Top soil washed into the bottom of the river doesn't really bother the Earth. How about swine and cattle vaccinations? Human vaccinations? How deep is this "let the earth fix it" idea? At what point do we stop trying to understand our world and use knowledge to make it better?

And save the "Earth" baloney. The Earth will destroy us long be we destroy it. I am not a "save Earth" type.

But you guys hard on for the environmentalist seems to be distorting your views of reality.

"Doesn't believe AGW nonsense" =/= "Wants to dump raw sewage in the town well".

There's some reality for you.

 

[westwall]

My protestations only serve to say again, you LIED. I never said what you quoted. I never said anything close to that, you made that up.

What do you call that science? Liars Anatomy?

Ah yes, the ever popular "you lied" meme. No, I didn't. I read between the lines and told you what your carefully selected code words mean in the real world. What are you 10? You need to get out more and learn something about what you speak. You are far, far out of your depth on this matter. And that is sad.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and ascribe your ignorance to simple lack of knowledge and not a willful ignorance. Go out and read some other stuff on the environment than what you have been getting in your high school or community college classes. Hit a good library. READ!

No, that's just a bunch of words you use to dance around a lie.

You misquoted me. You lied.

anyone who can't SEE the damage "we have wrought" you have stated your position quite clearly. ....

See where you quoted those words? I didn't say that. You care certainly free to think whatever you will about things but lying is lying.

Ahhh, I see the problem. You don't understand simple English either. I suggest you look up the many and varied uses of quotation marks around words.

 

[The T]

Ah yes, the ever popular "you lied" meme. No, I didn't. I read between the lines and told you what your carefully selected code words mean in the real world. What are you 10? You need to get out more and learn something about what you speak. You are far, far out of your depth on this matter. And that is sad.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and ascribe your ignorance to simple lack of knowledge and not a willful ignorance. Go out and read some other stuff on the environment than what you have been getting in your high school or community college classes. Hit a good library. READ!

No, that's just a bunch of words you use to dance around a lie.

You misquoted me. You lied.

anyone who can't SEE the damage "we have wrought" you have stated your position quite clearly. ....

See where you quoted those words? I didn't say that. You care certainly free to think whatever you will about things but lying is lying.

Ahhh, I see the problem. You don't understand simple English either. I suggest you look up the many and varied uses of quotation marks around words.

I am sure he got a trophy in English class for being special.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Again, human shit is a fine example. Left for the Earth to correct on it's own, the Earth will. The Earth has little problem with shit. Humans on the other hand, have a bit of a problem when too many humans are shitting in the same water. People get sick and die.

Does this little group of posters here reject sewage treatment? I mean... do you guys apply the "never mind, the Earth will take care of it" to shit? Or is it just other select human activities your are reluctant to accept as detrimental to human existence? Where do you guys draw the line of taking care of our own impact? Terracing and other erosion control techniques? Do you guys believe in that science? I mean, the Earth will take care of that too. Top soil washed into the bottom of the river doesn't really bother the Earth. How about swine and cattle vaccinations? Human vaccinations? How deep is this "let the earth fix it" idea? At what point do we stop trying to understand our world and use knowledge to make it better?

And save the "Earth" baloney. The Earth will destroy us long be we destroy it. I am not a "save Earth" type.

But you guys hard on for the environmentalist seems to be distorting your views of reality.

"Doesn't believe AGW nonsense" =/= "Wants to dump raw sewage in the town well".

There's some reality for you.

No, that isn't anything near what I have suggested. I have just asked if you folks believe in treating sewage? I mean... there was a time we didn't do that. And you know what a lot of folks though about it? They thought it wasn't a problem. They scoffed at the idea that a little shit in the street was making anyone sick. A little shit in the river couldn't hurt you to swim with could it? The entire idea seemed absurd that humans walking around in their own shit was a bad thing. It was a bunch of "science" hokus - pokus.

I don't buy into AGW, nor do I dismiss it. I tend to leave open possibilities based on the evidence. And the evidence suggest that man has the capacity to affect significant changes in his environment. Something as simple as tossing his shit into the street can wipe out huge numbers of humans. Piling and burning huge swaths of land can have consequences. Does it cause AGW? I can't make that link. I don't rule it out either. Here where i lived the cotton farmers used up the soil and then left it without any sort of erosion control. We don't get to grow crops here anymore in our region. The men before us caused our land to be washed away into the rivers.

These guys are as far on the denial side of the issue as the alarmist are on the certainty side of the issue. And the attitudes here are almost pure politics. There isn't even an elementary swing at science. One of the first steps in science is observation. The photos are here to look at. They don't confirm or deny AGW or even address that issue. They simply demonstrate mans ability to influence conditions on Earth. These frantic odes to AGW denial are pretty funny actually. These AGW guys have some shorts all in a wad, eh?

 

[westwall]

Let's put some pictures back up.

No scientific claims, no warnings that you should listen to me because " I am a scientist".

No special books you should go read, no long list of scientist to ignore.... just a few pictures to look at.

No politics, no suggestion of regulation. Just some pictures.

If you can look at pictures of the Earth, from space, and see smoke from man made fires cover nearly an entire continent, you can easily see that man can directly influence his environment.

If you can see the lights from a massive network of power lines and power plants, bright enough to light up the dark side of our planet, you don't need a scientist to tell you if man has the ability to influence his environment on a grand scale.

Do I care about the politics of global warming? Do I pick a side for any reason on that issue? No, I don't.

I am simply demonstrating that with three simple photographs you can eliminate a swath of ignorance that claims man hasn't the capacity to influence and change his environment on large scale, global impacts. It's evident to anyone who doesn't have a political stake in the matter that their is an absolute truth that man does affect his environment profoundly. Can he melt the ice caps? I don't know. But I do know that there was a time when the idea that we could kill every passenger pigeon, or log every tree on the continent was scoffed at just like you see the folks here scoffing. I don't deny or defend the idea of AGW. I merely recognize that we can can impact our planet, in fact, we can;t help but do so.

Thus speaketh the devout warmist. You see how I colored the word "deny" (also please note how I am using the quotation marks here) now I am placing you in the world of willful ignorance. You resort to emotion because that is all you have.

Come back some day when you actually can speak on the subject with some knowledge. Right now you are wasting all of our time because you truly don't know a bloddy thing.

I'll share a picture with you. This is North Korea at night. A environmental wasteland and looky here. It's dark at night. Just like you wish. Now look at South Korea. The average life expectancy in North Korea is one year less than in South Korea. And the quality of life is significantly less as well.

Is that really what you want?

 

[Sweet Willy]

Ah yes, the ever popular "you lied" meme. No, I didn't. I read between the lines and told you what your carefully selected code words mean in the real world. What are you 10? You need to get out more and learn something about what you speak. You are far, far out of your depth on this matter. And that is sad.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and ascribe your ignorance to simple lack of knowledge and not a willful ignorance. Go out and read some other stuff on the environment than what you have been getting in your high school or community college classes. Hit a good library. READ!

No, that's just a bunch of words you use to dance around a lie.

You misquoted me. You lied.

anyone who can't SEE the damage "we have wrought" you have stated your position quite clearly. ....

See where you quoted those words? I didn't say that. You care certainly free to think whatever you will about things but lying is lying.

Ahhh, I see the problem. You don't understand simple English either. I suggest you look up the many and varied uses of quotation marks around words.

I don't see where any use of quotes apply. I haven't characterized any of this as damage either. Just influence and affect. Damage may be your point of view but that's al in the eye of the beholder. Regardless of if you see it as damage, it is fire and smoke. Sometimes that is good. Sometimes that is bad. Kind of depends on your perspective I guess.

The photos are pretty self explanatory. You look at them and get an impression of the scope of human impact on the Earth. That's all.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Let's put some pictures back up.

No scientific claims, no warnings that you should listen to me because " I am a scientist".

No special books you should go read, no long list of scientist to ignore.... just a few pictures to look at.

No politics, no suggestion of regulation. Just some pictures.

If you can look at pictures of the Earth, from space, and see smoke from man made fires cover nearly an entire continent, you can easily see that man can directly influence his environment.

If you can see the lights from a massive network of power lines and power plants, bright enough to light up the dark side of our planet, you don't need a scientist to tell you if man has the ability to influence his environment on a grand scale.

Do I care about the politics of global warming? Do I pick a side for any reason on that issue? No, I don't.

I am simply demonstrating that with three simple photographs you can eliminate a swath of ignorance that claims man hasn't the capacity to influence and change his environment on large scale, global impacts. It's evident to anyone who doesn't have a political stake in the matter that their is an absolute truth that man does affect his environment profoundly. Can he melt the ice caps? I don't know. But I do know that there was a time when the idea that we could kill every passenger pigeon, or log every tree on the continent was scoffed at just like you see the folks here scoffing. I don't deny or defend the idea of AGW. I merely recognize that we can can impact our planet, in fact, we can;t help but do so.

Thus speaketh the devout warmist. You see how I colored the word "deny" (also please note how I am using the quotation marks here) now I am placing you in the world of willful ignorance. You resort to emotion because that is all you have.

Come back some day when you actually can speak on the subject with some knowledge. Right now you are wasting all of our time because you truly don't know a bloddy thing.

I'll share a picture with you. This is North Korea at night. A environmental wasteland and looky here. It's dark at night. Just like you wish. Now look at South Korea. The average life expectancy in North Korea is one year less than in South Korea. And the quality of life is significantly less as well.

Is that really what you want?

There are only a couple points of knowledge I am speaking to.

1. We have enough man made fires burning to see them from space.

2. We have enough electric lights burning to see them from space.

3. We have enough smoke from these fires to cover vast areas of land.

There is no science and no special knowledge required to see this. Anyone can see it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

Because they are susceptible to the programming by the corps that may be negatively impacted.

Exactly! Corporations (and their customers) should be forced to spend trillions of dollars to reduce the temperature 0.2 degrees in 2080.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?

You would be wrong on your assumption. Take a look at a few of the sceptics sites and then come back and talk to us about the "settled science".


Here is a little segement from climateaudit...


"Unfortunately, IPCC seems far more concerned about secrecy than in requiring its contributors to archive data. I received another request to remove discussion of IPCC draft reports. On this issue, David Appell and I are in full agreement – see David Appell’s collection of ZOD chapters here. Read More »"

Why, oh why, if the science is so solid would anybody need or want to hide it?


Climate Depot

Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Climate Audit

Odd. Skeptics sites by undegreed ex-TV weathermen carry such weight in scientific debates. How about taking a look at peer reviewed articles from real scientific journals.

AGW Observer

The American Geophysical Union has more scientists involved in climate research than any other scientific society in the world. So what is their position on Anthropogenic Global Warming?


AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance ......

Clearly. LOL!

 

[Sweet Willy]

I'll share a picture with you. This is North Korea at night. A environmental wasteland and looky here. It's dark at night. Just like you wish. Now look at South Korea. The average life expectancy in North Korea is one year less than in South Korea. And the quality of life is significantly less as well.

Is that really what you want?

An environmental waste land? Are you acknowledging mans ability to lay waste to his environment? "look what we have wrought!" You seem to say.

At any rate, what makes you correlate electric lights with these things? Do you think I mean that lights poison the air or water or something?

The lights only demonstrate the scale of man's ability to change his environment.

Now... reread that last sentence... because I know what you read was something like "turning on the bathroom light kills spotted owls..." But that's not what I said, is it?

We have learned to control some very impressive aspects of our living environment. We have turned darkness to light on a near unimaginable scale... until we just look at the picture. We are capable of that.

To think that a species capable of that is not capable of creating other impacts of similar scale is not the rational belief of a "scientist'.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For neocons (false conservatives), big business is everything and environment is nothing. If they were honest, they'd say, "I don't care if the globe is warming. Global Warming legislation is bad for the economy."

During the last ice age, my yard was under a mile of ice.
I'm glad the globe has warmed.
Warmer is better.

I'm curious, why are historical warm periods called climatic optimums?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Great Dismal Swamp fire.

Fires causes heat and smoke. We can see the smoke, it changes the CLIMATE over large areas. This fire affected Washington DC before it was over. Man affects our climate in ways we can SEE. The fires intentionally set in South America to burn the rainforest timber are exponentially larger than this fire and just the smoke causes the climate to be affected.

You are wholly IGNORANT if you deny that man can affect his climate on a large scale. We can SEE IT. We don't even have to argue scientific studies and data and CO2. First, we just ask CAN YOU SEE THE FIRE? CAN YOU SEE THE SMOKE? And those who still wish to argue, we dismiss from the realm of reasoned debate. Their input is worthless.

Fires causes heat and smoke.

And heat escapes into space.
So what?

 

[Sweet Willy]

Great Dismal Swamp fire.

Fires causes heat and smoke. We can see the smoke, it changes the CLIMATE over large areas. This fire affected Washington DC before it was over. Man affects our climate in ways we can SEE. The fires intentionally set in South America to burn the rainforest timber are exponentially larger than this fire and just the smoke causes the climate to be affected.

You are wholly IGNORANT if you deny that man can affect his climate on a large scale. We can SEE IT. We don't even have to argue scientific studies and data and CO2. First, we just ask CAN YOU SEE THE FIRE? CAN YOU SEE THE SMOKE? And those who still wish to argue, we dismiss from the realm of reasoned debate. Their input is worthless.

Fires causes heat and smoke.

And heat escapes into space.
So what?

So if it escapes that means we never made it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Fear is the mind killer as the movie said."

Great books, but the movie sucked.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Great Dismal Swamp fire.

Fires causes heat and smoke. We can see the smoke, it changes the CLIMATE over large areas. This fire affected Washington DC before it was over. Man affects our climate in ways we can SEE. The fires intentionally set in South America to burn the rainforest timber are exponentially larger than this fire and just the smoke causes the climate to be affected.

You are wholly IGNORANT if you deny that man can affect his climate on a large scale. We can SEE IT. We don't even have to argue scientific studies and data and CO2. First, we just ask CAN YOU SEE THE FIRE? CAN YOU SEE THE SMOKE? And those who still wish to argue, we dismiss from the realm of reasoned debate. Their input is worthless.

Fires causes heat and smoke.

And heat escapes into space.
So what?

So if it escapes that means we never made it?

If it escapes, it's no longer warming the planet.