Global warming politics?

[ErikViking]

I don't get this and maybe some of you can help out.

To my knowledge:
Some serious work has been done to research the climate of the earth and what effects can possibly be expected. Results vary. On this messageboard it seems to be not a question about climate but rather a question about left/right politics.

Left: Global warming is a problem
Right: No it isn't.

What I don't understand:
What I don't understand is why there is a political platform to argue from at all? Does the right belive the left has made up those theories in an attempt to... well why? What is it all about?

What I think:
I think it is good to take some precausions since there are signs of humanity having an effect on the climate. Why not? Does it cost anything?

 

[insein]

The point is not that they made it up. ITs that they just dont know. There simply isnt enough data to go upon in order to make an accurate assumption either way. We as humans have only been able to record data on global weather paterns for about 40 to 50 years. That is a ridiculously small amount of time when it comes to climate. We have documents that speak of temperatures being hotter in the Middle Ages and colder in the colonial era but they arent exact measurements. How can we tell if this Climate change we are having is from human interference or just another natural shift in the planets climate?

If we "act" to save the environment without knowing what is causing the problem, then we might very well make it ten times worse. Acting without knowledge is sometimes worse then not acting at all. That is the politics of it. Those that "insist" that global warming is a real threat without having proof are demanding legislation to help stop it. However, without all the facts, for all we know stopping global climate change might be like trying to change the trajectory of the moon. Its something we have no control over. Certainly humans pollute and cause damage to the environment but to say that that is definitively causing global climate change without any evidence to back it up is ridiculous. When they try to create legislation using tax payer money to attack a problem they don't know the cause of then thats where the politics come in.

 

[RyzinEnagy]

I don't get this and maybe some of you can help out.

To my knowledge:
Some serious work has been done to research the climate of the earth and what effects can possibly be expected. Results vary. On this messageboard it seems to be not a question about climate but rather a question about left/right politics.

Left: Global warming is a problem
Right: No it isn't.

What I don't understand:
What I don't understand is why there is a political platform to argue from at all? Does the right belive the left has made up those theories in an attempt to... well why? What is it all about?

What I think:
I think it is good to take some precausions since there are signs of humanity having an effect on the climate. Why not? Does it cost anything?

It becomes a partisan issue when a politician speaks out, and then all of the people of his political leaning side with him, and that party's politicians realize that they can garner a few votes by catering to that opinion, and, therefore, the other party disagrees because it is a threat to their votes.

 

[ErikViking]

The point is not that they made it up. ITs that they just dont know. There simply isnt enough data to go upon in order to make an accurate assumption either way. We as humans have only been able to record data on global weather paterns for about 40 to 50 years. That is a ridiculously small amount of time when it comes to climate. We have documents that speak of temperatures being hotter in the Middle Ages and colder in the colonial era but they arent exact measurements. How can we tell if this Climate change we are having is from human interference or just another natural shift in the planets climate?

If we "act" to save the environment without knowing what is causing the problem, then we might very well make it ten times worse. Acting without knowledge is sometimes worse then not acting at all. That is the politics of it. Those that "insist" that global warming is a real threat without having proof are demanding legislation to help stop it. However, without all the facts, for all we know stopping global climate change might be like trying to change the trajectory of the moon. Its something we have no control over. Certainly humans pollute and cause damage to the environment but to say that that is definitively causing global climate change without any evidence to back it up is ridiculous. When they try to create legislation using tax payer money to attack a problem they don't know the cause of then thats where the politics come in.

That was a pretty good answer, but I don't understand how it has (or hasn't it) become a left/right issue.

Also, trying to minimize human impact still seems as a good idea to me. But not run around and "doing" stuff. Messing with nature often creates more problems than it solves.

Edit:
Is this debate only about cars or general environmental thinking like recycling and ffc's and such too?

 

[ErikViking]

It becomes a partisan issue when a politician speaks out, and then all of the people of his political leaning side with him, and that party's politicians realize that they can garner a few votes by catering to that opinion, and, therefore, the other party disagrees because it is a threat to their votes.

Okay, I think I know how you mean. Still I'm surprised to find the question split left/right here att the messageboard. I don't support "my" party in every little statement.

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, here's what happened. Some guy showed up with some data and said it's possible that we're warming the Earth with greenhouse gasses and that one day, we'll all fry. He put it this way because scientists with plausible doomsday predictions often get large grants. Since then, there has been some evidence supporting human caused global warming, and a lot of evidence that any climate change is perfectly natural. However, before any reasonable debate could occur, a few things happened. First, the envrionuts latched onto this issue and basically said we had to go back to loin cloths, caves, and beating our dinner with sticks or else the whole world would die. Now, the left loves environuts, as was seen by the DDT deception. They also hate big business, which has the most to lose from global warming legislation, so they came out in support of this new theory, claiming we had to basically outlaw factories and SUVs in order to save the world. The right, eager to protect constituents, as well as America's right to own certain products, said that there wasn't conclusive evidence to condone things such as the Kyoto treaty, which hurt America far more than any other country. Since then, pretty much everyone on the left has been viciously promoting the idea that global warming will kill us all, claiming that anyone opposing them is an evil polluter who should be stopped. The right has pointed to the mounds of evidence that suggest that we're not causing global warming and that it's a natural cycle, such as the global warming occurring on Mars (the sun's hotter than it once was, folks). Some people on the right think global warming is a possibility. Most think it's just scare tactics. Either way, we think all evidence needs to be looked at. That's the left/right divide.

 

[ErikViking]

Ok, here's what happened. Some guy showed up with some data and said it's possible that we're warming the Earth with greenhouse gasses and that one day, we'll all fry. He put it this way because scientists with plausible doomsday predictions often get large grants. Since then, there has been some evidence supporting human caused global warming, and a lot of evidence that any climate change is perfectly natural. However, before any reasonable debate could occur, a few things happened. First, the envrionuts latched onto this issue and basically said we had to go back to loin cloths, caves, and beating our dinner with sticks or else the whole world would die. Now, the left loves environuts, as was seen by the DDT deception. They also hate big business, which has the most to lose from global warming legislation, so they came out in support of this new theory, claiming we had to basically outlaw factories and SUVs in order to save the world. The right, eager to protect constituents, as well as America's right to own certain products, said that there wasn't conclusive evidence to condone things such as the Kyoto treaty, which hurt America far more than any other country. Since then, pretty much everyone on the left has been viciously promoting the idea that global warming will kill us all, claiming that anyone opposing them is an evil polluter who should be stopped. The right has pointed to the mounds of evidence that suggest that we're not causing global warming and that it's a natural cycle, such as the global warming occurring on Mars (the sun's hotter than it once was, folks). Some people on the right think global warming is a possibility. Most think it's just scare tactics. Either way, we think all evidence needs to be looked at. That's the left/right divide.

Now that's what I call an explanation! That is how this question came to be a left/right issue.

 

[Eightball]

Just a couple healthy volcanic eruptions into the atmosphere per year exceeds all the chloro-floro-carbons that all of our worlds collective A.C. compressor's can leak out terrible Freon R-12.

In other words, we are now using R-134 freon to protect the Ozone layer, yet one big burp from a volcanoe completely exceeds all the dangerous R-12 leakage many times over in one year that comes from Auto and commersial A.C. units.

The wack environmentalists have us by our collective family jewels.........I should know.......I'm a Californian
......
If we don't wake up and go "hole hog" into state of the art Nuke power plant production real soon, we are going to be the only nation sucking the OPEC black mail, nipple well into the 21st century.

Much as it chokes my throat to say the name of this country, France is going big time into Nuke powerplant production. At this time France has surplus power on their grid and is selling their power to other customers, and is also using excess electricity to produce Hydrogen gas stock piles for future internal combustion engine fuels. The best, most economical way to get that perfect, pure fuel, hydrogen that spits out as water vapor at the auto tail-pipe, is through massive electricity supplies that can be used to "crack" hydrogen atoms from water molecules.

France, via the Nuke route is also freeing themselves from OPEC black mail.

But good old U.S.A. is ham strung by the Sierra Club and other wacko movements and are forced to burn Coal for power. Coal burning power plants throw more radioactive gasses, and substances into the atmosphere than all the Nuke plants in the U.S. combined.

We've got to start punching more holes out in the ocean off the California coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and get Anwar moving.........The left wing, environmental lobbies are ruining my Golden State...............we have the highest gas prices because the good old California Air Resources Board(CARB) has mandated that we Californians must burn our own special unleaded gasoline mixture. We cannot import the 49 state, EPA approved Unleaded gasoline into our state, unless by Gubenatorial mandate. Schwarzzie is scared stiff to buck, the lobbies and CARB.

Anyway, we've got a new proposition coming up to tax our gas in Calif, some more.
.......
Global warming............I was a Geology major in college........This old planet has been going through warming/cooling cycles for millions of years. We just had a mini-Ice Age that finished up back in the late 1700's to early 1800's, before the Industrial age even started to kick in and allegedly spew warming chemicals into our atmosphere.

Less than 10,000 years ago, a third of the U.S. was covered in a massive ice sheet, yet it melted off well before the advent of industrialized European man arrived.

Volcanism affects earth weather much more than all the smoke belching plants the world over could ever muster.

When Krakatoa blew at the beginning of the 20th century, it threw up so much material into the upper atmosphere that the U.S. suffered from one of it's coldest Summers on record. Just a minute part of a percent decrease in sunlight entering the earth's atmosphere and wa la! You've got drastic cold weather for months on end.

There are two opinions to decreased sunlight due to atmospheric chemicals, dust.

One is that we develop green house affect similar to the planet Venus........where heat cannot dissipate from the earth's near surface.....

The other view is that decreased sunlight will lower the average mean temperature, resulting in the advance of glaciers due to lower melting rates versus snow pack build-up.

It's interesting, but massive glaciation seems to follow closely behind massive volcanism. Less sunlight, more cold, less glacial ice melt-off than ice build-up.......wa la! An ice age........mini or big...........who knows ......just depends on the extent of light absorption of our atmosphere.