Motivations behind Passionate Discourse on Climate Change?

I agree. Many are too slow to understand and too quick to generalize and demonize.

I have (overall) conservative political views, work for an oil company and live in Texas. Does that make me world hater? Of course not – just like I’m not an idealistic tree-hugger because I drive a hybrid, turn off the water when it’s not needed in the shower, haul my recycling all the way to my office since they don’t have a program in my neighborhood, and eat healthy food.

It’s difficult for me to understand why people can’t appreciate the need for energy companies in a world with energy. Personally, I have no qualms about working for Shell. The company provides a service the world desparately needs. (In the Philipines, for example, the Malampaya gas field allows there to be electricity. If production stops, their lights go out.) Shell also dumps millions into researching technologies to improve sustainable development (like carbon capture).

So why all the haters? Probably just because it’s easy. It’s easier to point your finger at the place where you buy gas and say it’s their fault. Of course, this makes about as much sense as someone blaming a grocery store for obesity. People also fail to grasp what energy companies actual do. I was taking a taxi in a rural Texas town once, and the driver asked me for whom I work. When I told him, he said, “You mean the stores?” Uh… kind of, but no.

On the other hand, the excuses people use to live wasteful lives also bother me. Yes, it’s important to have good environmental policy and for research to be funded into cleaner ways to get energy – but people can follow the “reduce, reuse, recycle” mantra and (cumulatively) make a big difference right now.

Unfortunately a significant portion the science on both sides isn’t proven. I spend a lot of time studying the science — not the news, the science — and the global warming science has less substance to it than you might think, given all of the publicity. On top of that, the warming publicity has a lot of out and out falsehoods, either through good intentions or from intent to deceive. I’m retired and have no agenda either way. I just want to understand it.

Question 1: What if we find out global warming is wrong after we’ve spent trillions of dollars to stop something that isn’t happening?

Question 2: What if we spend trillions on CO2 only to find out later that it isn’t the cause of global warming.

Carbon Dioxide is lethal to human life above about 30%. Our atmosphere contains about .000385% of CO2. Your argument that it is “common sense” to remove CO2 from the atmosphere based on the fact that CO2 is lethal “above certain levels” is bunk. Additionally, CO2 is not “poisonous”. CO2 kills by suffocation.

Carbon Dioxide is vital to life on Earth; plants exist because of it, and last time I checked, removing plants from the cycle of life would be disastrous (can we say “the end of most life on earth”?)

There is NO reason WHATSOEVER to remove Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere beyond an attempt to “reverse” this theoretical Anthropogenic Global Warming via CO2. Please keep your opinions to yourself.

In response to the comments by ‘anonymous’, your ‘study’ of the science is seriously flawed if you are still thinking that the scientific facts about global warming and the role of CO2 are unsettled. You apparently mistake fossil fuel industry propaganda for actual science. The IPCC reports reflect the best science available from tens of thousands of actual working climate scientists around the world. There is no significant dissent within the scientific community on the basic points that mankind’s release of gigatons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere is raising the average temperature of the planet and driving abrupt climate changes. The public perception that these scientific conclusions are in doubt is the result of a well funded propaganda campaign by Exxon and other fossil energy groups designed to delay any actions to curb carbon emissions that might reduce their profits. Real climate scientists get their papers published in peer reviewed science journals but the AGW denier stooges for the oil industry can only get their flawed junk ‘science’ published on blogs and the sites of foundations and think tanks funded by the oil industry. Anyone can verify this by googling the sources and sites where the AGW denier propaganda appears and adding the word ‘denier’ to the search. This will take you to sites that monitor the money trails between Exxon (etc) and the groups pushing the denier drivel.

Allow me to quote myself at length as to why this tends to divide into a left/right issue:

Already there are lawsuits against those who have “caused” global warming. The UN, EU, and politicians like Gore are rubbing their hands together at the thought of imposing “carbon” taxes and greater governmental intrusion in all our lives. Mouth breathing celebrities preach to us common folk to repent of our energy sins whilst hopping into their SUVs to take them and their entourage to their private jets, or while having a hot tub helicoptered in. The Live Earth concert produced as much carbon in one day as Afghanistan did all last year. Much touted “green” fuel such as ethanol are ultimately worthless, as there isn’t enough farmland to grow enough corn to make it worthwhile, plus it pollutes worse than gasoline. Don’t get me started on the costs of bio-diesel.

Aside from the fact that probably the simplest and cheapest way of reducing pollutants is increased nuclear power (even the co-founder of Greenpeace says their no-nukes absolutism in the 70’s was wrong-headed and environmentally destructive) and a really good, affordable, powerful electric car, I have not heard one idea being proposed about what we should do if Global Warming is inevitable. Not one. No ideas on how to adapt, on how to make Global Warming work for us. Just hysteria and polishing up the stone slabs in anticipation of making human (or orangutan) sacrifices to appease the angry weather gods.

What it means to the average person on the street is a giant sucking sound from your wallet when O and the Dems pass global warming legislation. Not to mention the squeal of pure joy that will be emanating from Gore’s piehole when his dream is realized and his pockets begin to fill with the cold hard cash flowing from his carbon-related enterprises. You need to take a long hard look at the motivations of the anthropogenic global warming crowd. Never before have socialists and environmentalists (there’s not much difference between the two) been presented with a more opportune issue with which to take control of society. They will continue to make doomsday claims until they have fulfilled their socialistic agenda. Then take a look at ALL the science. Note that there really is no theory. If there was a theory and it was holding true, we wouldn’t be experiencing a cooling trend amidst a continued increase in CO2. Also note that nearly every pro AGW article in the media talks about what COULD happen IF certain things hold true. Very few facts are included. Usually what’s not included is any scientific evidence linking CO2 increases to increases in temperature or any other effect. In effect, the stories foment fear that if we don’t do something now, we’re all doomed. Scientists generally agree that the Earth warmed during the 90’s. What is disputed is the mechanism that caused the warming (which now has turned to cooling). Many agree that it is solar related rather than CO2 related. In addition, don’t fall for the scientific consensus argument. Michael Crichton pointed out that there is no such thing as scientific consensus. Science is a series of hypothesizing and testing hypotheses. If scientists formulate a consensus, that means they are not doing science.

Peter, you can listen to all the drivel coming from the media and politicians or you can do some research and find out what’s really going on. Is cleaning up the air a good thing? Undeniably but let’s not resort to bad science, politicking and fear-mongering to do it. We need to get the bad stuff out of emissions not CO2 which is necessary for life.

Ah where to begin? First of all, you need to make sure you’ve given both sides an equal voice. I actually have a website that you might want to visit. The Links tab contains several books that disagree with Mr. Gore’s and Mr. Hansen’s view of global warming. You might also want to visit the video section and view The Great Global Warming Swindle. http://www.hootervillegazette.com

Please don’t suggest that only the global warming realists have something to lose if we implement Gore’s suggested policies. Many scientists have their livelihood tied to continued support for global warming research. Just try getting a research grant in the area of climatology if you don’t support global warming.

Funny that few ever question Al Gore’s ties to the wind and solar industries. As with much of what goes on at higher levels, the players on both sides might not be as obvious as you would think. Chris Horner, author of Red Hot Lies, was an employee of Enron and tells a
somewhat surprising story of Enron’s support for global warming alarmists. I suppose when one thinks about it, global warming alarmists and their proposed policies offer tranditional energy companies a price-fixing scheme they could have only dreamed about before.

As for the average person on the street, I suppose they’ve seen a lot of scares come and go without result. Global Cooling, Acid Rain, BSE (Mad Cow Disease), Swine Flu, Bird Flu, Asbestos, breast implants, UFOs, Satanic Cults, etc… I don’t think we should blame the general public for being slightly more skeptical (snd therefore scientific) than scientists trying to procure their next research grant or politicians trying to cash in. A quick side note: Al Gore was worth about 2 Million when he left office. He’s worth over 100 Million now.

One other explaination for the general publics caution on this matter might well be Gore’s lifestyle. He is living the classic “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” lifestyle. He claims the believe in global warming, but owns an evergy guzzling house, an energy guzzling houseboat, flies around in a private jet, drives around in limousines, and owns beach front property. I suppose he plans to sell before the 20 ft sea level rise that he predicts.

A third and final reason, might be the fact that he was so deceptive in his movie An Inconvenient Truth, that a UK court ruled it to be filled with errors and a very politicized film. For example, he airbrushed the little ice age and the medieval warming period off his graphs in the movie. I guess he didn’t want the viewers noting that he was using the end of the Little Ice Age as his baseline year. He also didn’t want the viewers knowing that it’s been much hotter during our human existence and Man survied with less technology than we have now. He also suggested without saying that Aral sea was dried up by global warming. It has in fact been drained to irrigate cotton crops. A prediction that was made over 200 years ago. He also said for the first time a significant number of polar bears are drowning. Researchers at CEI, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, ran down the study and found that four polar bears had drown in unusually severe storm conditions.

Children are having trouble sleeping at night thanks to Al Gore and his lies. It’s time the truth be known. THe science is far from settled, there is no consensus. See the global warming tab at http://www.hootervillegazette.com to see several lists containing thousdands of scientists who now have the couragfe to disagree.

And now we are seeing the fruits of the “AGW APOCALYPSE NOW!!!” stuff:

“Last year, an anxious, depressed 17-year-old boy was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. He was refusing to drink water. Worried about drought related to climate change, the young man was convinced that if he drank, millions of people would die. The Australian doctors wrote the case up as the first known instance of ‘climate change delusion.’”

and a best-selling author, Steven Kotler (never heard of him) has called octuplets-mother Nadya Sulamen a ‘murderer’ and warns of overpopulation saying, “we need to lose 4.4 billion people.” He calls for a five year ban on having children.