Why the Climate Change Hate?

I agree, don't stereo-type in my thread. My dad happens to be a gun-toting, beer drinking etc stereotype, and he believes in global warming. As do I. The thing is, I can see how some people don't buy it, given that people are making money of off scaring people and how a lot of the evidence isn't 100%. What I am trying to say is regardless of motives, there is evidence BOTH ways, but is it something we should gamble with? Even if there is only a 10% of global warming being our fault, and that it will lead to global catastrophe, why risk it? Like i tried to point out in the OP, we will eventually have to use alternative fuels anyways, all we are doing is delaying the inevitable, and POSSIBLY destroying the planet.

BTW I believed in it before Gore came around and all these band wagoners who jumped on here but don't really do anything about it but complain annoy me.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

3. There is nothing that we can do to change this from occuring. As long as other nations exist, they are free to keep polluting and releasing CO2 into the environment. Rather than using measures which destroy our country economically, we should shift our focus to adapting to a scenario where global warming has already occured. The world should technically, heal itself after the effects of global warming have wiped out a percentage of the population of the earth.

belief is free, i for one have grown extremely wary of predicted catastrophies, having experienced BSE and acid rain scares contributed to a more sober outlook.

therefore, i call BS on this particular weather forecast, maybe i'll turn out wrong, who knows. even pig-tooth and PR- 'enhanced' science might be spot on sometimes...


that said, if the Kyoto protocol was truely enforced over the next few years, as opposed to just being cited from time to time, we wouldn't need rising sea levels (which are unlikely to happen anyway since landmasses rise where glaciers lose weight www.abovetopsecret.com...) to ruin our lives. one should always keep an eye on the consequences, who's to say how many nations will turn violent when food crops become scarce to the point of famine?

India and China, in that order? do you think living through this scenario is worth the perceived benefits of corn ethanol? apologists can talk all they want, these efforts undermine the food supply, people warned against their use years ago, the industry and their political friends elected to toy with famine - witht he help of envirolobbies and i DO blame ithat on misguided 'environmentalism'. the issue is too serious to be left to in the hands of a few people with vested interest (and millions of true believers), therefore the entire history of the AGW claim must be scrutinized, from the day the took 6000 sensors off the list to the day they introduced the air tax and beyond. if the science itself is nebulous, maybe cashflow records and data logs will bring certainty.

reply to post by rizla

We lost all hope of effecting the policies of China/India when Bush killed Kyoto.

Kyoto specifically excluded India and China from it's restrictions.

And for your info, I own a gun, I drive a SEMI, I voted for Carter, Reagan twice, Bush 41 twice, Dole, Bush 43 once (big goof, I admit), and I will probably vote for Obama this time. And I hear the price of beans in Japan is up. Does that alter any of the facts in the debate?

TheRedneck