Exorbitant amounts of greed versus scientific concern. Guess which side is currently winning.
I don’t think either one of those is true, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. I think both sides stretch the truth in their favor. One does not want change and will lie to keep business as usual. And the other wants change sooo much that they will skew the truth to get what they want as well.
This is just another great example of conflicting interests.
For what purpose? What do environmentalists have to gain by exaggerating about climate change? Im quite sure no climate change activists are profiting from this movement. The only reason I can see for their exaggeration that logically makes sense is simply to gain more support for their cause, albeit on questionably hyperbolic pretenses. Even so, their intentions seems quite a big more honorable than Oil Company’s motivation for profits. Oil companies not only have much more to gain, but also much more to lose. Conflicting interests seems to be an inappropriate way to describe this situation. More like interests being compromised by legislation.
You don’t think climate change activists are profiting? How about the millions/billions of dollars in research grants and green energy subsidies that governments are spending?
Yup those fancy penthouses and airplanes that the env. activist jetset roll in while they pop champagne…….. lol
So, one only profits if they have a fancy airplane, a penthouse and drink champagne? Hell, I profit from my work (until my wife gets a hold of the paycheck) and I don’t have that list if items. Yes, these ‘researchers’ are profiting by maintaining a paycheck, finding a scary bogyman to blame and then telling us how to cure the earth’s woes. Also, there is an air of self importance, “look at the noble work I’m doing, all for the sake of mankind”. Are they attempting to crash the global economy? Not deliberately. I believe they just don’t realize or care about the consequences of what they are proposing. For example, I live in the metro-NYC area where we have a nuclear reactor named Indian Point. There are groups of people (many from out of state, so the results would not effect them) that are attempting to get the NRC to pull it’s license to operate, taking it off line. They attempt to portray it as a ticking time bomb, waiting to kill millions of people in a radiation leak. But they have absolutely no reasonable solution to substitute the lack of electricity if they get their way. All, pie-in-the-sky solutions, solar, wind, etc.. But even each of those replacements has an environmental group against it. Just ask Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the big enviro-activist/lawyer, he helped get a wind farm killed, why? Because it would be off-shore from their beloved Nantucket, an eye sore.. Oh boo-hoo! A lot on NIMBY going around. Do you want a solution that is reasonable and in reality? Look up Thorium. We have >1000 years supply, it’s a heck of a lot safer than Uranium, and you can’t make bombs out of it. But this current government will not allow the commercial pursuit, why? Because, quoting from congressional testimony “We already have a Uranium fuel cycle, we are not interested in another fuel”.BTW, GE is the sole supplier of Uranium fuel. You know, one of those great, impartial backers of any politician that will assist them in their endeavors? The one that paid $0 in taxes on BILLIONS in profit! Yeah, THAT GE!. Until you come up with realistic solutions, AND live the life style you purport everyone else to live, maybe people should pursue improving their own lives, rather than telling others how to live.
you can see the bias in the second slide… “limited” operating budgets? Both groups have been making “obscene profits”. In case you haven’t noticed…being green is kind of a big thing now; but hey, you can live in the past if you want
how much of a profit is being gained by being green? how much of a thing is it, in comparison to the blanket term used above, “big oil companies?”
I laugh my butt off when i read this. It’s not about the planet it’s about politic. Al Gore has gotten very rich over this global warning idea and so have a lot of others. Maybe it is warming but is it us causing it or just a normal climatic change that we go through ever few hundred or thousand years? Has not been that long since the little ice age ( a couple of hundred years ago?). 90% of the scientist my *ss. Where do you come up with that number ? But you believe what you want as it’s your right. What is really sad and scary is we can’t talk about it like we use to other things as your are a nut if you do not believe like what ever side you are on about global warming . NOTHING in science is ever absolute, because we have been so sure so many times that our side was right just to find out later we were wrong.
You’re correct, the 90% of scientists figure is off. According to the National Academy of Sciences it’s closer to 97%. Furthermore, the study reports that the 2-3% of climate researchers who don’t support the idea of global warming don’t have as much expertise in the subject matter as the 97-98% of scientists who do believe global warming is occurring and is caused mainly by humans.
[Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract ]
Ok, here is that famous 97% consensus figure again. Want to know where that cooked number came from?
What it boils down to is, 10,000 surveys sent out (only 2 questions), 3,000 replied. The researchers did not like the outcome so they culled out most of the respondents for one reason or another. The final tally was 75 of 77 climate researchers agreed that AGW is real. Don’t believe me? Then read the paper from the researchers yourself!.
Page one, lower right corner, last paragraph. At least they were honest when they cooked the books. The ClimateGate e-mails from the Climate research Unit at the University of East Anglea weren’t as open and honest. Not to mention the Michael ‘you can’t see my research’ Mann research.
Who benefits? The government benefits. They get expanded powers and thus have a reason to scare people with the global warming bogey man.
So the government supposedly benefits by pissing off big oil, for the nebulous goal of getting “expanded powers”? I think not.
Typical left wing rhetoric. Build a straw man and then make your arguments against it. Never let the truth interfere with a good cause.
That’s typical everybody rhetoric. Don’t fellate yourself imagining right-wingers are paragons of truth and logic in argument.
Ok, look–oil is on its way out. Might not look like it, but more countries and their govts are pursuing alternative energy. They know oil is limited and more so, it’s a very expensive endeavor to try and corner the market in the Midd East. Sustainability is on its way in. But dang it, there’s no profit in green energy (case in point: quashing every scientist who’s created cars that run on water). The way to profit from this rising, inevitable tide of “going green?” Why, carbon trading! It keeps the dollar as the reserve currency and creates a new giant market where developed countries like those in Europe and the States can continue squeezing developing countries like India, Africa and China through carbon taxation. To say there’s no profit in carbon trading is missing a larger issue. It’s a global game of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer.
What makes more sense? Environmental scientists are skewing their data to legitimize their otherwise worthless profession OR oil companies are turning a profit by catering to what consumers demand?
The comments on this perfectly summarize the political discussion in the country. Each side agrees with what best supports their cause and calls any reasonable arguments or scientific proof for the other side lies. In this case the left happens to be right (97% of scientists both liberal and conservative agree) but both sides tend to ignore all discussion and reasonable logic just for the sake of supporting a cause for their party. These days being a part of a political party is more like rooting for a sports team than civil action