Right Wing Anti-Global Warming Crap!

I'm very confused and undecided on this issue, on one hand i'm very eco concious and i'm against fossil fuels for alot of reasons, I think pollution is a global atrocity and it is reprehensible what sheeple have done to this planet. On the other hand, I don't trust government, and I can see how making Global Warming the new "war on terror" can be quite profitable both monetarily and sociologically to those who wish to oppress the sheeple. I haven't been able to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" yet, but I have seen the C4 documentary, which I will say is extremely biased against Global Warming, but still had some very valid points. I have not been able to find ANY cold hard science on this, just fearmongering (on both sides). I NEVER accept what the media tells me for fact, I just use the media to point me in a direction to conduct my own research. It does concern me very much that researchers have become biased in favor of the global warming theory in order to continue to recieve research grants, those that speak out AGAINST global warming have been labeled "deniers" (holocaust deniers comes to mind) and have reportedly recieved death threats (though I do not personally know the validity of this) So, if anybody would like to help me out, give me some sources on your theories, point me in the direction of some cold hard numbers, help me to understand. Please give me INDEPENDENT sources, people who have nothing to gain either way (in other words NO government sources, and NO fossil energy related sources, this includes scientists who recieve research grant money from either)

 

Well this is always going to be a problem, because so few of us are actually climate scientists, and have the understanding or the inclination to trawl through hundreds or thousands of academic articles presenting research findings dealing with different aspects of the climate change debate. So most of us, usually, will have to rely on secondary sources, few of which are going to be totally neutral.

There do exist such things as academic surveys of the scientific literature which might be the closest thing to what you're after. I don't off hand know of any links to such surveys online (I've read about them rather than having read the original texts) but it's something it might be worth trying to track down. Even then, you're still going to find people
who dispute the validity or bias of such reports, if someone's aunt's nanny once cleaned the floors at Esso or somesuch.

For me, a basic understanding of the "overwhelming scientific consensus" is generally enough for me to accept - not uncritically, but provisionally - manmade climate change. But have I read the scientific literature and built up an understanding of this consensus myself? No, I haven't. So fundamentally I'm accepting what I've read from a variety of sources I trust. One must always be sceptical of course, but there is such a thing as doubting too much, or placing too much importance on radical, lone critics - who may well be shouting the loudest, but nonetheless represent a small voice of dissent in a sea of consensus. You must never totally ignore such voices, it's helpful to be aware of them, but they need to be put in context.

Ultimately if you're not going to spend years studying to become a climate scientist you'll need to trust the most neutral and unbiased sources you can find.

 

I agree with you entirely, and Global Warming makes alot of sense to me, however I have read and heard several times from different scientists that to disagree with the current Global Warming theory is financial suicide, it is also bothersome to me that those who speak out AGAINST the global warming theory are referred to as "Global Warming Deniers" which makes one think of holocaust deniers.....it's like their is NO room for debate, and that bothers me alot. Up until about 6months ago I was completely on the Global Warming bandwagon but since i've become very confused regarding the whole thing...I just don't know what to think anymore, i've got my own ideas/theories but admittedly thats all they are, I have nothing to back them up whatsoever. The more and more I look into this issue it's drawing me to a very scary conclusion...one that I don't want to even mention because it's quite radical and i'm still not sure. Ultimately I think i'm going to find that Global Warming is REAL...but the truth behind why it's getting such strong support and why it has become such a hot topic isn't what it seems to be... (and NO what i'm thinking has NOTHING to do with the elite)

 

Here's the 2004 survey of nearly a thousand academic articles on climate change published 1993-2003 which is often quoted in reference to the "consensus":
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Of course you don't have to look hard to find this survey criticised!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientific_consensus

This is not to mention of course the 2007 IPCC report - which despite being attacked by some, nonetheless represents the voice of many hundreds of academic experts in their fields.

I understand the argument that research which might counteract the consensus view is not funded or encouraged because of an institutional bias, but I think that view is flawed. If such studies which demonstrate manmade climate change actually found evidence which would demonstrate the hypothesis was invalid, they would still be submitted for publication, and they would still be published if their results were scientifically valid. No such studies, no such contradictory evidence has appeared. (That which has appeared, such as some of that quoted in the C4 documentary, has been shown to be incorrect - that's how the peer review process works.)

I think doubting the neutrality of the peer review process - a process which involves hundreds of experts in their fields from all over the world, and which is performed openly and humbly by these academic experts who submit their findings for the criticism of other experts, not interested parties or ideologues - is being sceptical to the point of paranoia.

 

Thanks for the links, i'm going through the survey now, least what I can find online. I've already seen the wikipedia page but thank you.

Perhaps I am being overly paranoid, however given the amount of disinformation and propaganda that's given a platform by supposedly unbiased parties in the media, I think most people can understand how I could become so skeptical.

 

Here is an excerpt of another post I had on here, giving a basic outline of what i'm thinking (please no flames, this is just a theory i'm working on)

 

The thing is, NOBODY is saying global warming doesn't exist. The discussion is over global warming being MANMADE. I am simply not among the people who subscribe to manmade global warming, because I have seen little to no proof that HUMANS are the cause of it. I have, however, seen lots of proof that the earth has gone through many of these warming and cooling cycles throughout its 4.5 billion-year history, and that what we are going through now is nothing new. I am also informed enough to know that CO2 makes up for very little in the way of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, and the majority of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere comes from the ocean.

It's funny that how, if you don't support the manmade GW theory, you're somehow on the side of the Elite, when the IPCC, which released these latest findings on behalf of the UN, has a blatant SOCIO-POLITICAL agenda. That's why the few scientists on the board, who were not under paid agreement to come to the desired conclusions, had their findings censored while leaving their names on the final report anyway.

None of you people have addressed this issue yet, and you won't because you can't.

It's rather sad that we have been so conditioned to take the word of "experts" as if everything they say is automatically proven fact, so much to the point we never use any of our own thought and reasoning to critically analyze what these so-called experts are saying. We know that many of the "experts" who are put forward through the media are put out there with an agenda. If it's coming from the mouth of an expert, and it conforms with what WE want to believe in, then it must be true. Yet, we will ignore the evidence of those who have an alternative viewpoint other than what's being promoted by the media. It seems like the majority of the people who support manmade GW have only heard the findings of the scientists who have been put out there to promote it -- always backed by big-money -- when there are dozens of prominent and notable scientists who claim the exact opposite, who are being ignored or having their findings suppressed altogether.

It's funny how maybe only ONE person so far has bothered to even touch upon one or two of the things I brought up previously, while everyone else resorted to attacking me for not going along with them.

It's also funny how many people are so adament on turning this into a political argument, due largely to their conditioning and indoctrination. Personally, I don't follow politics because it's all a sham. As I have stated before, there is no difference between Gore and your average Republican. These people are all elitists and they all have an agenda. They play sides to give you the illusion they are different when they're not. They are all working for those above them to bring about a scientific world dictatorship. People don't understand this, though, because when a politician gets behind a cause that seems important to them, they are willing to get behind the politician, believing that what they see at face value is really what they're getting.

Skip, you say that you feel "your" side won back in November. Why? What have the Democrats done since they took control of the House and Senate, other than scratch Bush's back and allow him to continue carving up the world virtually unimpeded? Have we seen any real change whatsoever? No, we haven't, and that's because the two-party system you place so much faith in is a sham. You cannot and will not admit this, though. You do not understand that politics have always been for the masses. Those at the top do not embrace politics because they control every side of every debate. That's why you won't ever hear the truth from so-called "conservatives" about the manmade global warming ruse either. It's interesting how these fake conservative pundits and talking heads will attack manmade GW, while never alluding to what's really behind it all, thus giving more credence to the side they're attacking. The fact is, they don't want you to know the truth, yet they will use global warming to further divide the Left from the Right, while both continue to be lied to, thinking their side is the right side. Really, it's no different from religion, which politics are in a way. It's all about divide and conquer. Can you honestly not see this?

I am all for the technology that will replace fossil fuels, but the real FREE ENERGY technology (which does exist) is being suppressed by the powers that be. Instead they give us alternatives like "ethanol," which is deliberately inefficient and intended not to work in the long run. They want to keep us dependent on them. They don't want us to have technology that could liberate us from the system.

 

I think we need to deal with this idea of a socio political agenda. If you mean that the purpose of the IPCC is to advise governments of the science on climate change as it has appeared in hundreds of peer reviewed academic and technical articles presenting research findings, then yes that's true. It seems fairly apparent that this UN working group's whole endeavour is to let the published science speak for itself, it involves a process wherein hundreds of the world's leading experts in their fields contribute to a debate on this thorough review of the scientific literature and the most accurate summary of this literature that is possible from such a process gets summarised as a way of informing political leaders as to what the scientific consensus is, as nearly as such a thing can be possible.

In such a process there will of course be those who disagree - we heard from several of these in the C4 programme. Such disagreements are quite likely in such a process of finding a best consensus, the most telling aspect of the whole thing is that hundreds of academics largely agree with the content of the IPCC report. We're not talking about some shadowy committee in a smoke filled room, but open, evidence based scientific (not political) debate between hundreds of the world's leading academic experts in their respective fields.

Here is the "summary for policymakers" report which has been published:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Have you actually read it? It talk of likelihoods, probabilities, its summaries are detailed and nuanced, based solely on research which has been published in peer reviewed journals. There is a qualitative difference you need to recognise between this idea of "experts put up by the media" and the process of academic peer-reviewed science.

Interesting article dealing specifically with the claims made in the C4 programme by the former co-chair of the IPCC working group.
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

This quote deals with the issue of the scientists in Durkin's C4 docu complaining about being "silenced" and talks a little about the process by which the IPCC produces its report.

 

Here are so links for you Rob.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

 

lol

 

I think it's actually fair in this case to say not just "many" but, by far, "most".

 

Skip,
Why do you keep using the word denier??? I've said it twice already in this thread but i'll say it again, "global warming denier" sounds like "holocaust denier" it may accurately express how you feel but it sounds so propaganda-esque (i made that up, lol). PR may be right, he may be wrong, but if he is wrong it's because he's misinformed, not because he's a denier. I've heard so many people use that phrase lately and its complete and total bullshit. In order for something to be denied, it must first be "FACT" and to my knowledge their is an overwhelming consensus that manmade global warming is indeed real, however it has also been said time and time again that it is an evolving science, and at this time has not been conclusively proven to be fact. I know i'm getting into semantics but to me the entire man made global warming theory loses some validity when people refer to the opposing side as deniers.

 

What about Jim Inhofe, who said that global warming is a hoax made up by Hollywood elitists?

 

Skip,

I have already told you that I believe humans have been a destructive force on the environment. I do not deny this. I do not like breathing toxic air. I do not enjoy knowing the fact that the water is being polluted with shit and chemicals and whatever else. I don't deny any of this.

I don't depend on the people causing these environmental problems to exploit what they have created themselves by pretending they are our saviors, who are going to save us from environmental crisis while claiming it's OUR fault so they can re-engineer society.

However, we are not discussing general pollution here. We are discussing pollution in relation to manmade global warming, and how it's being used to scare the public into accepting increased government powers.

No, I don't doubt that mankind has had some effect on global warming, but it's very minimal compared to other NATURAL sources of CO2.

Like I said before, many people believe the environmental movement is grassroots. However, it's not. Few, if any, major movements are grassroots movements. I have done enough research to see what's behind the environmental movement and the people who are behind it, who are using the cause of "saving the environment" for their own agenda. You can deny this all you want, but this is a fact.

You say the disinformation campaign is against manmade global warming. Well, if this is the case, how come the controlled coporate media, which is owned and controlled by the Elite, is pushing global warming with a bias largely towards it being manmade? If the disinformation campaign was against manmade GW, then where is all this hype coming from? If there was a real smear campaign against manmade GW, how come we're continually being bombarded with disinformation contrary to it not being manmade? Why do we have the corporate media calling critics of manmade GW "deniers," which you have obviously picked up on and are now regurgitating?

Sure, there have been some dissenting voices against manmade global warming, but they largely go unheard.

As I have said before, the environmental movement is a MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY, which receives most of its money from multinationals and NGOs with links to families such as the Rockefellers. It's no surprise to me that "Earth Scientists," who were being funded by the Rothschilds' 'Club of Rome,' were warning about global warming in the late 60s, when the Club was founded by industrialist Aurellio Peccei. This agenda is not new, it is decades old.

After all it was the 60s when the environmental movement was founded by the Rothschilds.

Here is a revealing video which exposes some of the players behind the environmental movement and what their agenda is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYieLqIN3ec

 

Who has succeeded in confusing me? You see, I don't watch TV. I don't even have cable. I don't read mainstream publications, either, which are designed to provide the public with their opinions. They always give the public both sides while ignoring the third, which is the truth.

Why does FOX News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who eats dinner with Hillary Clinton on a weekly basis, attack global warming? FOX News is to the Right, what CNN is to the Left. Both sides feed their audiences pretty much the same misleading garbage and dumbed-down drivel, but with a different spin to keep the Right/Left divide going that the Elite depend on to remain in control. The job of FOX is to appeal to the idiot conservatives and Republicans, so they attack global warming in a very juvenile way, without ever giving you the facts or telling you what's behind it. They make it out to be a "Left wing" agenda, without ever telling you what's behind the politics. This is why the Right is just as misinformed as the Left, because both sides are being manipulated with nonsense and propaganda. It's only the people who reject the Left/Right paradigm and see that it's a sham, who see the truth. As long as people insist on taking sides which are provided to them by the controlled media, people will be at each other's throats while never seeing the truth behind the smoke and mirrors.