Do you think humans are helping cause Climate change?

[DarthVolod]

Rath said:

DarthVolod said:

thismeintiel said:

 

What I find funny about man made Global Warming supporters is that, for the most part, they support people on the left, be they actors or politicians, because of there supposed passion about this subject and resolve to change things.  One has only to look at these peoples lifestyles to see that they don't truly believe what they are preaching about.  If they did, they would be dropping their own carbon footprint.  Instead they fly around on private jets.  Own multiple mansions that suck up electricity.  Own multiple expensive cars that are most likely horrible on gas mileage.  They're basically playing people for fools, asking you to change your lifestyle, persecute companies, while they continue to live lavishly.  And Al Gore is one of the worst offenders.

Lol you just reminded me of the enviromentalist group on my campus that is always passing around tons and tons of flyers. Even if the paper is recycled, 80% of them end up on the ground somehwhere which gets litter all over our otherwise clean campus which ironically makesthem the greatest polluters at my college.

The lifestyles of big supporters of global warming like Al Gore always reveal their true beliefs. I remember the big rich environmentalist types had a meeting on climate change in Copenhagen a few years back with attendees from around the world. Would it not be better for the environment to hold that same meeting online or through a conference call instead of burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel?

Poor practices by supporters does not make the science poor.

In any case the amount of carbon contributed by the copenhagen conference is (relatively) miniscule. The amount of carbon that would not be produced if the world leaders actually got around to doing something about the problem would be huge.

True, but I think we can both agree that it makes thier beliefs look rather questionable as a result. If I am a smoker and I am also an anti smoking activist that goes around telling everyone not to smoke, and that smoking is bad for you even as I go through 3 packs a day ... well then you kind of have to question my commitment to the cause. That does not necessarily mean that the science behind what I am saying is wrong, but it is not a very consistant way to present my case

Like I said before, even if the world leaders got together there is nothing they could do aside from hassle the few remaining American manufacturers left. China and the developing nations are not going to stop using as much oil as possible as they continue to expand. The only thing that could stop them is a military invasion which not even Obama would be crazy enough to get tangled up in ... especially over a non-issue like global warming.

Ultimately, the only achievements the environmentalist movement can claim are: making America even more dependent on foreign oil, wasting billions on inefficient green energy programs, killing jobs in manufacturing while replacing them with green energy jobs that require massive subsidies from the government to remain afloat, making Al Gore even more rich, and helping Obama get elected.

Don't get me wrong ... I agree that we have to take some steps to make sure the planet remains a safe place for us to live (at least until we terraform Mars or something), but so far governments and their environmentalist lobbies have only caused harm while doing virtually nothing to solve the rather innocuous problem of climate change. If they really cared about the environment then they would do things like calling for an end to meat subsidies for farmers which produce a large amount of carbon (killing two birds with one stone since I imagine that many environmentalists are also big on animal rights). Also, an emphasis on private property and not on creating vast stretches of unusable real estate in the form of national parks would have a greater impact than anything they have proposed ... when land belongs to someone they are going to go out of their way and do everything possible to maintain it because it is in their best interest ... an authoritarian law would never have that same effect.

All of this is beside the point though as I am sure the environmentalist movement was largely conceived as a political lobby centered on an artificial issue that is vaguely scientific enough for people to believe ... it is a movement that both the right (global cooling) and the left (global warming) have used and will probably continue to use so long as they can convince enough people to take up the cause.