| Slimebeast said: . I'm sceptic, because there have been alarms about catastrophies in the past that never became true, and the debates around those disappeared quickly (fear of nuclear war, starvation and overpopulation in the world, the thinning of the ozone layer). But we "need" a new threat. And voilá, Global warming! .
- There's always people that have a need to control other people, and if Global warming is a tool for it, they'll use it (for example politicians that love regulations and a strong state, "the nanny state" concept etc. In this case you also have hippies, ultra-environmentalists, socialists and whatnot, who want to restrict consumption in the West in general, for ideological reasons) - weather/environment research, all sorts of self-proclaimed experts on the subject, and all the lawyers and legislators around this, have an opportunity to get funds and money (compare this to the business around illegal narcotics and the military industry - lots of policemen, businessmen, politicians, legislators and lawyers want these institutions to thrive, and will obstruct any attempts to downsize them) - Leaders in some countries, like Bush recently, see that measures taken to slow down global warming have the side-effect of making the West less dependant on oil. In other words, the Middle east. - New businesses arise, like farmers making ethanol from crops. There's already a strong corn-lobby in the US
|
I've got one more: FUNDING!!! Scientists get hundreds of millions of dollars more to fund research when there's a catastrophe than when there is not. Congress isn't going to approve nearly as much money for research if there's no impending catastrophe, hence, the scientists take a theory, drum it up, blow it out of proportion, and get their precious funding. There are plenty of scientists out there who disagree with the human caused global warming theory, but they are laughed at and discredited (and broke).
Which brings me to my next point... Recognition! Scientists want to be known, make a name for themselves, and not be 'discredited'. So they jump on the bandwagon of whatever is the most popular idea. Since the sensationalized news media LOVES disasters & calamities, there will always be some scientifically 'proven' impending disaster for them to become the face of. From the hole in the ozone layer, to the aforementioned 'overpoplulation' (that was going to cause mass death & famine decades ago), to the global cooling movement in the '70s, there will always be a trumped up disaster, and there will always be the masses of sheep willing to follow.
As for political motivations, governments can grab power and control much more easily when there is something they can use to instill fear in the masses. Fear of the end of the world is enough for people to be ok with the banning of incandescent lightbulbs (it's already happened, and the new problem will be all the MERCURY from the compact florescent bulbs), or 'green taxes' to help fight something we can't control anyway (case in point, the world has been MUCH cooler and MUCH warmer without SUVs). So power and money, the two driving forces in government, are a great motivation for the political world (regardless of nationality) to get behind this.
I'm not saying we shouldn't work to decrease our emmissions and create the cleanest planet we possibly can, just that the panic is, as always, WAAAYY over the top.
