Why Are Politicians Lying About Global Warming

Where is the financial gain in lying about global warming?

There's money to be made either way so I don't see any logical reason for established corporations to "make up Global Warming". Politics (and the special interest groups they cater to), however, is another story entirely. Environmentalists have obvious reasons for wanting people to respond to the threat of global warming because even if it isn't real, there is still the added benefit of less pollution, fear also rallies others to the cause. Now, politically, it's advantageous to take advantage of not only the millions of people that regard themselves as as environmentalists but also the millions of people that are afraid of the repercussions of global warming. (Much the same way George Bush used fear of further terrorist attacks to get re-elected in 2004.)

There is also motivation for smaller energy companies to support global warming. The energy market is largely dominated by a few large corporations because of the barriers of entry that exist. However, the new energy market, composed of alternative and more environmentally friendly fuels, does not have those same barriers. Should a company develop and patent a viable new fuel source, they would be able to capture a large portion of the alternative energy market share. The only problem is, society as a whole tends to be myopic when it comes to these things, thus the majority would most likely be content staying with a terrifyingly finite fuel source, not to mention harmful to the environment. That is unless you scared them into changing, which is why it's theoretically advantageous for small energy companies to lie about Global Warming.

Is Al Gore telling the truth about Global Warming, or is he a liar.?

I'm not going to sit here and write a huge thesis on why global warming is or isn't caused by humans. But I will say Al Gore is full of shlt. He lies, he's a hypocrite and has a very large incentive for pushing his agenda. Check out the 35 mis-truths of "An Inconvenient Truth". That will give you a little perspective on his credibility. Scientists on both sides of the global warming issue have criticized him because his "documentary" was full of nonsense, bad science, and outright lies. And I hate to be one of those people who criticizes someone's lifestyle because I believe people should be free to live how they please. However, the second someone starts waving their finger at me telling me I need to "be a steward of the earth and stop consuming so much, otherwise I'm a bad person", that's when it opens the door to do it right back. Gore says we should cut way back, consume less fuel, have smaller houses and so on, when he's literally flying around the planet in his private jet that consumes more fuel in one trip than my car does in 6 months. Not to mention, driving around in a Prius claiming that he's "green" when his entoroage is surrounding him in 5 full sized Chevy Tahoe. And finally, he owns stakes in a company that sells carbon credits. Don't you think it's peculiar that he stands to make a fortune if our country enacts this ridiculous carbon credit policy??? He's nothing more than a profiteer that's willing to see American freedoms widdled down to nothing while he banks millions off people that want nothing more than to live life the way they want without being forced to buy something as nonsensical as carbon credits.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I almost forgot. He also credits himself with the invention of the Internet. His intentions sound genuine don't they?

Why do people hate the concept of Global Warming?

The real underlying problem is that money has gotten just too important in our politics. Both parties desperately need money to win elections, because in an open election (one where there is no incumbent running for re-election) the candidate who spends more wins about 95% of the time. And both parties get their money from the same sources, so you can't expect their real agendas to be all that different.

So a few very rich corporations get everything they want. For the Republicans it's the oil industry. Do you think it was just a coincidence that in the Bush administration the president, VP, secretary of state, and about 30 other top level officials came out of the oil industry? The GOP can almost be seen as nothing more than the political wing of the oil industry.

Naturally the oil industry has an interest in denying global warming. Nearly every 'scientist' who denies global warming is paid by the oil people.

But rank and file Republicans, Republican voters, are 'conditioned' not to see it this way. To them it's all about party. They would rather have a bad Republican president who makes them poorer and less free than a Democratic president who does a good job. The party 'teaches' them that global warming is a sham, designed to increase power for the 'Democrat Party' as they call it.

As you suggest, cutting back on fossil fuel use, and developing new sources of power, would help us in the long run in MANY ways beyond just staving off global warming. But our energy policy in the US is made by the oil companies, with the highest priority being their own profits.

How many of you still believe in the Global Warming Lie?

I believe in global warming. I'm not a scare monger, but am an environmentalist. Whether you believe it global warming or not, it is a debate that will have evidence both supporting it and disproving it. This issue is complex and on a global scale that will have evidence that may take decades or even centuries to appear. To say it must be a lie based on a few isolated criteria is contrary to scientific approach. Rather taking stock a multitude of informational sources both for and against global warming to decide which conclusions are reasonable or not is how I approach the debate. I also am unconcerned with the political nature of the debate. It is irrelevant what Gore, Clinton, or Bush say or do. Whether Gore created the Internet or not is irrelevant to global warming.
A lot of why I believe global warming is taking place has to do with the impacts mankind as a whole has played in the world from the last ice age. Nearly all human activities from the Industrial Revolution to current times, requires energy. It may be electric, mechanical, chemical, or whatever. These energy sources (be it through combustion, reaction, or refinement) emit gases. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides have been increasing on a global scale (perhaps exponentially, due to human population growth). Global GHG sinks have also been decreasing. I couldn't say whether or not a 33% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations can cause a shift in the CO2 cycle and thus a surface temp increase over time. I will say the the increasing human activity is impacting the environment. The US EPA and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) both have relevant information on the topic. While these organizations may have an interest in promoting hype for global warming, they are far more reputable than the contributors to this forum (myself included). Stick to the debate at hand and form your beliefs on reputable informational sources.

If global warming IS REALLY occurring, do we do something about it or do nothing, claiming it doesn't exist?

Has anyone died from global warming yet? I prefer a little scepticism if it avoids a panic over something we don't have all the information about. You can't always predict everything based on fear, so it seems prudent sometimes to have a little evidence. There are alternate theories that global warming might be a natural phenomenon, and it seems to be supported by historical evidence. For example, the Eocene period had much higher CO2 levels in its atmosphere than today, and the temperature at the poles were comparable to tropical temperatures today. Ice ages come and go, without SUVs to cause them. Blaming Exxon sounds like hysteria, not science.

Are those who deny global warming serious?

Not only are we serious, we also are sane. For example, Al Gore is an admitted liar.

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

Over-representation is just a fancy word for LIE! Admit it now, if you believe in an admitted liar you are not sane.

So seriousness is not the issue but sanity is. We know you evil people are serious about taxing us in the name Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. We know that you evil people want to enact and enforce tyrannical laws, all in the name of 'saving the world'. But are you really sane when you call out disaster and can't prove it? Are you sane when you expect sane people to join you in your insanity?