How can we be positive global warming or climate change is not a political or

[Denny M]

financial tool? I try to be objective, but all the evidence I see and hear points to global warming being a source of power for politicians and an economic hay day for it's defenders. For every fact its supporters give, there are scientists that can refute them. I'm very skeptical as the climate has been cycling warmer and colder since man has tracked it. Lately, the name "global warming" has been replaced with "climate change". The climate also varies from decade to decade in some given areas. So is the new name to gain wider acceptance?

 

[Dawei]

First, for you claim that they "replaced global warming with climate change". This is a common misconception people have, but it is easy to see why it is wrong. Realize that "global warming' and "climate change" actually refer to two different but related things; global warming means only a rise in temperature. Climate change refers to many things that occur as a result of this rise in temperature, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation patterns, etc. "Climate" refers to much more than just temperature. Realize too the IPCC has been around since 1988; it was never known as the IPGW. The terms have ALWAYS been used interchangeably (though during the Bush administration it was advised that they always call it 'climate change', since this name doesn't seem as bad)

Now, as far as whether it is a scam or not, think about it for a moment. Why do you really think this? Is there really anything that unusual about the way that politicians have reacted? Isn't it natural for governments to take action (assuming it was a real threat)? What specifically are they doing that is suspicious? Personally I would be more suspicious if they were NOT doing anything--it would tell me it were not actually a real threat--don't you think?

And finally, you seem to have another belief that global warming supporters vs global warming skeptics are a 50-50 deal. This misconception is also common, since most TV shows still try to be "balanced" by showing both a skeptic and a supporter at the same time. But the fact is 97.5% of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and human caused; is it "balanced" to give both sides such equal coverage when the supporters are clearly among the majority in the scientific community?

 

[Joe M]

The new name better describes the phenomenon. The predicted changes encompass our climate, not just temperature. Precipitation, humidity, ocean temperatures, etc. are all predicted to change.

Any time money is being spent on anything, there is someone who will gain. Weapons manufacturers benefit from war, does that mean that US weapons manufacturers are aiding the Taliban to prolong the Afghanistan war? I highly doubt it. If you don't like someone, does it mean you will kill them? Motives don't prove actions. Skepticism is good. And to be sure, scientists are imperfect humans capable of greed and lies just like the rest of us. However, the average scientist is an honest hard working idealist that has a drive for the pursuit of knowledge, regardless of any possible implications for future pay checks. While we're on that topic, if a scientist discovered convincing evidence that AGW doesn't exist, that scientist and the publishing journal would certainly become instantly renowned and benefit tremendously. Finally, I would like to see a single person cite something showing this windfall in research funding that the scientific community has received as a result of AGW. Obviously money is going to research AGW now, but if not there, I would think it would be earmarked for other research projects anyways.

As far as politicians... I would always take anything they say with a grain of salt. They are prone to support something whether they agree with it or not as long as it benefits whatever their political agenda may be - though most politicians don't have an evil empire agenda as people here may have you believe.