Follow the money. To find the truth in politics, follow the money. Do I believe that we should be good stewards, of course!
Let me illustrate with ethanol, especially corn based ethanol. It takes somewhere around a gallon of petroleum to produce a gallon of ethanol which only has 80% of the energy per gallon that petroleum has, but yet we've (in the USA) subsidized the industry with (I'm not sure here with the exact amount) billions of dollars, which we don't have. I call this the perfect storm. To the uninformed, ethanol looks like a good thing for the planet, even though environmentalists have said that this will cause great harm to the earth from soil erosion, pesticides, and fertilizer run off. So the Democrats are for it because it looks "green". Republicans are for it because it is "pro business". And since ethanol is "green", it's not PC to criticize it. Why don't we make those who produce ethanol use only ethanol in its production?
That CO2 is massively damaging is without debate.
NEVER EVER trust a scientist or politician who says that something is not debatable. If they have the evidence, they should want to present it. Too many times the results are found to be faulty when examined with scrutiny. The Washington state climatologist (I'm not sure that was his title) was fired after it was pointed out that he had "cherry picked" data to prove his view. BTW, if CO2 is so harmful, why don't we just bottle it all up? How long do you think you'd live? Also, I've never seen the main stream media talk about the FACT that mankind's production of CO2 is
insignificant in comparison to the amount the earth produces
naturally. Look it up. The evidence is out there.
If you are a scientist, you can get government money to research GW'ing, but not to disprove it. We get the results that we pay for because the scientists want to keep the money, their jobs, and the fame. So the only money available to research the validity of that science comes from private funds. Then those who are pro-GW'ing accuse them of having a hidden agenda. When I see the billions that have been spent by the governments, I have no problem seeing an agenda. Money corrupts science, especially when it is given with instructions.
Why is such vitriol thrown at those who simply ask questions? Reminds me of past socialist regimes.
If the ocean levels are going to rise, and it seems that no matter what we do, we will have very little affect on the outcome, shouldn't we be preparing to help people move away from low lying areas? I see a time in the future when it is obvious that we need to help people but there will be no money. Then we'll show them our "green energy" stuff and say "Aren't you proud of us? Look at all we did to help you. Sorry you're drowning."
The Oregon State Climatologist was a believer in man made global warming, until he studied the data and reversed his opinion. He has stated that if the evidence ever shows him otherwise, he will change his opinion. Sounds like a scientist, no? Follow the data. He was famously fired because he was not in agreement with the Governor at the time. The scientist fired by the PC governor. The same governor who decreed that all gas in the sate of Oregon must have ethanol, even when it was pointed out to the politicians that ethanol would cause harm in some cases. People had boat tanks dissolve, but of course the governor did not pick up the tab for the repair bills.
Take the time to talk to someone 80-90 years old. Ask them what the weather was when they were younger.
Is there climate change? Duh! There has always been climate change.
Answer me this. What affect are these having on the atmosphere? "At the end of 2012 there were 225,000 turbines spinning in 79 countries worldwide." Think about it. The atmosphere is an energy system and we are pulling energy from it. Do we have any idea what effect we are having? The atmosphere is only 60 miles thick and 2/3 of it is below 14,000 feet. If you are a baseball player, and you cause a ball to kill a bird, you will be fined. What about the birds being killed by turbines? It's not PC to ask that question.
I could go on and on. The head of the UN's IPCC is not a scientist.