Originally posted by mora
A question to the denialists. Do you think there is a worldwide scientist conspiracy behind the man made global warming fuss? If there is, then who's behind it and what is there to gain for them?
Conspiracy? No. A conspiracy has some form of secrecy to it as a rule. These cats are just plain trying to play Jessie James without a gun.
Check out some of the real goals and some of the funding for the global warming for lunch bunch.
Here`s some food for thought that might answer your question.....................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are many indicators that a social agenda is what really drives Kyoto, not environmental concerns. Consider the following:
* Sir John Houghton, chief scientist of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), calls global warming a "moral issue". Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will, he says, "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference."
* Canada's past Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart said, "No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony ... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world".
* And finally, David Anderson, Canada's current Environment Minister, is the President of the UNEP governing council, an organization that focuses, among other things, on global environmental governance. Kyoto is the flagship of this effort so one has to wonder where his priorities lie in this debate.
And why should we believe the political leaders of the various U.N. Conference of the Parties (CoP) get-togethers? After all, the CoP series of meetings are part of a U.N. environmental convention that has the mandate to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human caused) interference in the climate system". Michael Williams, of the Information Unit for Conventions of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP/IUC), explains, "The COP is a political forum about how to respond to climate change, and not a scientific forum." So, if it turned out that human activities had negligible effect on Earth's climate, this organization, and its extravagant international conferences, would have no reason to exist. Clearly, the globetrotting band of climate change bureaucrats and environmental groups have a vested interest in convincing us that the science behind their proclamations is conclusive no matter what specialists in the field actually say.
Paying developing nations billions of dollars to buy the pollution credits awarded by "environmental" treaties may be the real objective of many alarmists. The transfer of wealth from rich to poor countries should be discussed for what it is, not incorporated into environmental agreements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's no conspiracy involved I'll have to go with the opinion of the vast majority of the scientists.
The problem you run into there is it is not the opinion of the vast majority. Only to those who stand to gain from such pay to say bunch.
Here ya go. The other thread is ongoing with some good info that will sure put more than a shadow of doubt on what has been stated as fact, but in reality is unsubstantiated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is of course no consensus at all," according to Dr. Fred Singer, President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project and Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. "There isn't even a consensus on whether the atmosphere is currently warming -- never mind on whether humanity should be held responsible."
Most people don't realize that there are in fact two parts to the IPCC report - a large science section (the 'main report') which is a description of research activities in climate science, as well as a highly politicized "Summary for Policymakers". The summary is what is commonly quoted in the media and by those supporting Kyoto. They present it as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. In fact, it is no such thing. It only represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), NGO's and business, rather than of scientists. The Summary for Policymakers has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty and presents frightening scenarios for which there is no evidence."
