Global Warming versus Global-Warming Conspiracy: Who’s right?

If you watch Al Gore’s videos on global warming and John Coleman’s responses, they both have a lot of very convincing charts.  Since I’m not a scientist, I’m likely to believe whichever I’ve seen last.

I mean…they both have charts!

So I can’t tell you which of these theories…or rather hypotheses…are true.

The only thing that’s obvious from these charts and statistics is that one of these men is lying to us.

When someone is telling the truth, they often have no motive besides passing on information.  It’s human instinct to teach and pass on the truth.

When someone is lying they have some other goal, some ulterior motive behind the lie.

Assuming that the global-warming-is-a-hoax folks are lying to us, the motive is obvious. The message in the first video is clear, “You do not need to change your lifestyle in light of this so-called “evidence”. We encourage you to keep driving your cars, keep consuming whatever you want in whatever quantities you want, keep living your consumerist lifestyle because it has no affect on the environment.” Why would a group work so hard to propagate this message?  Who would suffer so much if we started reducing CO2 emissions, that they might want spend large amounts of money to fight the idea. Who is it going to hurt if we take gas cars off the road, reduce pollution, and start caring for our atmosphere?

If this is true…and I’m not saying it is…but if this is true, the obvious answer is “big business”.  All of them…or any of them who would have to pay huge amounts of money to clean up their act to reduce CO2 emissions…any of them who would lose money if gas stopped being used…thing energy company, car companies, gas companies…those would be my big three targets…all multi-billion dollar industries.

Now let’s look at the other side. Assuming that the global-warming folks are lying to us, the motive is elusive. If the climate is not in crisis, then Al Gore, et al., are spending millions of dollars wastefully to clean up the environment which isn’t in peril in the first place.  Why would they do such a thing? Who would possibly profi from the Global Warming Hoax?

The only people I can possibly think of that would profit from a global-warming hoax are university professors that have grants to research it. If one has spent one’s lifetime in an effort to prove global warming and suddenly realizes that one is chasing a dead end, it doesn’t seem to far a stretch to accuse them of fudging the data so that one’s grant money would keep pouring in.

Again, I’m not saying that this is true…but it is a plausible reason to propagate this lie: so that university professors and post-doctoral students would not get their funding cut.

Now let’s compare. Which group do you think would would me more likely to spend the vast resources necessary to propagate such a huge lie?  Which group would be more likely to spend millions of dollars to lobby congress to enact legislature based on this lie?

Do you think that a dozen billion-dollar corporations have more to profit by lying to you or a dozen universit-level environmental departments stand to gain more by lying to you?

This entry was posted in Politics, Science and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Global Warming versus Global-Warming Conspiracy: Who’s right?

  1. thebigpicmin says:

    I know it hard to believe that these scientists are as corrupt as the big businesses, but l don’t believe that the end ever justifies the means. The earth is a very complex system, just take a look at how difficult it is to predict next weeks weather!

    While the altruistic desire to save the planet appears to be a good thing, if dishonest (evil) people use this to enslave, gain power and control, it is no longer a good thing.

    God Bless

    • Jason Tyne says:

      I’m not sure if I understand what you’re saying. It seems as if you are saying that these scientists are as corrupt as big business, and that they are the dishonest (evil) people to enslave, gain power and control.

      …but this is my question.

      What people are these scientists enslaving, what power are they gaining, and what control are they harnessing by propagating the lie of global warming?

      I can’t see anyone getting powerful on either side of the debate other than the businesses that don’t want to adapt their ways to less cost-effective ways of promoting consumerism.

      Where’s the profit in this from the scientists if global warming is a hoax?

  2. rogerthesurf says:

    With reference to global warming, which unfortunately so long as governments are considering Cap and Trade and CO2 taxes, is still with us.

    There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.

    There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.

    For instance it is a serious error and tantemount to being a porky to say that warmer climates cause desertification.

    As the air warms there is more evaporation and therefore more precipitation including in the polar regions as snow. One should be aware that during the Holocene Optimum with temperatures significantly higher than the present, the Sahara Desert was lush and fertile.

    I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.

    In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog

    Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.



    PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)

  3. Sumone says:

    If it is theories you want who could profit from a climate hoax and why, I advise you to watch the documentary the esoteric agenda.

    Theories I can think of is a governments profiting from extra Enviromental taxes which citizens are more likely to accept. The carbon industry: making you blame yourself for being an greedy consumer instead of blaming them for disrupting new innovations of suistainable and decentralized energy. They prefer you consuming 20% less than loosing you to competative forms of energy such as solar.

    The scientists you mention have little profit. They believe what they observe. I don’t believe the climate hoax was created out of thin air by some conspiracy. It might probably be real. Non the less, in theory there are people who could profit by increasing global awareness instead of decreasing it.

    I believe in decentralized energy, electric cars, biological food, sustainable business plans, durable goods, recycling etc. I don’t believe in showering less, using less heat, paying enviromental tax. The latter sounds more like an import reducing policy..

    • Jason Tyne says:

      Thank you for answering the question. I like the list of suspects…although I find the list suspect.

      Government is a good one if you believe that the profits gained from environmental taxes will be more than what they could make pandering to the petroleum industries, et al. It seems to me that the government would profit more if they were to side with the global-warming-is-a-hoax folks.

      Your carbon industry is also an interesting choice. It’s a risky gamble for them to count on losing 20% of their consumers for fear of losing it all when they might lose it all if they propagate the hoax to hard.

      It still seems that there’s more money to be gained by creating a hoax that global warming is a false rather than creating a hoax that global warming is true, and Roger says that I’ll find the truth if I follow the money.

      The money leads to the people who will profit if they can convince consumers to doubt global warming.

  4. Adam says:

    You nail the money trail when you mention university professors, but leave off science and researchers in general.
    Everybody likes making money, and most scientists don’t necessarily create – they discover and explain. Whoever is funding their research and their lifestyle is probably going to see the results they want to see, or at the very least see different results spun in their direction.
    If I have learned anything from my time as a nuclear engineer, it is that you can make numbers say whatever you want, and you can find evidence to support almost any conclusion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s