OK, lets say for the sake of argument, global warming is completely made up, that somehow, scientists, governments and media all over the world, got together in a secret cabal and created a grand conspiracy to destroy their own economies and industries while laughing maniacally…
Does that mean we should keep polluting and consuming fossil fuels and other resources at exactly the same rate of growth that we are currently? Do we really think that we can just keep increasing our energy consumption and the oil will be there indefinitely, or that churning smog into the air from oil, gas and coal wont ever have any ill affects (look at china)? Do we think somehow the earth and its resources are infinite and can withstand a never ending increase in global population and industrialization? Should our economic interests forever outweigh the need for future sustainability?
Craig is an agnostic, skeptic and political moderate. He is a practitioner of zen meditation and has respect and interest in many religions, but not a subscriber to any of them. 
What is means is that there is no reason for the world to spend $146,000,000,000,000 on fixing something that doesn’t exist. It means that ‘developed’ countries are not financially responsible for the natural disaster damages done to ‘underdeveloped’ countries because carbon emissions have caused the planet to warm up. Yes, we need to use less and conserve our natural resources. Yes, we need to keep our air clean….that just seems like common sense.
(Quote)
Rate Comment:
0 
0
Much of the proposed “fixes” for global warming results in using less and conserving our natural resources, as well keeping the air and water clean. Thus, it’s extremely confusing to understand how everyone can agree while still disagreeing. If we agree on the broad principles, but disagree on the specific methods, it seem ironic that the great … See Moredebate is over something very broad (anthropogenic global warming) instead of something specific (conservation methods, etc.)–where it seems the “meat” of the debate really is. Therefore arguing over global warming seems like a diversion from a debate on the more germane issues of pollution, resource consumption, overpopulation, etc. as Craig pointed out.
(Quote)
Rate Comment:
0 
0
Regarding the ‘conspiracy’: All of the ’scientific’ findings on global warming strem from the same scientists who used the same collection of data that has been mysteriously lost. The IPCC has been funded by the UN to study climate change. If this organization that is funded on the premise man-made climate change is real and actually reported it… See More wasn’t….guess what? NO MORE FUNDING!!! Do you see any motivation there?
Now, not everybody you mentioned has been part of the ‘conspiracy’, more accuratly they have been victimized by it (like you Craig). Other sceintists, governments, and media have bought into what science reported, but guess what…..it is in their best interest to believe and promote. It gives governments a reason for more control, power, and tax leverage (ie Obama). It gives poorer countries an excuse to demand rich countries pay them trillions of dollars. It gives entrepreneurs an opportunity to exploit human fear (ie Al Gore). It gives the people of the far left a reason to justify redistributionism (aka social and economic justice). Why do you think the number one topic at Copenhagen is how much we are going to give other countries “to deal with the climate change we have caused”?
The number one danger to the US is our reliance on foreign oil. We must drill domestically, transition everything we can into locally produced clean burnding natural gas while we spend the next 50 years building ZERO emission nuclear power plants to power electric cars and everything else. Think about it….economically our money stops going overseas and funding crazy people that want to kill us….instead our own econonomy would boom and the world would be a safer place. The free market and economic opportunity would foster innovation and development of new technologies. And the final byproduct would be…..drum roll………PERFECTLY CLEAN AIR. Mission accomplished.
(Quote)
Rate Comment:
0 
0
My understanding of science is that scientists generally try to prove each other wrong, whether its quantum theory experiments, evolution or global warming. So while I get what you’re saying and agree there could be impure motives, my ASSUMPTION is that there are other scientists in other organizations besides the IPCC all over the world, that also study climate change and pollution. This is generally how science works. Also, just as you rightfully pointed out that there can be conflicts of interest in government funded research, I can also see how conservatives and the GOP would totally want to instill a large degree of skepticism about climate change so that their constituents–big oil companies, gas companies and hosts of other industries, can keep doing business as usual and not have to make costly changes to clean up their act.
I’m rather agnostic about global warming. But even if skeptics are right about global warming, they’re still wrong about everything else. We can’t just sit and do nothing and I don’t hear a lot of suggestions from libertarians and conservatives, other than to just let the markets keep going the way they are going. While that sounds great, the problem is our current market is pro-disposable, pro-Styrofoam, pro-coal, pro-landfill, pro-overfishing, and so on. … See More
I TOTALLY agree with your last paragraph. I’m also not suggesting that complete socialism is the only road to success. I dislike the government having too much power as well. My issue is that conservatives and libertarians cry foul about global warming, but then say nothing of the slew of other real problems that as PJ said, cutting back emissions and so forth will help to address.
(Quote)
Rate Comment:
0 
0
Look at the hundred year trend: http://www.paganchaosmagic.com/pics/Temp.jpg
I suppose the Ice Caps melting is all photoshopped?
(Quote)
Rate Comment:
0 
0