Because people want to put the industrialist out of business by saying global warming is not natural.
Hello Angel.
The reason they want to from an economic perspective is in order to protect their business model, however the answer is far more complex.
In part they are correct. The average temperature of the earth is about 33 °C and currently about 0.8 °C is due to man made greenhouse gases, an increase of 2.5%. [1]
However the overwhelming majority of the climate scientist who tell us that the 40% man made increase of CO2 over the existing CO2 in the atmosphere, will increase global temperatures even further. [2] And to all but the deniers it is obvious that when we talk about Global Warming we talk about the Anthropogenic (man-made) part of Global Warming, even though this is still relatively small in comparison.
Some one asked why this is covered in geography class, the answer is quite simple. Because global warming is already affecting communities [3] and thus politics. [4]
It would be interesting to note that not all entrepreneurs who are arguing that it is all natural, quite a few of them accept the science. Those are then labeled as "communist entrepreneurs" There are also some entrepreneurs , like the Koch brothers [7], who have huge interest in the fossil fuel business and would prefer to keep doing business as usual. (I have no problem that they want that, I do have a problem with them distorting and misrepresenting the science.)
The video's Maxx touts have been debunked by the very top scientists featuring in them. [8] Claiming that thousands of scientist all over the world are secretly working together in order to get politicians to raise taxes on every one, including the scientist is laughable, as the science papers are published for any one who is interested to dispute.
Now as to answer the person who made a rather silly argument about "wages" It is obvious that business should try to increases profit by any legal means, including dumping their waste into the commons as they do (at least in part), laying of employees, shipping jobs to places with lower environmental standards and/or lower wages. Those who do are be able to undercut their competitors and have become dominant. It is in their interest, even though clearly not in the interest of the general population of the countries. And when it comes to employment, the oversupply of labor means we are currently in a world wide race as to who will payed the least. This will need us to rethink how we organize ourselves or we will be reorganized by conflict.
The answers are out there, profit is not a dirty word and while there is no perfect solution to our life on earth, we should at a minimum accept responsibility for our own actions even more so when they affect others.
Because some people thinks global warming is a natural process while others think global warming is man made because if humans weren't living on earth, global warming wouldn't be happening. Trees are getting cut down, factories are releasing huge amount of carbon dioxide in the air, polluting the air and causing the green house effect.
Some Other people just think that humans didn't create global warming, we're just speeding the process up.
hope that helped.
Ha! Ha! Just look at Prico. "However the overwhelming majority of the climate scientist who tell us that the 40% man made increase of CO2 over the existing CO2 in the atmosphere."
Where is that 'overwhelming' number of scientists? There are over 31,000 in the US that disagree with AGW and have put their names on a document to admit it. Where are all these scientists who support AGW? Get up a list of at least that number and maybe you can say what you said with credibility. Until then keep you claims more honest.
Industrialists, scientists, honest politicians and the rest of us peons want the truth to come out. We are tired of being lied to. We are tired of having tyrannical laws written to curb something that isn't there. We are tired of getting our money stolen and given to the UN in the name of global warming, a bogus claim. President Obama just last December gave the UN $100,000,000,000 for global warming.
Every honest well informed human on this earth should want to argue this subject.
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Where is this debate? It is stifled by the selfish evil spirited among mankind, for their own gain. The man who fired Will Happer, Al Gore, is now a billionaire. If he would let the truth out, do you think he would be a billionaire? Absolutely not!
Sounds like a political quesiton in a geography course. Interesting example of indoctrination.
Ok, if you remove science, remove doing what is right and remove telling the truth, then you can get to what this question is asking for. Greed focus.
An industrialist beleives in supporting increases in industry improving the industrial complex, system and general economic climate/conditions as better economic conditions for all means more profits for the industrialist.
Argueing the global warming is a natrual process and that man's activities have only a minimal impact on the global climate argues against increase reguation and increased taxation. FYI - more regulation and more taxes means less productive industry fewer jobs, poorer economies and thus less profit.
Oh, and any FOOL who beleive less profits for industry will not mean lower wages and fewer jobs for us working stiffs if just that a FOOL. GD all FOOLS.
As suggested for many industrialists it would amount to an admission of "guilt", that they are doing something that is harming the planet, so they would have to fix their product. I suggest you investigate the tobacco industry campaign in the past, it is very similar to the current climate change arguments put forward by industry (the longer they can keep it a "debate" they don't have to "fix" anything).
Shell (one of the largest companies in the world, a petroleum based company) accepts that humans are having a net effect on climate change and advertise on their website their commitments to bring the world cleaner products.
These questions always put me in mind of this:
Of course it's a natural process, just as much as death is a natural process - that doesn't make the person that just shot me in the head innocent.
The rich want business as usual, why should they care if business as usual kills billions down the line - specially if they think the line is decades long.
And if it happens sooner than they expect they'll throw their hands up in (mock) horror and say 'how could we know?!?'
Because accepting that it is man-made will affect their business.
Should they ever agree that a large part of it is in fact man-made as the Science tell us, then the inevitable next action would be to limit human CO2 emissions. And it is precisely that which they want to avoid as their businesses all emit large quantities of CO2 and putting a limit on those emissions would, in their eyes, costs money and thus affects their profits.
Already some of the biggest funders of 'climate change denial' (those who push the myth that it is a natural process) are large and wealthy corporations who are responsible for a huge chunk of CO2 emissions annually.
"Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science" http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/g...
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2...
Maybe simply because it is in FACT a natural process.
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
For my geography homework
So they can continue to pollute with gay abandon and continue to make money from human misery while denying any responsibility
1) Because they stand to lose trillions of dollars in revenues http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckib... if the ECONOMIC implications of climate science are taken seriously and seriously impact climate POLICIES. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...
2) Because many of them care more about making money now than the standard of living that will be enjoyed by their great grandchildren, the great-grandchildren of their great-granchildren, etc. for the next thousand or more years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergenera...
3) Because it is easier to lie about science than to argue against prudent steps to protect future generations.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/opinio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_o...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-t...
Because it is a natural process! Next question?
