What are the "religious" and/or "political" reasons someone would advocate AGW?

The argument goes that environmentalists need something to be scared of, and Democrats need something to scare people into voting for them.

The former argument is pretty stupid. Who likes being scared? I certainly don't like worrying about the future, wondering if the next generation will live a very difficult life because of the failures of our generation, wondering if the history books will say that our generation lived in a prosperous time and ruined the climate for future generations despite being warned that we were doing so, etc. etc.

The latter argument is possibly even stupider. First off, global warming is practically non-existent in the current presidential election. I think it was mentioned in one debate, and rarely elsewhere, so clearly Democrats are not benefitting from it. Secondly, considering that the Republican Party thrives on fear (i.e. terrorists are going to strike if you elect John Kerry, Obama is a Muslim, Democrats want to take away your guns and let gay people get married and have sex on your front lawn, etc.), it's really ironic that they accuse Democrats of doing the same. It's a classic example of accusing your opponent of that for which you yourself are guilty.

Then you've got the old "global warming is a religion" brilliant argument. Nevermind that global warming proponents cite NASA, NOAA, Hadley, Science, Nature, IPCC, etc. as supporting evidence while deniers cite surfacestations.org, junkscience.com, the Heritage Foundation, newsbusters, etc. When you've got science you don't need faith. It's the deniers who require blind faith to believe that global warming will suddenly magically stop.

Governments have a very obvious interest in AGW. Governments by nature, aspire to govern. Plain and simple AGW gives them more freedom to do so. This fact cannot be argued. People will have to give up freedoms to stop the "crisis."

The media? Well their interest is obvious as well. Disregarding the proposition that the mainstream media is slanted decidedly liberal, clearly the news media loves a "crisis," whatever the form.

Big business and self promoters (Al Gore)? The global warming scam has created a whole new industry, by which many elites will profit greatly.

Environmentalist? Well here's where the religion in your question comes in. David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club stated: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” Many radical environmentalists such as this man view humanity as a pestilence. With people like this running around, should we really be worried about global warming?

AGW is like a "perfect storm," No pun intended. If you can't see this, my guess is you've already been indoctrinated.

I personally have a problem giving the AGW advocates much (any) credibility when they don't practice what they preach.

When 12 to 15 thousand AGW advocates (with media) jumped into pollution-spewing jet planes .... commercial and private .... to attend a climate conference at Bali resort locations .... to discuss how WE .... NOT THEY ..... should cut back on carbon emissions ....... I knew then that the AGW cause was a sham.

I cannot for one moment trust the claims of so-called 'experts' who are either too pompous to believe that we didn't notice their hypocritical actions ..... or too stupid to know that a video-conference would have been less polluting and just as effective in terms of communication. Corporate America regularly utilizes such technology.

Then there is the Gore 'yahoo' who has a carbon footprint the size of a small country...... which is fine as long as he's not in the business of AGW....... Sheesh!

For the AGW minions who follow those folks ..... whether politically or 'religiously' motivated...... I have only pity.

There are specific policy recommendations that are based upon acceptance of AGW, and the policy recommendations have been around a lot longer than the IPCC.

What recommendations? The usual ones - limits on production - on economic growth. Direct limits or taxes. It's always energy too - because energy is central to the economy. The Malthusian Catastrophe has been de-bunked many times, they just re-package it and try to sell it again. "Ok maybe we won't run out of stuff but it's still unsustainable because the world will end" because of this or that bugbear.

You're not getting a lot of answers from the "other" side. I support AGW theory, but my religion is Christianity, I lean Democrat and have some conservative views. The only thing that determines my support for AGW is science. I could look at sufacestations.org or the National Academy of Sciences for science. That's not a tough choice (trust amateurs or the best scientific minds in our country)! Enough said!

To believe in something states that you accept the idea without proof. You accept the idea because you have faith that it is right.

Science relies of facts. No one can tell you if it will be warmer or colder at any point in the future, or tell you the Arctic ice caps will be gone in 2013 and provide evidence to back up their statement that could be tested and verified independently.

Almost all liberals have the belief that global warming is due to man. This is because the idea is political idea, an idea of faith, not scientific argument that can be collaborated.

It is called Limits to growth and it has been around since the mid 1800s in one form or another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_Growth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism

Recently this form of the cult has become the center of the green environmental movement and has added the violence to the movement that is being decried by the founder of Greenpeace. Its basic doctrine is identical to what Al Gore has been preaching in his AGW movement and no one should be surprised by that as he and his father are members of the Club of Rome that created the specification for the book, funded the writers and then published it.

It is one of the easiest religious movements to disprove but because our education system has been messed with only a few have the research or reading skills anymore to find the truth and that is why I keep posting this link to the truth.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesInSpace/inde...