Haletown I have no doubt that a military would be inclined to use something like global warming to justify a larger budget, but that still does not explain the scientific consensus in the first place. The vast majority of the world's scientists in relevant fields accept that climate change is occuring and it is due to human activity. Governments and militaries are slowly beginning to plan accordingly.
However, many believe that global warming is a conspiracy. I would argue that a conspiracy or fraud on this scale would make 9/11 conspiracy theorists look like absolutely rational people. It is simply inconceivable that thousands of scientists in dozens of nations, in a wide range of different but interconnected and related fields would be producing data that all points to one reality, and all knowingly lie about it. What would they have to gain exactly? Even an exaggeration of data seems unlikely given that the scientific process requires that the consensus be formed around the most conservative numbers.
Accepting climate change does not play into any one nation's or group of nations' hands. It makes developing far more difficult for the South, and would require us in the North to drastically change our lifestyle. It will require tough choices on everyone's part, which is exactly the reason why politicians have been the last to accept reality. To me it's a question of what people have to gain from either argument. Accepting climate change means accepting a change in lifestyle, accepting that easy solutions to the problems of growth and development are no longer feasible. In short, it requires nothing less than a major shift away from our current economic and energy models. Again, I am not sure who this would benefit, outside of solar panel and wind turbine manufacturers. It is easy to understand why there is so much resistence to the idea of climate change. This also makes it easy to understand the possible motivation behind disputing climate change. The petroleum industry's important and central role in the vast economic growth we have seen since World War II means that it is uniquely positioned as a powerful lobby in North America, and indeed the world. I am not suggesting that all opposition to climate change is funded by oil companies, but they do tend to be the most vocal and the most visible. This is also not to say climate change as a cause of human activity has been undisputedly proven. Scientific theories cannot be proven, only disproven. But if 70 or 80 or even 90 pecent of the world's climate scientists believe it IS happening, and IS a result of human activity, I would argue that on the basis of cost-benefit analysis we should act now.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
However, many believe that global warming is a conspiracy. I would argue that a conspiracy or fraud on this scale would make 9/11 conspiracy theorists look like absolutely rational people. It is simply inconceivable that thousands of scientists in dozens of nations, in a wide range of different but interconnected and related fields would be producing data that all points to one reality, and all knowingly lie about it. What would they have to gain exactly? Even an exaggeration of data seems unlikely given that the scientific process requires that the consensus be formed around the most conservative numbers.
Accepting climate change does not play into any one nation's or group of nations' hands. It makes developing far more difficult for the South, and would require us in the North to drastically change our lifestyle. It will require tough choices on everyone's part, which is exactly the reason why politicians have been the last to accept reality. To me it's a question of what people have to gain from either argument. Accepting climate change means accepting a change in lifestyle, accepting that easy solutions to the problems of growth and development are no longer feasible. In short, it requires nothing less than a major shift away from our current economic and energy models. Again, I am not sure who this would benefit, outside of solar panel and wind turbine manufacturers. It is easy to understand why there is so much resistence to the idea of climate change. This also makes it easy to understand the possible motivation behind disputing climate change. The petroleum industry's important and central role in the vast economic growth we have seen since World War II means that it is uniquely positioned as a powerful lobby in North America, and indeed the world. I am not suggesting that all opposition to climate change is funded by oil companies, but they do tend to be the most vocal and the most visible. This is also not to say climate change as a cause of human activity has been undisputedly proven. Scientific theories cannot be proven, only disproven. But if 70 or 80 or even 90 pecent of the world's climate scientists believe it IS happening, and IS a result of human activity, I would argue that on the basis of cost-benefit analysis we should act now.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


