blah blah conspiracy blah blah warming isn't real blah blah scientists are committing the biggest hoax ever blah blah
Thought I would get that out there before some random conspiracy nut comes in here trying to pass tinfoil hats around.
It's not conspiracy to just be aware of human nature.
Personal Greed: People are greedy and, with the oil industry being as old as it is, there is more profit in alternatives should and when they happen. There is a big difference between an oil companies stocks going from 90 to 95 and a new start up alternative going from 10 to 15. So there is definitely a motivation to use government as a wedge to drive the demand for these startups. Solyndra, for example, was a massive failure as a company, but people became very rich from it.
Resistant to Change: People, as a rule, all believe in "If it ain't broke, don't change it". When they are finally convinced that it is broke they will go with the easiest answer available (or at least the one with the least personal involvement) and push with their full might to achieve it ... if only to start not caring about it anymore. This is easily preyed upon by governments, political interests, and cons and must always be guarded against.
Desire for Power: People like control and to achieve control you need power, be it military, economic, or political. Any new "movement" is an opportunity for someone without power to achieve it, with power to lose it, or with power to expand it. Movements achieving the power to affect change are usually rare given our resistance to change, but those that wish to create movements are common place.
So when those in power pay for the studies of scientists that reach the conclusion that happens to give them both power and money that sparks a movement ... it is automatically suspect. Especially when they make the money via failed companies that costs tax payers millions. It is also very suspect when the administration that fights for a movement such as greatly limiting offshore drilling then turns around and pays another country to develop it ... one in which they heavily invested in ahead of time. Doing that sort of thing kind of undermines their credibility.
In conclusion, it is pretty naive to thing that having severe doubts about this makes one a "conspiracy nut".
Personally I am going to wait for the science. Anyone that claims that the science is "settled" is ignorant of the scientific method. It isn't the Law of Man Made Climate Change ... it is barely more than a thesis at this point. There is data both for it and against it. To say that one side is paid by the oil companies and the other side is a group of greedy elitist con-men and this somehow invalidates the collected data is insanity. Either the data stands on its own merits or it does not. Just because one group is larger than the other (if there is even a way to track such a thing ) does not create truth.
In short, most people just need to STFU about the subject and just release raw information without any political lean/spin. I am so tired of these "How Climate Change Affects the Feelings of Five Leaf Clovers" studies that are paid to justify a conclusion that was made before the science had even been collected. We still don't know to what extent man has on the global climate. It could, very well be, insignificant ... which would make the loss of jobs and poverty created by the pressure on the coal/oil industries a very sad part of our history.
