I believe it is a natural occurance

I do however also believe the increased CO2 emissions may have a compound effect on the speed/intensity of it

The best way is to set a target of carbon dioxide per person, on a world wide basis. That could be 3 tonnes per person. For us in the west that means that we have to get down to 3 tonnes and the developing nations will have to limit their rise to 3 tonnes which is fair.

If "The Global Warming Industry" is all based on a BIG LIE then why has it been propagated, and who benefits?

In most conspiracy theories there is usually a rational link between the conspiracy (hiding the reality of Alien visitors, say) and the reason for it (to stop panic, keep the technology, prepare for an ivasion etc). In this instance I can see no such link wheras, I can see obvious reasons why certain people would want to discredit the reality of Global Climate change.

As Big_D eloquently points-out it really doesn't matter why its happening, we really need to figure out how to minimise or stop it and to live with the consequences of it happening. Even if these events are just cyclical events (on a geological time scale) they are immediate and potentially catastrophic in human terms.

Climate Change and\or Global Warming are not really the issue either, but they will make it much worse.
The big crunch for humanity is going to be Energy, Resource and Food shortages. With the news that 50% of babies born today in the prosperous West living to be 100 there is the very real prospect that we (in the West) will continue to "consume" the Earth from under the feet of most of its population.
With increasing billions living hand-to-mouth in dire poverty we need to figure-out how to let "Distribution undo excess" and make the world fairer. Failure to do so and there will be lots more nasty terrorism and curtailments of our freedoms, oh, and we'll get much poorer here too....

It’s a “shock” - one of many we are being exposed to. Such shocks can be used to muscle in new kinds of government, legislation, regimes etc..

Read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein to see how these have been used to usher in new economic and political models in the past.

Who benefits? It certainly won’t be you or I.

Well, in our government's case, it gets to tax us silly, and that's before they use it to help justify nonsense like congestion charges, which then becomes tracking how many miles your car has done and when and where etc...

A plausible effort, but the sorts of "Shock" that work best are those which enable a more direct approach. 11/9 (9/11) was the precursor to implementing vast numbers of draconian laws which have curtailed our freedoms and secured "Capitalism" for a while longer. The "Crunch" has allowed vast amounts of our wealth to be re-distributed back to the Rich.

I ask again, who has benefitted and in what way from the Global warming "Lie"?

WTF are "our government"? We are back in Black Helicopterland! "Governments" don't "benefit" from taxing people, or introducing charges. Governments are frequently lobbied to introduce legislation that benefits individuals or corporations though. For example in the post 11/9 panic we have been obliged to check in hours in advance of flights, this means Airlines have been able substantially to reduce staff and checkin desks, as they have a lot longer to do it in.... Or is that a conspiracy theory?

Anyhow Big Oil is the vested interest, not "government" when it comes to Climate change...

Science and industry. One gains better funding - "I need a billion dollars to conduct a three year study in the amazon on the affect of logging on carbon uptake and release".
Industry - oil firms get to say "Pay more for our product, cos it's running out and stuff, oh and we need more money to fund alternative sources research".

Now, I do work/volunteer for a conservation trust. The impact man has on animal life is undeniable, and there are good, sound reasons to recycle and be more careful of with the waste we generate. I am not, however, at all convinced that our CO2 output amounts to a hill of beans on a global scale, and that singling out a single element for our attention vastly simplifies what is an immensely complex system we don't really understand.

As for a rise in water levels - I can think of at least 3 raised beaches locally which currently sit about 2-3 metres higher than sea level, and have done for the last 10,000 years or so. A raise in water level is clearly nothing new, and presumably isn't permanent.

Well that's the theory promulgated by the naysayers, but it doesn't explain why the research funders (Governments and Corporations) are coughing up (if you'll excuse the expression). Most of the studies are relatively cheap anyway as they are not emprical research, but are analyses of existing data.

That's an argument about the oil running-out, which Big Oil has made a point of claiming won't happen. Indeed if you believe the Oil Companies there's so much about we'll be using it for milennia. Of course that doesn't explain why the price (of crude) keeps going up.....

I don't think you'll find that the 'scientists' (as opposed to the media and various pundits) are suggesting that there's a clear causal relationship. They fully acknowledge the complexity, and constantly re-state that this is a hypothesis not a fact. However when you're down a hole its always a good idea to stop digging.
No arguments that sea-levels fluctuate over geological time, but as I said above if as appears to be the case, sea levels will rise over the next few decades need to do something about it, or billions will drown or starve.

edit due to a forum brain fart.

It's also a vote winner, don't forget. Right now, the public perception is that you must be involved in fighting this phenomena. Otherwise you're about as popular as a bacon sandwich during Ramadan in down town Riyadh.



Show me one oil firm who hasn't acknowledged that oil will one day run out. Also, as I said above, you have to service this perception or you're a pariah in the market place. Which of course, does influence the cost of crude. There are, of course, other political issues with crude; nothing is ever that clear cut.



And that's a bad thing with an overpopulated planet because?

Well actually its a pretty hot argument[sic], particularly in the USA (where else?). One side says we are at, or near "Peak Oil" the point at which demand starts to exceed supply, and its downhill and shows thereafter, the other that there's plenty left, we just have to look harder. I suggest you "Bing" 'oil running out' and you'll get a good selection of both POV.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you clicked "Submit" before thinking that comment through....

No, I'm serious. We can't sustain the present population, and if you're of the belief that mankind is the catalyst of massive climate change, then a dramatic reduction of our presence on the planet is probably no bad thing. The global population is already too large to be sustainable.
If you accept that we have a role or seeded this problem, then you can't then go on to expect that we'll somehow manage to avoid the consequences and carry on breeding and increasing the population at an exponential rate.

It's usually about money, power or both. In this case, both are being acquired by big business and various political bodies (governments/parties/individuals).

Most people are not inherently stupid. They would not agree to have vehicles tracked, shopping/food/waste habits dictated, or their "right" to travel and other luxuries curtailed normally. However, if it is for the "sake of our planet", people are more malleable. As with all the big lies we are told on a daily basis, this is about control of us (the people), by them (I'm not sure who) towards an end game that none of us can possibly be aware of at this stage.

This is merely another weapon in the arsenal alongside terrorism, pandemics and financial crises. The people running this show are extremely cunning and very inventive.

I don't disagree that we can't sustain the world the way things are at present. The problem isn't lack of resource, its inequitable distribution of resource. The problem isn't the use of fossil fuels per se, its profligate use, and so-on.
The average American, for example, consumes around twenty times more meat and fish and sixty times more paper, gasoline, and diesel than the average Indian. If we look at the most impoverished, as in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa and Bangladesh the ratio is even greater. The logic, therefore of your theseis should be to start our "cull" with the Americans, then work our way through the other rich basterds like the Brits.

For myself, I'd rather solve the problems rather than resort to your proposed "final solution".