Fiirdraak: Well written post, I'm not going to quote it for fear of making this post even longer. However the issue IS a political one. The liberals wish to turn it into something it's not. You ask what they have to gain? Well they're anti-big business, which is what they have to gain. There are whole industries that now rely on this theory of global warming, solar power companies and the like. Where do you think energy saving lightbulbs come from? This is a war over our money, and if you can't see that, you're naive. Both sides only care about the financial rammifications, not the environmental ones. Which is why I prefer the pro-business side; at least they're being honest about their motivation.
Your point about trees is simply stating the obvious. You even use the word evolution in the paragraph, which is the point. There will be species of plantlife, and animal life, that won't cope with the increased temperatures. We now suspect it was immense cooling that killed the dinosaurs, so what makes you think it's unnatural that the temperature of the Earth changing would cause the death of some species, and the birth of new ones? Like I said, all those studies you can cite only use data we've recorded, but we've not been keeping records that long, and as a species we've not even been on the planet for its entire existence. The idea that we have a divine right to survive climate change (which underpins your argument) is at complete contradiction to the theory of evolution. If the climate change that's occuring causes the human species to be wiped out, that's simple survival of the fittest. The likelihood, however, is that we will evolve yet further to cope with the changes. If you studied mankind's ancestors you would know that we've overcome changes in climate before, and we will again.
"Climate crisis" (as opposed to simple climate change) is a conspiracy theory. There is political and financial benefit to be had, and yet not one of the proponents of the man-made climate change argument can refute the fact that we only contribute approximately 2% to the global warming situation. The other 98%, one would have to assume, is entirely natural. Yes, the world is warming at an unnatural rate, I concur, but only 2% more than the natural rate would have been. This is an irrefutable fact. You talk about making industry non-polluting but that may come at considerable economic cost and what for? A fractional reduction in the rate of climate change? What will we blame the other 98% on then? Non-polluting energy, which you mentioned, is a multi-billion dollar industry. Just who do you think is funding all those studies you read about the "Climate crisis"? You got it...energy companies. I wonder why...
Your definition of conspiracy theory does little to change this. Read what Leonie wrote about the lies we're being fed. We have had facts concealed from us for ulterior motives. The theory of man-made climate change being solely, or even majorly responsible for the global warming "crisis" is designed to "explain" the phenomenon by "facts" which just happen to serve to line the pockets of interested parties. The true cause is the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles, and any attempt to prove anything other than that is by definition a conspiracy theory. And the people that will lose out will be the poorest in society who won't be able to afford housing and food in the world you advocate, due to increased business overhead. Who do you think business will pass those overheads onto? The consumers, that's who., and ultimately we'll be the ones who suffer. It's very easy for the middle classes to harp on about the environment; we can afford to. In doing so we ignore those who can't.