Why doesn’t the Bush administration support efforts to reduce the human causes of global warming?

Question

I know that some of you don’t believe in global warming, so PLEASE READ this before you answer:

On July 14 the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial suggesting that the evidence for global warming is weak. In the October 2006 issue of Scientific American, scientists offered a challenge to the Wall Street Journal editorial staff.

Here is a quote:
“Many of the world’s leading climate scientists are prepared to meet with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and to include in that meeting any climate skeptics that its editorial board wants to invite.”

Of course finding climatologists who are skeptical of global warming will be a challenge since virtually 100 percent agree that the evidence is strong. Even reports commissioned by the Bush administration agree with the climatologists. The only report sited by the Wall Street Journal editors is one conducted by three statisticians who have no background in climate science!

So if you are going to claim that global warming is not a serious threat, please supply links or references to articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or give detailed arguments for your position. (My guess is that your efforts will be pitiful, so go ahead…prove me wrong.)

But getting back to my main question: Given that global warming is a serious problem, why do Republicans try to ignore it?

Here is a link to the challenge in Scientific American:
Fiddling While the Planet Burns:
Will the Wall Street Journal's editorial writers accept a challenge to learn the truth about the science of global climate change?
By Jeffrey D. Sachs
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D5C47-C124-1509-805C83414B7FFDB0&sc=I100322

Answer 1

It is costly to change the way energy is created and used. Also to stop using fossil fuels would mean that a lot of filthy rich people would no longer have there massive income, bush has a fare bit of money invested in oil.

Basically GREED is why things don't change for the better

Answer 2

First of, the problem is that we are not sure whether we (human's) can actually do anything to combat global warning since it is meant to be a naturally ocurring phenomenon. Also, most economists and other smarter individuals with higher learning than we mere mortals agree that it would cost an exobitant amount of money (we are taking hundreds of billions of dollars) to even tackle the issue of global warning which as I just stated earlier might be futile since we do nto know if we can even reverse the effects. Since most govt's have tight budgets (though you wouldn't know it from all the Republican spending and tax cuts), the consensus is that dollars should be spent where they can count...

And if you are referring to the Kyoto protocol...it appears that the U.S. would spend more than any other countryon global warning and the U.S. govtis not prepared to subsidize everyone else considering the fact that it has been more progressive than many countries in dealing with pollution and so forth......

Answer 3

Why is the Kyoto treaty slanted against the USA? Why are all of the countries of the world not treated equally and have the same pollution control requirements.

Members of the UN have admitted that the treaty is as much about leveling the playing filed economically as it is about the dubious science of global warming.

Answer 4

Because Bush is a moron and a man who can't even find his own country in the world map would not have the brain capacity to understand something as complicated as global warming

Answer 5

because if they tried to enforce regulations that would reduce emmissions it would cost their friends too much money.

Oh, and remember, Bush is also of the group that believes that when every tree it chopped down Jebus will come again.

Answer 6

bush has other more pressing problems, than a little hot air

Answer 7

global warming is a farce. that hole has been there forever. it expands and contracts over the years.

Answer 8

Because AL GORE promotes it .