Why are so many republicans reluctant towards global warming?

Question

the facts are out there. Just go look at them. It's not that they don't believe it, it's more of the fact that they do not want to believe it. Narrow-minded it's called.

Sources, take a look.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_reconsa.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/hemisphere.jpg

Look at the graphs and think about when the automobile was introduced. Car exsusts co2. co2 has a direct effect on temperature, our temperature has gone up more than a degree in the passed one hundered years. Never, in the history of the world, has the temperature risen as fast as it is now.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~bonk/Chem8304/read2405f.html

Scroll down to the graph that produces data a 160 thousand years ago. Does that spike in co2 seem normal. Carbon dioxide has never gone above 300 parts per million and look where it is now. Also, remember that graph is 11 years old. co2 is about at 500 parts per million right now. Look at that graph, never has the carbon dioxide has spike as rapidly and has high as it did in the recent years.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~bonk/Chem8304/CO2Conc.GIF


carbon dioxide has gone down in the past 25 years? really?

don't pay any attention to my last post. I read a responce wrong. You can still look at the graph if you want.

http://users.aber.ac.uk/gar3/images/global%20warming_files/global_temps.jpg

here we go, the temp. for the most part has risen in the past 25 years. There are years in which it is down compared to the previous year, however, the trend remains constant

Answer 1

I wonder if those people above me who deny global warming could cite even one article in a scientific, peer reviewed journal that supports them. your ability to do research means nothing if you don't know what sources are reliable and which are not.

By the way, it's not possible to do that, since there are none. Zilch. Nada. The scientific community is united on global warming. There is no debate other then in the public, which honestly does not understand much of the science.

And solar radiation is BS. If that was the case, we would see these kind of effects much more often. As it is, the CO2 is above 300 ppm for the first time since we have records. and thanks to ice samples, we have samples that date back to several ice ages ago. Solar Radiation to anybody who has accually studied it is only variable in small amounts but is counterbalanced by other portions of the sun, thus having no effect on earth.

Doing your own research is BS if you don't' know what the hell you're looking for.

Answer 2

I think that many of them have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. A lot may even own stock in major oil companies.Most of the "scientific studies" denying global warming are funded by the major oil companies. In the fifties and sixties the tobacco companies were trying to deny that smoking caused lung cancer.
There are opportunities in finding a solution to global warming. The major US automakers and oil companies are funding studies to discount global warming. They haven't had an innovative thinker since Henry Ford. That's why the Big 3 are tanking. The leader in the automotive field is now Toyota. That's because they are innovative in building fuel efficient cars. The next Henry Ford or Bill Gates in the transportation or energy industry will be an innovative solution oriented thinker, not someone trying to protect the failed policies of the past.

Answer 3

The facts arent out there at all. Theres alot of talking done by people who all have a vested interest in proving that global warming exists, and it has spiraled into a massive thing thats gaining momentum, but it is in no way proven.

You may or may not know, that there was a general consensus in the seventies about something called "global cooling". Funny thing, 'cause people back said the same things about skeptics that youre saying now.

None of this is proven. We dont know that much about how the climate works. Thats why we invest so much in learning about it.

Take your time and form your own damn opinions. And just so you know, I am no way connected to anything Republican.

Oh, and to Jeff down there, what youre saying comes dangerously close to saying that what the majority of people believe is true. A few centuries ago, the majority of people believed the world was flat. Its not. Your argument doesnt hold up.

Answer 4

Well if you look at the temperature records versus CO2 you can see that from 1950-1975 CO2 emissions grew at their fastest rate and more than in the past 25 years and temperatures DECREASED. So I guess that puts a wrench in the system eh?

The fact that temperatures have increased over the last century is not being disputed. the REASON is disputed and is not accepted across the board in the scientific community.

Answer 5

What is narrow minded is to blindly accept that global warming is being caused by man. The fact is that the world's climate has experienced major changes in temperature many many times through natural cycles and that the world today is far from the hottest it has been. Why not study some history once in a while. Outside of the "mini ice age" our climate has been warming since the Ice Age.

Answer 6

Read Michael Crichton's book State of Fear. The facts are there, all right, but against global warming. Crichton is no republican, either. He's just smart enough to search out the facts for himself.

Jeff, if you bothered to read the above book, you would find that there is plenty of scientific proof against global warming. Maybe if you opened your mind you would actually look into it instead of blindly following the leader.

Answer 7

Republicans are more inclined to be conservative, which means they are less likely to be caught up in the trendy beliefs of the day. I don't think they deny that global warming is occurring, they just don't see the evidence that human activity is a major contributor to it, more so, than, say, the variability of solar radiation.
Republicans are also more likely to perceive that they would be hurt by the economic slowdown that anti-human-generated-global-warming efforts would create.

Answer 8

You call me narrow-minded, I could call you easily led.

Where does that get us? Nowhere.

Present facts to support your statement or develop a plan to produce change in your direction. Asking a slanted question and calling names on Y/A doesn't advance your cause one bit.

Answer 9

If they support legislation to help stop it, it will cause their campaign campaign donations to drop.