Why do liberals try to deny that global warming is political?

Question

Doesn't it become political when Al Gore, who is neither a climatologist nor any other kind of scientist, testifies before Congress on the subject.

I think that it is a very political topic considering the fact that CONGRESS is holding hearings.

Answer 1

You are right, this is VERY political. Before I change my lifestyle, I want the science to be more settled. I'm certainly not going to believe the hypocrite Al Gore, inventor of the internet & man made global warming. The hypocrite spends $1,200 per month on his 10,000 square foot home. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

While many are asked to live "green" lifestyles, he goes through hundreds of gallons of fossil fuels with cars, toys, houses, planes, you name it. He doesn't even try to cut down even a little bit........ What a hypocrite!

Ask Al why the ice on Mars is also melting...... Could it be increased solar activity Al? Or are there Martians producing green house emmissions on Mars? (see link below)

Before you go to the bank with this whole man made Global warming know that the jury is still out about climate change and man's role if there is one, but one thing we do know for certain is that there are political agendas to promote socialistic politics. Even if man was partially responsible, if humans changed entirely, there would only be a slight difference of a degree or two in temperature change. I think we should get off fossil fuels because it makes us dependent upon unstable nations for our energy supply, not because of global warming.

Top scientists have refuted man's affect on the climate such as Astrophysicist Nir Shariv who stated, "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming. Particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic-rays have on our atmosphere."

"The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate."

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature."

Oregon state climatologist, George Taylor said that "the global warming seen in the past century is caused largely by natural events, including cyclical climate patterns and solar fluctuations linked with cosmic rays and changes in cloud cover." Mr Taylor was recently fired by the Oregon governor for his "scientific" views.

I don't think there is a debate about whether global warming is occurring, but the idea that it is man made is a myth. Remember, the UN that came out with a recent report about climate change is a political entity that has done many things to prove it is not a credible, un-biased source. A recent example is the oil for food scandal that diverted millions of dollars to UN members and others. Also, even if there was man made climate change, China (the world's second-largest greenhouse gas emitter) and India are not going to embrace fossil fuel consumption.

Additionally, many scientists disagree about climate change and 17,000 signed a petition against the Kyoto treaty. Unfortunately, the sales focussed media who know little about this, spin it to suit their own opinions. So, its highly debatable whether humans are influencing global warming. Another thing to consider is that every 11,500 years, the earth goes through a major extinction with a global warming and cooling phase (ice age.) Paleontologists are able to track this through soil samples. We may actually be headed into an ice age because we are coming to the tail end of the current cycle. The problem is that the media and politicians get focussed on a piece of the puzzle and try to simplify this issue. Don't be fooled. There is probably nothing humans can do. Even if we could, there is no way you can control China who is becoming a major world polluter. Humans will need to adapt to climate change. Where I live there are small changes in our weather pattern, but nothing major. A lot of the media is hype to sell newspapers. The only caution is that some past climate changes have been more radical, swinging wildly from hot to cold. Others have brought on instant and severe cold conditions. I know the area that I live used to be buried in hundreds on feet of ice, but temperatures are mild today... Humans will just need to wait and see what mother nature brings and adapt as necessary.

And as for Al, I think his mouth and utility bills are a main cause of green house emmisions....

Source(s):
Mars warming
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

One of France's leading socialists and among most celebrated scientists
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Documentary Refutes Man Made Global Warming
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary

Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0

Dr. Tim Ball, former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
January 17, 2007:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

Global warming 'just a natural cycle'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/18/nclimate118.xml

Answer 2

yeah, I wondered why it was Al Gore and not a scientist.

It is hugely a political issue, I can't imagine anyone denying that.
Behind its obviously scientific but scientists don't create policies. Most of the people on both sides have no real idea about the science behind it.

- obviously al gore didn't invent the internet, and you'd think since he spent so much of his time fighting global warming he'd take the initiative, but he is doing more than one average person cutting down on energy consumption, and he was quite instrumental in shaping the internet adn bringing it out to what it is today.
and the jury is not out on man made climate change. There is a scientific consensus about it, this does not mean that they are saying this is definitely the case but virtually all see the evidence as strong supports for the theory although with varyign ideas as to the impact.

Answer 3

Who is trying to deny that everything is political? But face facts. There haven't been hearings before because senators from oil states who get 80% of their campaign funding from the energy giants have chaired the committees. How was that not political? The two climatologists at the Cato Institute who have been the go-to guys for debunking global warming have been 100% funded by the Petroleum Institute. So the issue here isn't really politics, its money and who is paying who. There are companies like Archer-Daniels Midland that will make a fortune if Ethanol is pushed and companies like Exxon that will lose money if Ethanol is pushed. It's not really a liberal versus conservative issue. It's an economic issue.

Even those Energy Industry scientists who challenge the degree of the impact of humans on the environment are not saying there is no impact. It seems common sense since we can't migrate to another planet not to foul our own nest and to minimize our environmental impact since we have the technical means to do so. Otherwise like bacteria in a petri dish we will eventually choke in our own waste. Personally, I remember having to have two sinus surgeries and suffering constant infections of my eyes in southern California before the air quality standards were put in place. It does make a difference. There is simply no disputing the dramatic rise of asthma globally, and you can't blame it on sun spots. We have to take reasonable actions, and if that means Exxon's Charmian doesn't get a half billion dollar retirement check I can't get too excited about that.

Answer 4

Every volcanic eruption that occurs creates more pollution than mankind has ever done.. The Kuwait oilfield fires pollution that was predicted to be the end of humanity as we know it, were contained by rain.

There is no Q that is all a politcal feignt for something. God know what. Maybe a Dem win for President.

Answer 5

Global Warming is like the Windmill in Animal Farm.

Answer 6

Well I heard Bush and the clan don't want researchers to talk they were shut up just like the media was as soon as he took office.

Answer 7

The original IPCC report was political.

Liberals, aka SOCIALISTS, are seeking control and the destruction of capitalism which they view as "unfair", lying is okay in their twisted morality.

Hey thats a good one, how can you tell when a socialist is lying..............his mouth is moving.

Answer 8

simple: liberals just cannot tell the truth anytime, anywhere to anyone...they lie about who and what they are because they have to in order to get their way...if they actually told the truth about any position they held, they would be run out of town on the next space shuttle...

Answer 9

I'm a liberal and I think its absolutely political. Not in the sense that its a democratic issue or a republican issue. More so that it will eventually require legislation.

Answer 10

its environmental . if you work in the oil or coal industry , it doesn't exist . if you are a scientist who spends years studying the problem , its of grave concern . either way pollution is bad for you . i remember how it was before 1973 EPA act . you should read more variety ,not just parrot limbag.