Is global warming really a partisan issue?

Question

According to Senator James Inhofe, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070328/us_nm/gore_concert_dc_2): '"Senator Inhofe objects to having any events on the Capitol grounds that are either highly partisan or politically controversial -- and the proposed Gore concert is both," said spokesman Marc Morano.'

Is the issue of global warming really a partisan issue? Granted, Republicans through their rejection of science have made all issues of science "partisan" in the most raw, basic, and useless of definitions... but is the problem of global warming (which is happening regardless of whether it's caused by CO2, the sun, or other factors... or any combination thereof) really a partisan issue?

I say no... these kinds of problems are problems for all of us, not just one party. What say you?

Further, does this kind of rhetoric hurt the productivity of the government to solve major problems facing the world?

Calling Al Gore a "failure in leadership" has to be a joke. There's no way that statement can be serious.

So much misinformation on this site.

1. The effects of Global Warming are not simply the loss of some "sea-front property"... unless you consider violent storms and salt-sewed farmlands and aquafers to be in that category.

2. No, there aren't just as many scientists who say that global warming isn't man-made. There are a very vocal minority of scientists, many of whom have direct financial ties to the oil industry, who are publishing opinion pieces in major media outlets without any real raw data.

That's not the same thing.

Answer 1

Not only is it NOT a partisan issue, it isn't an exclusively American issue! It isn't called America Warming...is it?

As for your last question...absolutely! This kind of rhetoric makes it impossible for the US to recognize that it is only one small dot on this planet instead of the hub it seems to think it is...

Answer 2

Global warming is not an issue, it's a phenomenon. What are issues are the causes and possible mitigations, especially the latter. The main issue is whether or not anything man can do can actually alter the process, and if so, is that actually a wise thing to do? What if the solution triggers an irreversible cooling trend? Is it worse to lose a few acres of shoreline and have to change some farming techniques, or is it worse to have to endure another ice age?

While it is probably a good thing to lower emissions, do it because it is the right thing to do, not because of some trendy cause.

Answer 3

I think the situation has not been accurately portrayed. First, scientists do not agree on the issue. There are a large number of scientists who claim global warming is real and that it is largely caused by humans. However, there are just as many scientists who say that either global warming doesn't exist or that humans have very little to do with it. There are a growing number of scientists who say that what we perceive as global warming is a natural occurence that is caused by the oceans giving off gases that cannot escape the atmosphere and that over time these gases heat the planet. Of course, the funniest thing that happened was when that group of people, politicians among them, were set to hold a gathering to discuss this "world-wide problem" of global warming a few weeks ago. A freak blizzard forced them to cancel it. That's pretty amuzing and ironic.

Answer 4

Gore's concert is partisian because Gore is involved. The man is a hypocrite. He claims "go green", yet uses 30x the energy of the average citizen, lives in a house big enough for 100 people, flies on a leer jet everywhere, rides in big limos and Suvs, and his portfolio is heavily invested in oil compaines. The ego of one man hurts the green movement.

Second, Gore has made the issue partisian with his complaints that the only reason to disagree with him are for political reasons.

Did you know that CO2 can only absorb solar rads at a depth of 800 meters? That means that anything thicker than 800 meters of CO2 is ineffective at shielding against solar rads.

That is science. But because liberal scientists want government money, they seek to silence other scientists who would compete for the same money. It all comes down to the public tit. If you remove government funding of all sciences not directly tied to the military, then you remove politics from science. Let the public sector reap the rewards of the research, and be burdened with the risk.

It is the presence of government money that politicizes science. Enviornmental scientists funded by government rely on scare tactics to pressure the public and get money. Do you remember the 60's and 70's alarmists who stated that by 1993 the world would be down to 5% of its oil reserves, massivly starving, and incapable of providing necessary resources for the majority of the people? I do.

To criticize their science was to be locked out of the grant money for sociology and other related sciences. Then we had the global ice age scare in the 70's and the 80's. Once again, to disagree with the scientists was to invite academic and professional disaster. They were wrong again. Now the same group of people is trying scare tactics with man made global warming, using the same tactics to silence dissent, an d choking funds from the people's tit.

The reason why it is more rhetorically violent these days is three-fold. The first reason is there is more money out there. The second is that there is more media out there, therefore it is harded to silence critics. Third, the political sphere has lost its sence of public discourse and etiquette. People these days confuse cleverness with crassness.

I do not blame any one party. It is the system that is to blame.

Answer 5

Global warming is not a partisan issue, it is an ideological...or maybe a religious issue.

Ideological because many anti-capitalist socialists hide behind the mantra of global warming in order to accomplish their real agenda which is to hurt industry and western governments by calling for massive ill-conceived sanctions on them.

Religious because the loudest zealots won't even discuss challenges relating to global warming causes/effects...Their response is "it's happening...you can't question it...that's heresy...shut up and BELIEVE." That is the very definition of religious zealotry...It certainly isn't the definition of scientific discourse.

Answer 6

No it is not. Global warming is happening but it isnt being caused by humans. Gore and his media complex is threatening scientists for disagreeing with him. Those who do are pressured and forced out of their jobs. It is thuggism by Gore who needs the votes and the carbon tax. It is all about controll, fear, and intimidation right now. Those idiots who say that global warming isnt happening and claim to be conservative are a joke. Also those idiots who say that car and factory emissions are warming the earth are a joke too. It is a big scam for your tax dollers and controll over the auto industry.
Volcanoes and forest fires put out millions more times the CO2 into the atmosphere than all of the humans on earth combined. The liberals dont care.....they still want to analyze cow farts and the affect of the ozone layer.

Answer 7

The problem with this picture is liberals like Al Gore jumping on the bandwagon so he can finally enjoy some success and acolades after being a failure in leadership.

It is all politically spun and motivated garbage and I prefer to tackle the REAL problems this country faces, like terrorism and the hunger for socialism right within our own borders.

Answer 8

The partisan issue is the methods needed to address Global Warming.

The same article states: 'Gore argues the world is facing a "planetary emergency" and wants an immediate freeze on U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.'

Does that sound like a good plan to you, regardless of your politics?

Answer 9

Unfortunately yes. The right wing is making it a political issue for no good reason. These are the same people who told Christopher Columbus that the world was falt and he would sail off the edge when he discovered America.

For a person who holds no political office (Al Gore) and has been long labeled as "irrelevant" by the right, they sure take a lot of interest in what he is doing and the issues he is bringing to the attention of the American people.

Answer 10

I agree with you. We should look to help a solution along by using effectively the government as a safety valve to mitigate the emissions of CO2.