why do republicans refuse to acknowledge global warming?

Question

why?

there is so much evidence that shows that if there is a reason for global warming it is because we contributed largelly to it.

*there really is no reason to be so hostile towards a person who you don't even know...
godness that is childish...

Answer 1

Because it fits in their little plan of "apocolypse" and "the end of days" when "Jesus will return"...when things get bad, it only proves them right. And as it seems, people would rather be right than alive. Meanwhile, the oil barons are chuckling at the sheeple...if the **** hits the fan, don't think for a second they will starve. If you understand economics, instability leads to great concentrations of wealth for few and misery for many...look at the middle east for an example.

Answer 2

Republicans for the most part can't even acknowledge that evolution is true. This despite the overwhelming evidence. You could give them proof on top of proof for global warming, and it wouldn't do any good.
The reason they can't acknowledge such things is because it's inconvenient for them. Evolution destroys their silly belief in God. Global warming would lead to the question of what's causing it. The answer could very well be man. Which means businesses would be hurt, which means Republicans would be making less money.

Answer 3

1) That’s a false statement; there are plenty of republicans who believe in global warming, they just know it is not solely man made.

2) There is no "evidence" there are theories, theories are not facts, and they are only ideas. Ideas do not constitute evidence.

Some facts:

Weather patterns change, they have changed and will always change, and that’s a fact.

Egypt and North Africa at one times were the breadbasket of the Mediterranean, their environment was dry but a lot of the land was capable of growing crops, this changed right at the fall of the roman empire, nearly 1000 years before industrial pollution. Fact

In the 1970 there was a fear of global cooling. Fact

The earth releases more green house gasses than all the industry combined, in fact one volcano in Africa releases twice the C2O of all US factories combined in one year and produces its own acid rain. Fact.

Arizona had once been a swamp millions of years ago, northern California was wet lands 1000 years ago, both of these were before industrial man made pollution and they both dried up before Man made industrial pollution. Fact

The last 20 years has seen an increase in solar energy out put, that means it is releasing more heat, it is due t subside by the year 2012. Fact.

So by looking at the facts you can determine that yes there is environmental change going on, but the affects of man made greenhouse gasses being the sole cause is egotistical to say the least. There is no doubt yes we are impacting the environment, but to the levels the "experts" claim is in definite question.

Is global warming happening? - Yes

Is it man made? - No!

Answer 4

The reason for that is that they were saying pollution would lead to a new ice age just 30 years ago based on the same information. Most of it revolved around the Nuclear Winter concept of Carl Sagan. While Global Warming is evident, it is not evident that pollution is the cause. It is a post hoc analysis rather than a scientific experiment.

Answer 5

Who's denying global warming? Our beef is with the lack of conclusive evidence that the major factor is any man-made condition.

In fact, even the U.N. study group acknowledges that at best man is responsible for 20% of the increase in green house gasses (and there are those who say it is as little as 10% contribution).

The only real debate is whether this 20% contribution is the "tipping" imbalance, or not. And, to this day, no one can say with any certainty.

Answer 6

http://www.rep.org/opinions/speeches/70.html

I think the problem as a whole comes from the news telling us what is global warming, and what is happening to our world instead of telling the people WHAT TO DO!



and trust me....buying a new Hybird car isn't going to solve the larger problem..it's just one step.

Answer 7

We have got to stop generalizing if this country is going to cross the divide between Dems and Reps. It is not pleasant to deal with costly and challenging problems, especially when there is a possibility that such problems are being overstated or are nto well understood. I disagree, but think we have got to respectfully convince opposing viewpoints.

Answer 8

probably because 30 yr's ago lib's were talking about the coming global cooling....when all the scientists including dr.gray,the hurricane god whom kind of slammed the global warming theory this week,come together and in unity decare man made global warming, than I will no its not political and know somethings happening........

Answer 9

It's not a lack of acknowledgment, it's a lack of belief in the cause. Look up. See the Sun. Ask yourself why the next 2 planets in our solar system are experiencing the same warming trends....hmmmmmmm

Answer 10

"international warming" as has "clean, renewable power" change into politicized and hence any argument i will provide professional or con is polluted via bias. Even worse, is the impact of funding it truly is likely available to the "professional" component of the argument which also biases the outcome. yet even as i will renowned that we ought to continuously and WE DO do something to lessen the outcome of our economic device on the ambience, you likewise see in straightforward words and "all-or-no longer something" coverage that's both unreasonable and impractical if this economic device is to live to inform the tale. anytime you "make something" and this contains CFL bulbs or image voltaic panels contained in the call of "going eco-friendly", it produces risky via-products in that production which, even as they could't be thoroughly eliminated, will be managed and monitored to lessen their environmental result. in case you want technologies and fiscal progression, you need to also settle for the actual undeniable actuality that some harm will be inevitable. The phobic coverage of "all-or-no longer something" that if we drill for oil it is going to likely be a disaster or construct a clean clean coal power plant it is going to likely be a disaster in straightforward words stifles our boom and ends up in NO power to the persons who favor it! With as we talk's criteria utilized to the gentle bulb ought to not in any respect were invented...