I just want to see somthing here about peoples views on Global Warming?

Question

Post weather you think it is Man-made or Naturally occuring, And weather you are a Republican or Demacrat or which way you would lean more towards. I want to see if polical orintation has anything to do with peoples views on Global Warming.

Answer 1

I am a conservative republican, this however makes no difference in my opinion on global warming. Global warming appeals to my scientific background, I was interested in global warming long before it became a political issue.

The theory of man-made global warming is false. Anyone who believes otherwise has not investigated the evidence or is purposely remaining ignorant to the legitimate opposition to global warming. I have given up an one and a half hours to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” so I ask you to do the same and watch the movie detailing the opposition.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=great+global+warming+swindle.
And another video for those of you short on time: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3
Some more general resources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4
http://www.john-daly.com/

CO2 is not causing the globe to warm the opposite is true, the warming is increasing the atmospheric CO2. When the world heats it gradually increases the temperature of the oceans which serve as the largest CO2 sink. As the oceans heat up they release CO2 which is stored in them. The information comes from the same data Al Gore uses, the temperature always goes up before the concentration of CO2 goes up.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/ninelieslaunch.pdf#search=%22vostok%20figure%20125%22
This is the entire record of temperature verses CO2 record. This is the same data used by Al Gore but anyone with a fifth grade education can see that temperature rises before CO2:
http://vortex.plymouth.edu/atmosphere/IceCores1.gif
The global warming crowd tends to hind this graph, they will only show graphs of the last 20 or so years in which CO2 appears to cause a temperature increase. However when you look at the full data set you see that the current warming trend is not the result of CO2, CO2 rises after temperature. The global warming crowd uses the zoomed in graph to mislead you also they tend to use thick lines on the graph so you can’t make out what rises first. As you can see the temperature rises first and then CO2 starts to skyrocket, that’s why graphs of only 20 years seem to show CO2 leading temperature.


CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere. Water vapor, another greenhouse gas, makes up 1-4% of our atmosphere, this gas is acknowledged to be the main greenhouse gas. All human activities combined contribute only 6 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. Animals, through respiration, decomposition, etc contribute 150 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere. So humans contribute only a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere which is already in very small concentrations in the atmosphere.
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html This is where my data came from, it is an interesting site, it displays the same graphics as Al Gore in his movie but it tells how low the human contribution is. So Al Gore is using the same data but coming to a different conclusion, who do you want to believe a politician with no scientific training or the NASA CO2 laboratory, a group of scientists who spend their entire careers studying CO2.

We know the greenhouse effect is real it is a necessary effect to keep our planet at a habitable temperature. However if our current warming is due to greenhouse gasses it would cause warming in the troposphere , but the troposphere is actually getting cooler.
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/. That points to other explanations to our current warming.

So what is causing our current warming, it is the sun.
http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/642-2.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar_activity.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040803093903.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=900
The fact that only the earth’s surface is warming points to direct heating from the sun rather than heating due to greenhouse gasses. Also other planets in our solar system are warming pointing to a common cause of warming, that common cause being the sun.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mgs-092005.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mgs-092005-images.html
Another theory is that ocean currents play a role
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-03/UoCS-Nrol-1903100.php

The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting and animals will suffer this is another false claim.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N46/EDIT.jsp
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.html
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

The global warming crowd also insists our seas are rising due to global warming, however this is not entirely correct. Seas in certain areas are rising, there is no global sea rise. The seas have been rising ever since the last ice age: http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Sea_Level_png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
These two sources show that sea level increase now has actually leveled off from a very steep rise for the past 20 thousand years. For proof of this look here:
http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/markhotd.htm
A mark left by Sir James Clark Ross, an Antarctic explorer, in 1841 is still visible. Not only that but the mark was placed in 1841 to show how high the sea was, not only is the mark visible it is 30cm above current sea levels. Now it is possible that the mark was placed at high tide and the picture taken at low, but even then the mark would still be above current sea levels. The seas have risen dramatically over the past thousand years not due in any part to us. If you want proof of that take a look at one of the dozens of ancient underwater cities that spot the globe. When these cities were built they were on land now they are deep underwater: http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2004/s1107203.htm
This shows a dramatic increase in sea level during human time but long before the world became industrialized.

The global warming crowd also claims a scientific consensus on the issue, this is wrong in two ways. One, there is no consensus, this is a false claim to make you believe in global warming by suppressing the opposition. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Second, even if there was a consensus it would mean nothing, science is not politics, you don’t vote on theories to determine their legitimacy.
Here’s 21 pages of websites that disagree with global warming.
http://www.climatechangedebate.org/documents/CCD_read.pdf
The thought that the only scientists who disagree with global warming are paid by oil companies is simply a stupid statement with no reality. This is the most illogical argument by people in support of global warming. Aside from being completely false it begs another question: Who pays global warming supporters? The answer is big environmental agencies that make millions off of global warming each year by teaching, publishing books, and selling environmentally clean products.

The IPCC is the main supporter of global warming, their statements are defended blindly by people who don’t want to admit that global warming is not real. People will claim that they took into account natural sources of CO2, they didn’t. Take a look for yourself:
http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index.htm. That is the latest IPCC report, read the entire report, do a search of the documents, there is absolutely no mention of natural sources of CO2. The natural sources have been completely ignored. Also people will claim that the IPCC took the sun into account in their report, this is not entirely correct, while the sun is mentioned the report it’s effects have not been accurately represented.
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm. The IPCC did not take into account the Svensmark factor. This would greatly reduce the effect of solar radiation on the earth. Look back up to the solar resources to see the effect of the sun correctly represented.
Also allegations have been by IPCC scientists who disagreed with the IPCC statements. They say that their research was censored or taken out of the IPCC report. This is not the first time the IPCC has lied, they forged the famous “hockey stick” graph, which later resulted in a reissuing of the IPCC report.
Here’s another source that disagrees with the IPCC: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Sept1004GlobalWarmingPG.pdf
And another: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/ipccreview.htm
And another: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm

Quotes form politicians, CEO’s, and others are not proof of global warming, they issue these statements to get votes and customers. Scientists are able to get published and get time on the media by supporting global warming. The IPCC continually lies and misrepresents data so they keep their jobs.

In regards to the precautionary principle that says we can only help if we switch over to alternative energy, this idea is not correct. While this may seem legitimate it only helps the first world, third world countries can not afford to switch to the more expensive energy options. Also the US currently spends 4 billion dollars a year on global warming research which could be better spent on research for disease or to fight poverty. For an excellent example of how the precautionary principle is harmful you do not need to look further than DDT. This pesticide was cheap and incredibly effective but it was banned because of it harmful effects on egg shells. Now thousands of people die every year in third world countries because of malaria, a disease that could be easily controlled with DDT.

I hope anyone who believes in global warming they will take a look at the resources I provided. These resources should convince you that global warming is not man-made, it is caused by cycles in the earths climate. If you are not convinced I hope you at least take a new look at global warming as an unproven idea. Remember that global warming is big business for anyone who aligns themselves with it.

I could not go this entire post without mentioning global cooling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
http://www.michaelkubacki.com/cooling.htm
In the 1970’s it was claimed that there was a consensus on the fact that the world was headed into an ice age. We have seen once before how damaging a false claim about our climate change can be to our world. Most of the global warming crowd does not want you to know about this scare because it is so similar to the scare today. Government panels were formed and claimed the world was headed to an ice age, evidence poured in supporting the claim, a consensus was claimed, then the whole issue just faded away. That is what will happen with the false scare of global warming.

Answer 2

Well, I am a Republican. Yes, unfortunately, I've been blessed with common sense and an intellect that surpasses most liberals. Global warming is part of a natural cycle that the earth goes through every few decades. A small portion of the warming may be caused by man. However, if you've ever flown across the country and look down at all the unscathed natural landscape, you would realize what little affect humans have on the earth's temperature. Years ago, I remember the fear mongers trying to get people upset over global cooling. Well, now it's warming. I also remember the drought back in the 70's. Has anyone ever seen pictures of the dust bowl back in the 20's and 30's? The earth is very forgiving and, in fact, harsh conditions force the earth to activate its recovery mode. That is, when temperatures rise, more water vapor becomes present causing heavier rains which, in turn, cool the earth. By the way, emissions cause cO (carbon monoxide) not cO2 (carbon dioxide). Carbon dioxide is what we and all animals exhale when we breath. Plants thrive in carbon dioxide. That means that eventually the earth will be covered with more vegetation which produces more oxygen. Seems like a good thing to me. Not to mention that the growing seasons will produce more food. People will use less energy to keep warm. And the list goes on... at least until the earth corrects itself and we go back to global cooling.

Answer 3

Global Warming was NEVER an issue for me. It doesn't matter if man is causing it or not, so I always opposed Government(s) restricting the free market in a vain attempt to counter Global Warming. The reason is, God is in control, and IF the world is warming, that's how God wants it... until God stops wanting the world to warm, at which point God will take care of it. But recent finding show the science was cooked up; there is NO evidence of Global Warming happening, or that it is a danger in any way, nor that man is causing it.

Answer 4

I think that I would be Republican but I've been accused of being Democrat with a firearm. I don't follow any party close enough to tell. I weigh the issues in every election and make independent decisions.
GW? hogwash. Basic ecology will prove that the weather cycles are normal.
How can we be warming if last winter in the US, we had record low temps?
or record high temps in the 40's? Not many cars back then.

Answer 5

I think it's man-made, a naturally occuring global warming won't have such an impact. I'm neither a republican, nor a democrat, and I wouldn't lean towards either either. But I would vote for Barrack Obama, but not because he's a democrat.

Answer 6

I am a Democrat and I believe that Global warming is made by pollution. But if not, we should still do all we can to help. We someone is sick, you give the medicine right? So we need to take care of the planet. Besides, going green means technological advances, and that's always good.

Answer 7

I do not believe in global warming-- but I do believe in the earth cycling-- and that pollution causes hot spots-- look at the pollution that just sits in the San Joaquin valley- yuck! Most of the gw is hype-- and way over done- they media loves the fear factor and attention it gets--lean toward republican- but go for best of any party-D

Answer 8

Man made. There is no doubt in the global scientific community. Only in the political community. Go figure.

98% of scientists agree. THe 2% are funded by the oil companies. Who do you want to believe?

Remember, you future is at stake here, and you aren't going to make millions off of selling oil.

Answer 9

There is no real evidence that global warming exists or that humans are the cause of it. You can make the same arguments for global cooling.

Temperature changes occur naturally in cycles. Why else would we have ice ages?

Answer 10

I think it is a partial natural occurance accelerated by man's stupidity..
I am Republican most of the time...

Answer 11

I believe it is man made I am a republican and i lean on hybrid cars