No, they don't.
2007-05-21 08:18:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by Active Denial System™ 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
As much as everyone else does.
What are they, unfeeling robots? No, people with just as realistic a view of the world as anyone else. And for the most part, not using enviroment to scare people into putting them into office. Alternative fuels? The first political party to help fire up a definite working alternative fuel counrty wide at every gas station or recharge station would have it made. Both parties are putting forth as much as they can into this. The media, for the most part, only shows what efforts the Dems put forth.
To think that lowering our emmissions could put a dent in the clouds of stuff put out by other countries like China, Latin America may be a noble effort. In actuality, nothing will come about from all this "fad" politicing until actual tangable frightening changes happen on our planet. Were not talking about 2 degrees temperature change here. Were talking major, major changes that will scare people world wide to the brink of panic.
For the politican (Democrat), its a gamble... If he is right, he could be considered a god down the road. If he is wrong, Americans have a short memory and will forget about it a month or two anyway. A no loose situation.
2007-05-21 15:40:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Robert S 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The question should have been "does humanity in general care for Global warming"... Off course the Republican mind set is and has always been "there is money to be made in misery" so they have and will not care for anything of grave importance as long as there is an opportunity for them to line their pockets. This is evident by the President endorsing only a few options like the visit to a battery factory or Ethanol Plant as these in turn line his and his crooner's pockets. So in short no there is no outrage as Humans and the Republicans are the bottom feeders in the whole game......
2007-05-21 15:49:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mythbuster 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
With all the genuiely, verifiable issues out there, THIS is the big bugaboo? That just amazes me.
We've got entire cultures seeking to blow up innocent men, women and children and destroy entire civilizations around the world simply because those societies believe differently.
We have a congress that doesn't seem to appreciate that fact and is ignorant enough to believe that we can reason with these psychopaths.
We've got a flood of illegal immigrants streaming across the border threatening to turn the United States into a third world country.
We've got a record deficit that threatens economic collapse.
The Social Security system which we're forced to invest thousands in every year is quickly going the way of the dinosaur.
Basic medical care costs as much as a new car and monthly medical insurance costs about as much as a mortgage.
And you're worried the mythical crisis of global warming? We're not even out of the last ice age yet and THIS is the monster in your closet? Holy cow! This is what you want the liberals in congress to focus on??
Take it to China, to India and Russia. Share your concerns with them.
When they've demonstrated themselves to be even half as environmentally responsible as America, then we can talk.
When you embrace nuclear energy as the cleanest, safest and most economically viable source of energy, then we can talk.
Otherwise, sorry. I'm not going to support your belief that this is the crisis of our time or that America should carry the water for the developing nations because of some theoretical maybe-crisis.
2007-05-21 16:12:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by lrwilliams82 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think the better question is "Does it really matter whether or not global warming is the result of human activity?" I will readily admit that human induced global warming is a very vulnerable theory. The periods of time used to measure the phenomenom (centuries) are statistically insignficant when compared to the age of our planet. After reading a bunch of scientific literature on both sides, I tend to think that we are responsible and if we don't make an effort to curb our emissions there is a risk that things will take a turn for the worse...maybe I won't see it in my life time...but my daughter might...or maybe her children. But then again...does it really matter? What's the downside to reducing our CO2 emmissions? Most critics will tell you that it could spell economic disaster for the US. Talk about a "chicken little" reaction. The US economy overcame the effects of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act. CRCLA, TOSCA, RCRA etc...why do republicans have such little faith in our ability to weather CO2 emmission control? Bottom line, the biggest threat to the US economy is China and India. And let's face it, our economic strength lies in our innovation and not necessarily in duplication (read production)...so let's innovate CO2 control and alternative energy...in every way imaginable...and sell it to the rest of the world. Here's a fact....oil is finite and one day alternative energy just becomes plain old... energy. Wake up people...this is not a potential drag on the US economy....but one of our greatest opportunities. So many of the republicans on this issue are eager to mention terrorism as more worthy of our national attention and resources. We all know how terrorism is funded...I think about it every time I go to pump....so any theory...no matter how far fetched or unlikely or unprovable...that is going to support the development of alternative energy is...at the end day...a net benefit. In my mind the middle east suffers from a serious case of relevancy...let's change that ASAP. For those of you republicans that might have a problem with pursuing policy using "chicken little" tactics...don't forget about the WMDs you so readily sold...poor Colin Powell...forced to construct a house of cards (card by miserable card) in front of the UN...talk about getting sold out. But wait...I'm a democrat and I'm glad we went to Iraq...and I don't think we should leave any time soon? Why? Because look at the effect...we created a theater of conflict far form home...and let me tell you...it's much easier for an angry syrian to sneak over the Iraqi border under the cover of night then it is for the same syrian to get a visa, a plane ticket to the US and a terrorist cell taking applications. (There's also the issue of moral responsibility...you can't go to some other county...turn it on it's head...and leave) So all of you angry republicans...shut up about global warming...take a minute and think it through...I mean all the way through. You sound silly when you say "there's no way of proving it"....of course we can't prove it...that will take a few million years....but disproving it is equally impossible. And the silly links you send around...created by pundits for pundits...stop already. "The growing momentum of dissenters"...so stupid I can't take it. So maybe it's not true...so what. What's the downside? God forbid we teach our children a little stewardship...it might not be global warming...but there's one thing I can guarantee...unless we change our current frontier attitude towards our natural resources we will eventually screw up our planet. Finally...what if it's true...what if in 30 years we have really screwed things up? Have fun explaining/stammering to your grandkids about how "we needed definitive proof" and I suggest you hide the old photos of you in the Hummer.
2007-05-21 17:36:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Streamer 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, they don't.
They will only concede that it is a problem after a major, "you - have - to - be - a - moron - not - to - notice - this" kind of disaster, like a second ice age due to the north Atlantic current being interrupted. (the current is maintained by a delicate salt to water balance in the north Atlantic - salt water is slightly heavier than fresh water, so it sinks after it cools, keeping the current flowing just like a water pump. A massive input of fresh water from melting ice caps can change this balance, shutting off this pump, and there goes all the heat we get from that current.) Until then, Republicans will be quite content to stick their heads in the sand and ignore all the facts and evidence.
Of course, by the time such a massive event occurs, the current republicans will be out of office, happy to let global warming become "somebody else's problem".
As for alternative fuels, funding will go to that as soon as oil companies stop funding political campaigns.
2007-05-21 16:28:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
1st thing, Global warming is a political movement and not a scientific fact. It found it's beginning with the collapse of global communism invading the environmental movement. I am a conservationist, sportsman, and common sense environmentalist I general vote libertarian or republican.
I do believe the US should be exploiting resources on our own shores including Calfornia, Florida, and Alaska. I also believe we could fuel our needs with clean coal technologies.
The Carbon argument of the eco-marxists lacks scientific credibility.
Ethanol is a loser, it's net gain is nil, tax subsidies, make it more expense to produce.
If and when H2 can be used in the transportation cycle, I will be behind it. But until it is not cost prohibitive to drive Carbon based fuel remain our best economic option.
The eco-marxist religion is clearly agenda driven. It lacks scientific validity. It is a "belief" not fact.
One fact they have correct, the earth's mean temperature has risen 7/10s of 1 degree over the last hundred years. That is the end of their factual evidence.
There is no evidence it is human caused.
Here are two websites that contain a large compendium of valid scientific climate information.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm...
http://www.junkscience.com
Any time the word "BELIEF or BELIEVE" enters the conversation think "RELIGION". It is cult of epic proportion. The only way to deprogram yourself or others is with facts and understanding.
I am a lifelong student. when I first heard of "Global Warming" I recall in my environmental studies in college the "prevailing" wind was around a new Ice Age.
With certainty climate changes, and has been doing so for 4.6 billion years. Sometimes quickly sometime slowly.
Man is inherently narcissistic and our cultural shapers have found ways to manipulate this for the purpose of gaining power.
The validity of IPCC report fails based on inadequate peer review, Most of the supposed 2500 scientists involved are saying the content of the report is NOT what they recommended of even wrote.
What we can do about it? nothing. Don't believe it. Use your common sense. If there is money involved, someone's pocket will be lined.
Al Gore's is definitely one of the primary pocket liners of the ecomarxist religion.
2007-05-21 15:31:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Us Republicans care so much I decided to complete my own science project. I took a glass of water and loaded it with ice to the brim.
I waited and timed how long it took for all the ice melt. And was prepared to measure the volume of water that overflowed from the glass. I then extrapolated the results to determine whether or not I should buy beach front property.
I suggest to buy now!!
Hint: Do not try this experiment at home.
Conclusion: Do not believe a politician when it comes to science.
2007-05-21 16:33:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by tj2007 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's like asking if Dems care about terrorism. Don't be a one-issue fool.
Ask the Chinese as they are putting a new coal-fired generator online each week to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions and check the results.
If we stop eating beef it will have a huge impact on global warming. Between cattle farts and rainforest clearing McDonalds is a huge contributor to global warming.
The U.S. has stricter environmental standard than the majority of countries thanks to efforts by all parties in our political system, not just Dems..
2007-05-21 16:45:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by ©2009 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
This is a classic trap question similar to "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It presumes the fact of human influence on global warming. Republicans, like myself, look at the picture differently. We simply don't accept that humans significantly contribute to global warming. We look at things like the measured and recorded warming of Mars, solar activity, weather cycles and the like, and find it hard to accept that humanity causes global warming. We then look at the history of political enviromentalism and remember that the story in the early 1970's was "global cooling." The left enviromentalists simply can't settle on one story. We have missed too many 10 year deadlines to save the world to take the claims seriously anymore. The left has simply cried "wolf" one too many times, and claims consensus in the middle of contention. We all want to save the world, but Republicans have had enough of the environmental panic attack. Let's focus on being good stewards of our environmental resources and focus our dollars and efforts on environmental issues which are in our control.
2007-05-21 15:33:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by Stephen S 1
·
2⤊
1⤋
Of Course! But Both Democrats and Republicans and everyone else has a right to intelligently question the scientific validity of global warming being cause by humans.
I doubt it. It is more likely caused by the sun.
2007-05-21 15:23:09
·
answer #11
·
answered by Jon 1
·
2⤊
2⤋