How come that especially in the USA global warming is made a politic issue of believers and non-believers?

Question

So many facts point to global warming. I am aware that global warming isnt proven yet 100%, but it is much more likely then denying the problem. Is it because it will change your lifestyle?

Answer 1

I think it's perhaps because the issue became politicised in the US and effectively ended up as a case of Reps versus Dems. This hasn't happened outside the US where all political parties agree on the need to address global warming. The Reps have now changed sides and agree that something needs to be done but have effectively decided not to do anything just yet.

Another difference in the US is that some large corporations, especially the major oil companies, mounted a campaign to discredit the science of global warming; probably out of fear that it would financially impact on them. This too was something largely confined to the US and again, all major oil companies and large corporations have switched sides and acknowledge the seriousness of global warming.

Effectively now there are skeptics without leaders, guidance or support other than from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (the only credible scientific organisation not to accept anthropogenic global warming).

The political divisions and policy of misinformation in the past have led to some people 'taking sides'. Although there is now political unity it's left behind some skeptics where their allegiance is stronger to their individual beleifs than their political beleifs.

Answer 2

There is strong and valid arguements both ways on this issue.

The environmental extremists have been preaching and predicting a doomsday style of future for over 30 years and none of their extreme predictions have even remotely come to pass. This tends to be a liberal political plank as well.

On the other hand, reactionary groups have been too unwilling to accept any sort of alteration of the standards of the day. They are extreme in their prediction that change cannot or will not be achieveable for one reason or another. Their predicitions are equally invalid.

The extremeists of both sides will maintain their extreme positions. Often their hidden real agenda is to use these arguements for other policical or power grabbing purposes and the masses believe their purpose is altruistic when it really is self serving. Basically the masses are duped by the convincing extremists.

Moderates, who are the majority, will ally themselves with whichever group is most convincing. Many of these moderates are idealists (often young and inexperienced) and many are not persistant nor willing to engage in a long term plan to do anything so they jump on and off bandwagons whenever something seems more attractive.

Look at the political landscape in the US over the past 60 years. The Democrats were in office during WWII and Korea. The antiwar (anti Korean war) people were against the Democrats and Eisenhower became president. Mr. Nixon won in 1968 again because of an antiwar movement. Today, the Republicans are the target of the antiwar movement which favors the Democrats.

As far as global warming goes, there is no solid technical data to validate whether this is a man-made or a natural event. The same goes for the ozone hole. We just do not have valid data to indicate whether this is a cycle or a shift.

Extremists of both sizes are busy with their agendas and trying to drum up as much support as is possible for their own purpose, not for the seemingly altruistic purpose.

This is not a new tactic. It has been used throughout history. Expecting it to change is naive.

The only way to combat this is solid data and a skeptical opinion of all of those who push their bandwagon.

As a scientist and engineer, one who is not a politician, and one who looks at things from a solid technical background, I am extremely fed up with the non-technical comunity's push on this issue. Neither side has the data; both are using the arguement for their selfserving purposes.

For these reasons it is a political issue. There just is insufficient technical data to support either views. Politicians use this as a way to recruit followers for their political gains.

Answer 3

It's not a political issue for me. I also could care less if I'm forced to change my lifestyle as when I grew up as a child I had less than anyone who probably sitting here behind his or her computer. But I won't take no BS from nobody. Whether they comin from the left or the right.

I'm sure you've heard all the news about the one sole Global Warming scientist who had been censored by NASA and the Bush administration, Mr. James Hansen as is often repeated again and again in the news

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=770433594


What they don't tell you is WHY there was such a problem with his research. You see, his research was funded by Teresa Heinz Kerry and other politally motivated groups to prove Global Warming.

The result was that the Bush administration became overly guarded about what he was publishing but only in them government policy reports.. But that is still only part of the story. He was free to publish all he wanted and was not prevented from contacting the media.

But NASA has a policy that one must notify superiors if one is doing an interview while on the job. This is with all scientists. If the interview is not pre-arranged with NASA and your giving it during your work time, well, then there has to be someone from NASA overseeing it.

And this Hansen used as a PR stunt to give news that he was being censored. Hansen has never been censored. If you want to know about censorship, read about the many skeptics who have been bullied, villified, and fired from their jobs because their research did not meet the status quo:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21207

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070418151132.aspx

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Z042607=global_warming_skeptics.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA553_GlobalWarming_Intolerance.html


There is more than one side of any story. And the thing that makes America great is that we think like individuals and not like mass sheep. We got freedom of information where other countries control what their people see and hear. We got healthy debate cause you can't trust no Democrat or Republican or anyone in politics and we got a good sense not to.

We ask the questions no one else will. We question our leaders and question authority. We believe in fair play. We use our freedom of speech and our freedom to think as individuals.

Most of our ancestors left Europe for this right. No authority is gonna have control over us no way. That's the American way.

Answer 4

Because people in the USA are fiercely independent. People here are not easily governed in that we will always have the ability to openly question authority.

The reason that it has become politicized is that believers demand that nonbelievers "buy" into their plan. Shared misery. Aside from the fact that their "science" is not well-established, what measurable effects has the Kyoto agreement had almost a decade later? If most people believed in AGW, then you wouldn't need the government to take action: people would already be taking the actions needed. So, how big of a dent have we made in decreasing global CO2 levels? It's hard to convince folks that already don't believe in the "problem" when they see that the proposed "solution" has had no effect.

Answer 5

You're missing the point. It's not a matter of believers vs. non-believers. We all know global warming is happening. In other words, we're all believers. The issue is whether man or nature is the primary cause.

Answer 6

Partly because of conservative media types screaming it's a liberal hoax. Partly because of a deliberate strategy by the Republican Party.

"If the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party’s strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.

Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R) was denied a seat on the global warming committee because he refused to say global warming wasn't caused by man.

Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification."

GTB - here's your data. Not the report itself (although it lists plenty of it), but the hundreds of references to the scientific literature it uses.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

There is consensus (except for a few skeptics) BECAUSE there is proof (data).

And so this guy doesn't buy the party line:

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives Tuesday to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

Harry - Hansen has been talking about the reality of global warming since before 1988, long before Kerry knew who he was. Kerry married Teresa in 1995. Hansen's funding comes from the government, although he was recently awarded a prize in recognition of his past work.

Answer 7

I'm sorry it really is something as simple as the bottom line; restrictions placed on capitalistic endeavors, and a bottomless pit of taxes, levys and fines that can be placed on every individual in the USA. Look at the whole discussion of "carbon footprints" that is a set up for taxing anyone who owns any vehicle that burns fossil fuels

Answer 8

i'm happy you assert maximum! i understand the planet is getting warmer, I certainly have spent diverse time around the sea interior the previous 50 years and have considered it. yet as to your (and all the different brainless wonders) questioning everybody must be left wing liberals who can see the planet is getting warmer, i desire you're incorrect. there are a lot of human beings i call brainless that ought to work out the planet is getting warmer. The Northwest Passage that each and every of the explores regarded for has now unfolded and it under no circumstances existed earlier. that's barely one factor. possibly that's because of the fact i'm older and have considered another adjustments yet some adjustments are seen given which you examine, the Northwest Passage you may desire to envision a touch history. The coral reefs of the international are going away, returned a touch examining nevertheless. I certainly have hunted all my life and this has replaced enormous time. yet no, there are some people who examine and spot the adjustments that are no longer the lefties. i attempted to think of of what I used to call those human beings and the intense precise. Neither communities stay interior the actual international. however the human beings who say that is not any longer getting warmer are no longer residing interior the actual international the two.

Answer 9

In Europe the environmental movement is so strong and influential that their word is taken as gospel. So anything they say all parties have to tow the line. Europe is more left wing. Left wingers have a zero tolerance for any pollution, and are also anti capitalists so more likely to believe the big oil conspiracy theory.

Answer 10

The issue is less whether it is happening, but instead whether we have any power to change it. It is an earth cycle; therefore no matter how many light bulbs you change to flourescent it won't matter.