Does this news indicate that global warming denial is in its last throes?

Question

The biggest and most influential group of global warming doubters is American conservatives. Gradually more and more Republicans have come around to acknowledging that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming. Gingrich and McCain and Bush are some prominent examples.

Now it appears that all of the 2008 Republican presidential nominees (with the fence-sitting exception of Fred Thompson) have acknowledged this reality as well.

"The debate among the Republican presidential nominees is largely not about whether people are warming the planet, but about how to deal with it. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/us/politics/17climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

It appears that finally even most of the Republican Party is coming around to face the scientific reality.

Does this mean we nearing the end of having to convince people that humans are the primary cause of the current warming? Will it soon become accepted by almost everybody?

Shadow - the current warming is not due to natural cycles. See here for details:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiYUrYRGadqG8IBJkxgXFDDsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071012135025AAHflpr

I don't know why you're obsessing over Al Gore. Forget him and listen to climate scientists. Contrary to your claim (which you appear to have pulled out of thin air), virtually all climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of the current warming. See the IPCC report or Oreskes study for evidence.

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

Gray is not a climatologist. He's a meteorologist. Meteorologists study weather, not climate (that's why he's a "hurricane expert"). Besides, the fact that a handful of scientists are skeptical makes them more correct than the thousands who agree with the consensus how exactly?

And finally, you're exactly wrong on the media.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710170001?f=h_topic

Answer 1

Hi--here's my usual socio/political analysis. Conservatives (more correctly, the "neoconservatives" are trying to wiggle out of a ery discrediting corner they painted themselves into.

Part if it is tat they believed their own rhetoric ("its jst a theory," "its not proven," etc.) long bast the point of reasonable skepticism. The other is that they have to contend with being linked to Bush--whose administration has been caught censoring scientists--and to the oil companies who have been caught spending tens of millions on disinformation campaigns.

Thepoint--what the right-wing didn't count on--because they never bothered to understand the science--is having a track record that puts them in the wrong--proveably--and not just on the science, but ethically.

The next phase (i.e., strategy they will adopt) is "volunteerism"). The liine will be "efforts to reduce carbon emissions mst be voluntary--we mustn't hurt the economy, etc. Like the rest--this is a scare tactic, pure and simple--ad designed to protect the oil industry and other special interests.

The fact is that alternative energy and conservatioon will promote economic growth--new jobs, new industries--and in the long run, lower energy costs to consumers. There are ways to implement policy that are counter-productive, of course--but there are also ways to do it that will promote the positive economic aspects.

But--the bottom line is that no matter what happens, the fossil fuel industry is going to be the loser. And the effort to stave that off is what drove the "anti-global warming" rhetoric--and will drive the new "voluntary efforts" strategy.

Answer 2

No. It just means that politicians (republicans and demorcrates alike) change stances depending on what they think will get them the most votes.

GW is a joke as far as human beings causing it is concerned. Our sun's influence on global temperature is vastly more responsible of global warming.

Consensus in any community does not entail proof of the facts. Wasn't the world flat at one time, didn't the sun go around the earth?

Science changes. Facts change. Global warming is an attempt for more government control and less capitalism. Why else would a politician agree? The government wants to be in control of the economy and global warming is simple one way to do it.

Are scientist without opinion or agenda? You would do well to be more balanced when doing your research.

Are scientist pure in their motives? Is the data pure? You put to much blind faith in science and in the scientist.

I've listed some sources to demonstrate that it's easy to refute science with more science and in particular that the scientific community has agendas.

The moral of the story is don't believe blindly in the science. Don't be afraid to question it's sources or the intentions of scientist. They're not always right, particulary the politicians.

Answer 3

Who cares which party believes what. That's the problem with liberals and conservatives. They can't work together nor agree on anything. People should think for themselves and question authority not just walk around like zombies sitting in front of their soap box all damn day. No scientist can honestly say that man is creating this GW nor can any scientist say that man is not creating GW. At Mississippi State University where I got my meteorology degree, you won't find a single Dr. or professor that believe GW is caused by man. I don't know where your figures for most scientist belief is man made comes from. I feel there is equal amounts on both sides of the story. Yes cut carbon and find alternative fuels to better the environment. That is all fine and dandy just don't do it to control the weather b/c it's not going to work. There are some things on this earth that man is not meant to understand and this very well maybe one of em. How many times have scientist done things and created things that only made things worse in years to come. Lets see the ATOM BOMB!! Nuclear weapons!! That was a damn good idea. So bottom line think for yourself. Don't follow a party, come up with your own opinion on GW and whether is man made or not.

The republicans don't believe it is man-made they just need the vote!!!

Answer 4

before each and everything, there is little or no denial about international warming. the position there is doubt is how a lot is guy's function in this and what Fox information would not opt for to verify is that the conventional American getting fleeced to pay for drastic alterations that isn't replace a element. many of the die confusing AGW supporters on the following have a tendency to make your concepts up on a good usual authorities controlling human beings's lives.

Answer 5

What is a troe? hehehehe. sorry, couldn't resist. Why is it you attract more than your fair share of the wannabe scietists and other misinformed folk Dana? they seem to have a thing about you!

Beware political stances, you know what lengths politicians will go to to get elected. As bush's toning down of the scientific results shows, what you see is not what you get, politician can only stay so far ahead, or behind, the electorate and politically survive.

I expect it reflects the polls the Republicans are reading, but then what people say and what people do are always different.

All you can say is it reflects a change in what is now considered politically correct amongst Rebublicans. But that's a good start.

"It takes the more extreme to make the less extreme seem normal" Patrick Whitefield, Permaculturist.

'round here that quote cuts more in the other direction, doesn't it!? Let's stick at it.

Answer 6

Humans are not the primary cause of global warming. The sun is...which makes sense. All the money in the world will never eliminate global warming - or cooling. Pollution and contaminates are a problem which should NOT be cloaked in the global warming mask. Humans cannot cool or warm the earth...which makes sense. If we could we would have controled climate long ago...we are not nearing an end of this ridiculousness. I will reduce reuse and recycle cause it makes me feel as I am doing my part but it is not a part of climate control. I will use alternative resources wherever possible and I will continue to act a a good conservative member of the human population. I encourage all to do the same.

Answer 7

No this just indicates that politicians in general is like a box of chocolates.
I take my dog for a 2 mile walk at about two in the morning unfortunately its not country enough so I walk by many houses From the amount of lights on porch lights, nite lites etc, I would infer that most people could care less about GW. I also know many who remove there Catalitic converters and only put them on if they are gettin inspected, this saves them from having to pay out the yazzoo for a new one when it busts out or clogs up in a year or so.

Here shadow Iet me help With a timely Algore quote'

(in Grist Magazine) "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is."

Answer 8

Only feeble minded people believe climate is affected by humans or animals or bugs or whatever the next myth is.

Intelligent people don't buy the hoax, but many use it to gain control over the masses in the quest for more power and more taxation. These evil people use this type of junk science for their own gains at the expense of the ignorant.

People who pretend to be scientists so they can "convince" people about a complete hoax are the lowest form of life on the planet.

Politicians will agree to anything if they think it will make them popular.

Real scientists know that it's all a hoax. All it takes is a 4th grade education to see through the global warming hoax.

It would be good for more people to educate themselves on this subject instead of believing it because the Church of Global Warming wants them to.

See, it's all just a new religion. A cult, in other words.

Answer 9

Always seeking consensus. Getting the acquiescence of some squishy republican politicians such as Arnold, McCain, and Bush doesn't change a single scientific fact. As a political strategy some like Bush may be triangulating that it is better to accept a certain amount of blame to try and control the issue and to try and head off any ridiculous economy harming measures that Dems will surely throw out there as red meat to their constituency.

Answer 10

I used this answer once before but maybe it will explain why I do not believe anything anyone will ever say about climate change. Well to be truth full there are three things:
1. To have a reliable data base for full knowledge of climate change it would need to have multiple types of data that all support the same theory not just a couple like tree rings and ice core samples. IE I want 5000 years of complete temperature readings as accurate as those we have from the last 30 years.
2. I did the math for the 200+ feet of sea level rise due to ice melt. Can you show me an ice cube that is the size of Greenland on two sides ant 235 miles on all the rest? That is what it would take to raise sea level 1 foot over the surface of the world. (includes land mass subtractions for non-covered land)

and finally the most important to me: 3.Ozone depletion: 1972 consortium of scientists from three schools (MIT, NMSU, & CalPoly Pomona) want grant to study Ozone Layer. 1973-74 school year grant of $293,000.00 by US Government is enough to build an instrument package but no where near enough to launch it so three separate environmental chambers were used to test Idealized Ozone Layer conditions as suspected by said scientist. Organic Chemistry Professor at NMSU suggested that CFRs and lighting might affect ozone layers......IT DOES in an environmental chamber with the correct ozone CFR ratio within +/- 4 parts per billion and a telsa coil sparking like mad in the chamber. $98,000.00 of the grant money was used to sensationalize the broad outlines of the facts. (Exact ratios and experimental data are propitiatory to the consortium so I can not quote that data.) I still remember the headline Hairspray destroys Ozone Layer. 1975-76 school year said consortium got $23,000,000 dollar grant to study ozone layer. Until that program got started the only thing we knew about the ozone layer is that we were punching rockets through it on a regular basis. Holes in the Ozone Layer No information at all prior to 1977 or 1978 and maybe later than that I quit following the controversy.

How do I know these things? I was a work study student working in the Organic Chemistry Labs at NMSU from 1972-1975.
I did 20 hours per week taking notes and doing observations with about 25 other students so that the data was available when the Professor bothered to look at it. Once we found the ozone depletion ratio of CFR he started writing his conclusions. I asked him and he basically told me these experiments are bogus and that what he was concerned about was getting real money to do the studies at altitude.

You know what? I have not believed a darn thing so called environmental science has said since!!!!!!!!!!!!