Relationship between thoughts on Global Warming and political party affiliation?

Question

Here are my questions:
1. Which party do you belong to?

2. Do you realize that Global Warming is a fact and is happening?

3. If you do not think that Global Warming is real, then how do you explain the following:
a. melting Arctic
b. delayed cold weather in New England (it was early November and we were still in t-shirt weather)
c. extended droughts in the Southeast states
d. extended droughts in the Southwest states
e. the California wild fires (realizing, of course, that they were started by a child, but they wouldn't have been that bad had the weather pattern been normal, and not as dry as it was)

4. If you are Republican/Conservative and do not believe in Global Warming, then what about God giving us this planet to be good stewards? What does "good steward" mean to you if not keeping the planet from getting over polluted?

Thanks for your time!

Dr. Jello - Your name defines your arguments. They may appear solid, but they will not hold up to the light. I find it interesting that you near completly avoided the question. I have read some of your "arguments" and you never supply the facts to back them up. Please provide links to scientists and credible (yes, I mean the ones NOT funded by oil and coal corporations!) studies that think the way you do. Notice I said scientists, not critics.

Jazzone - There is actually is a consensus among scientists from all over the world. Check out: http://www.ipcc.ch/ for some good information to start with. Can you pinpoint the scientists that don't agree with Global Warming? Scientists, not critics.

IslaVista - Isn't fire control supposed to help stop the spread of wildfires, not encourage it? What path does your argument take?

MichaelP - Regarding the fact that Conservatives need to care about the environment, that is true, but that is not what is meant by the term Conservative (which I'm sure you know). Please, point out any Republicans or Conservatives that fully support efforts to bring down the level of CO2 emmissions.

Vladovik - Actually I do understand the climate in souther California. I know that it is dry there, and receives little rain. However, even residents have said that the lack of normal rain fall this year contributed to the fires devastating effects. Perhaps you should find your sources and post them here.

Dr.T - I find it disturbing that you use Wikipedia as a source at all, not mention in a question about science. Yes, the climate does warm and cool, however the pace at which the earth is warming has NOT been documented before. If you can find proof that is has, I would be more than happy to look at it.

To All Responders - I realize that this year is not mutually exclusive reagarding warming patterns in New England. I have lived here for 20 years, and I have seen it become warmer and warmer every year, not just this one. 20 Years ago, snow would be normal on Christmas day, however, it has become an abnormality in the past 5-10 years.

Any arguments based on the fact that there was a trend in cooling during the 90's is attributed to the a volcanic explosion that released it's gases into the atmosphere. This created a cooling effect that lasted for several years. That ended many years ago, now. Please find me record COLD days in the past 7 years. Although, part of Global Warming is extreme temperatures in either direction.

Dr. Jello - I once again request you link me to scientists that support your claim. Your hesitation speaks volumes!

Michael P - There was no venom in my response. I simply requested answers to my questions and I have responded. Please, link me to your blog as I would be very interested in reading/following it.

The sad truth of this is that many Conservatives are not vocal about this. Perhaps you can persuade them.

Dr. T - Yes, I do have an aversion to Wikipedia because it is diluted, and often misinformed.

I looked at the link you provided for Science Daily (the others I will have to look at a different time) and on the same page headlines for other articles:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031106052121.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060816083231.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040901091106.htm

All of the articles point to Global Warming being a serious issue.

James - Where do I begin?

First, Global Warming is a theory, not just a consesus. I believe you would find it hard to find even a consesus among scientists that it is not.

Second, I did not watch the Anderson Cooper program you are talking about, but I would be curious to find out which month it happened. Also, Global Warming isn't just about warming, it's about climate change. I would be interested in seeing what the rainfall was for Greenland that year to see if it was high (not just precipitation, but rainfall).

Third, regarding Indian Summer. It was a term first used in the 18th century.

"Several references make note of the fact that a true Indian Summer can not occur until there has been a killing frost or freeze. Since frost and freezing temperatures generally work their way south through the fall, this would give credence to the possibility of several Indian Summers occurring in a fall, especially across the northern areas where frost or freezes usually come early."

James (continued) -
There was no frost before an increase in temperatures. Therefore, it the weather this year could not be deemed an indian summer.
(http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/basics/indian-summer.htm)
You mention the 70's? When did they occur? Oh, right, after the Industrial Revolution. Hmmm . . .

As for your "whisper", I understand that this is not the first drought to occur on the south, however, it is one of the longest.

Hurricanes?? Does Katrina ring a bell? Not to mention the sweltering heat they experienced the days after. Hurricanes are important to our water supply, you are correct. The problem occurs when they flood the toxic land and contaminate fresh water supplies. Again, hmmm . . .

You are correct that I am not a scientist, however I am a biology student. I'm not sure exactly how you mean I am agendized as I gain nothing out of being proven right or wrong. So, there you are wrong. I have no agenda except to try to keep this planet clean.

Vladovik - You are correct in that the plants in the south have evolved to become accustomed to fire. However, they are plants and need water to survive, and just spreading their seed does not insure survival. Again, the weather before the fires was extremely dry. More than the usual south dryness.

Answer 1

Actually, thoughtful Republicans know it's real, and mostly caused by us, too. Here are just a few:

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

"National Review published a cover story this past week calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr. "I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"Republican governors team up against global warming"

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Republican_Governors_team_up_against_Global_0716.html

"the overwhelming number of scientists now believe that there is significant human cause,'' Giuliani said, adding the debate on the existence of global warming "is almost unnecessary ... ''

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/13/GIULIANI.TMP

"(from Republicans for Environmental Protection) The consensus of almost all climate scientists is that global warming is already happening, that human actions are causing it, and that it will cause major problems for our planet."

http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html

Answer 2

Fun question.

1. I am an independent conservative with no party affiliations.

2. Global warming may be an actual phenomenon, but there is NO concensus among environmental scientists. Some of them believe that the warming trend is a natural occurence and part of the ordinary temperature fluctuations that were occurring long before mankind or the industrial revolution. I am willing to concede that there is evidence for global warming, but discerning the cause is much more difficult, and predicting the effects might very well be impossible.

3. a. The melting of the polar ice caps is a real concern.
b. Delayed cold weather in New England? We had a record heat wave in the south this year! It's about 80 degrees in west Texas, and this is November! Regional temperature disparities do NOT indicate a global trend.
c. Do you really think that a rise of 0.5 degrees results in severe draughts? Couldn't there be other causes or factors involved in that?
e. Severe wild fires occurred long before the global warming crowd came along. I wonder why?

4. I am agnostic, so I'm not motivated by religious arguments. Nonetheless, I think it is prudent for us to take care of our environment.



Here's the rub. Notice how the people screaming loudest about global warming are media types and politicians. The environmental scientists are strangely quiet about the issue. That's because the scientists don't necessarily believe that global warming is real; others don't think we're causing; and some don't believe it will have the catasrophic effects that the media are predicting. It sounds like a huge scare tactic to me in order to stifle industry in America.

Answer 3

Consensus is an absence of leadership-Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister Great Britain.

Consensus is also NOT science. If there was scientific proof of what you state, it would be a theory or law, not consensus.

Guess you missed the memo from that "Inconvenient Greenland Scientist". He wasn't too impressed with Anderson Cooper besmirching the glacier of Greenland that has "shrunk by 40%". He filed a report the day after that goofy program aired stating that not only is the glacier not melting, it is growing.

I notice that New England isn't experiencing "record highs". That's funny, it appeared that what you were implying is that it's never been this warm in New England in October-November before . Makes you wonder where that crazy term "indian summer" came from. I heard it at least a dozen times growing up in the northeast. Specifically, when it was unseasonably warm in October, November, December. All through the New Ice age period of the 70's in fact ;)

(whispered) BTW, this isn't the first drought of the southeast or southwest's history. In fact, the southwest's flora and fauna are characterised by their abilities to endure extended periods without water.

You are agendized and, therefore, incapable of serious intellectual curiosity. Isn't it curious that we haven't had the hurricanes that were the dire predictions of the GW crowd. The truth is, Georgia, etal, are in a drought precisely because they reside in a desert latitude. Without substantial, read; copious, amounts of precipitation (ie. hurricanes) Florida and Georgia become dry dessicated areas. Sinkholes, water restrictions, you get the picture. Turns out tropical storms and hurricanes are REALLY important for our water supply.

I realize, from your post, you are not a scientist. However, it does appear you are a thinker. Be curious, ask questions, go against the "conventional wisdom" once in a while, it's liberating. Besides, when all of these goofballs are proven incorrect, you can look for the next program the democrats are proposing to bring this country to it's knees. They almost succeeded in the 70's. Jimmy Carter in a sweater, mercy me.

Last point, that "good stewards of the earth" bit. Yeah, we lost that with the fall of man. Since then, the earth and everything in it, practically, has been trying to kill us. We will "toil" for everything we get from now on. You can read all about it in Genesis (that's the first book in a compilation of books referred to as the Holy Bible, or as democrats say, racist, homophobic, nativist book of worldwide carnage) chapters 3-5.

Answer 4

1. Republican

2. Of course the planet is warming...it is also cooling. According to the Vostok ice core data (see reference), it's been doing this on a fairly regular and cyclic basis for over 450,000 years.

3. By your question, I need not explain these things. However, since, by definition, this planet has been warming since the last glaciation about 10,000 years ago (see reference), it only stands to reason that this entirely natural warming period would have some identifiable effect.

4. Again, by the phrasing of your question, I need not answer this. However, I would be offended if I were a Christian Democrat/Liberal, since you seem to imply that the two are mutually exclusive.

You are welcome.


----

Odd that you would have some phobia about a Wikipedia reference that simply references scientific studies. However, if you prefer, I've added references to the approriate literature.

As for the rate of change of temperature, one of the most recent papers on the subject (see reference) indicates that it is essentially impossible to identify such a thing as a mean global temperature. That being the case, determining the rate of change of such a phantom property is silly.

However, let's assume that you are correct and that never before in the history of man has there been an increase in global temperature as there is now. So? Since it is impossible to get comparable temperature records from further back in history than a few thousand years, it is statistically insignificant that the temperatures may be rising rapidly now.

Answer 5

1. Independent moderate

2. Global Warming is not a fact, but humans are definitely having an adverse affect on the environment. More carbon is now being released by humans and the natural carbon cycle than absorbed by land plants, the ocean, and other buffers.

3. The California wild fires are due to our strict fire control regiment and over-controlling fire.

4. In the beginning of the bible God basically says "rape and pillage" the earth and use all its resources because its all going to be gone after the rapture.

Edit: We stop small fires at the very start and allow chaparral mass to build until a fire large enough breaks out that spread far too fast for us to manage. In baja california, they allow small fires to take their toll so they never have massive burns. Fire is a natural cycle of the pacific coast chaparral range and the plant life cannot distribute its seed without the fire cycle.

Answer 6

Funny. Why do you think that just because you don't believe man is causing warming, people believe that the climate should be static and your pro pollution?

The climate is never static. It always changes. If the climate isn't warming, it's cooling. This is the natural occurrence that has been going on since the beginning of time. Why do you think man is now causing it?

Why do you think that just because you believe that climate change is natural, then you support pollution the environment? Nothing is further from the truth. Your statement just highlights your bigotry towards others.

Pollution control is a multi billion dollar business.

It's now winter, the Arctic ice is now growing.
droughts are natural occurrences as they have happened many times in the past. Lake Lanier in Georgia is still not at its lowest levels recorded during the 1980's.

And arson is not caused by global warming any more than earthquakes.

Liberals tend to believe anything other liberals say without question, Conservatives rely on objective science.

Added - Yawn. Anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view has been paid off by the "evil oil corporations". It's a good way to eliminate good scientist through name calling rather than with using actual facts.

I'm sure that you even believe that a scientist can remain open minded even after accepting $250,000.00 from a presidential candidate. "Global warming" is truly a selective "science".

Answer 7

1. Independent, but I generally vote Republican
2. Global warming is a fact, man made global warming is questionable at best
3. N/A, but much of the examples you have put down are either 1) not related to global warming at all or 2) more related to weather patterns than climate change.
4. N/A, But exactly where does it say God gave us this planet to be good stewards?

Answer 8

"What we should be achieving is the equilibrium between the 2" This would be very difficult to do, seeing as aerosols only have an atmospheric lifetime of at most a few decades, while CO2 has an atmospheric lifetime of up to several hundred years, with some (very few) molecules lasting up to several thousand. "if the scale is tipped on the warming side, we could be ending like Venus ( a planet with lethal greenhouse effect and closer to the sun )" Could we please stop comparing the climate of Venus to Earth's climate? You already mentioned one difference between the two planets (Venus being closer to the sun), lets look at a few more: Earth: 1 AU Magnetic field 1 Satellite Orbital period 365.256366 days Sidereal rotation period 0.997258 d Average orbital speed 29.783 km/s Axial tilt 23.439281° Inclination Reference (0) 7.25° to Sun’s equator Surface pressure 101.3 kPa (MSL) Water clouds 78.08% Nitrogen (N2) 20.95% Oxygen (O2) 0.93% Argon 0.038% Carbon dioxide Trace water vapor (varies with climate) Venus: .7 AU No magnetic field No satellite Orbital period 224.70069 day Sidereal rotation period −243.0185 day Synodic period 583.92 days Average orbital speed 35.02 km/s Axial tilt 177.36° Inclination 3.39471° 3.86° to Sun’s equator Surface pressure 9.3 MPa Sulphur clouds ~96.5% Carbon dioxide ~3.5% Nitrogen .015% Sulfur dioxide .007% Argon .002% Water vapor .0017% Carbon monoxide .0012% Helium .0007% Neon trace Carbonyl sulfide trace Hydrogen chloride trace Hydrogen fluoride And Venus' atmosphere is around 90 times more massive than ours. There is no possible way we could end up like Venus (or Mars). "and many of my professors say for the time being , global warming is more like a political idea than a real scientifically proven one." Theories cannot be proven, and anthropogenic global warming is a theory, but your professors are correct in saying that AGW is mostly political at this time. Too many holes in the theory and too many uncertainties with climate in general. Increased CO2 should cause some warming, how much is not known.

Answer 9

1. Conservative, the Republican Party is too liberal for me.
Democrat Platform: Hate America and deny American Exceptionalism. Hate America's military. Attack Christianity. Make the American Middle Class feel guilty for possessing lifestyles better than the rest of the world. Find a global malidy and blame the middle class of Americans for causing it. Then, tell them they must give up their lifestyle to avert worldwide disaster. Create a greatly expanded lower class by allowing unskilled illegal aliens to become citizens. Drive middle class families into the lower class and total dependency on the federal government. Grow government to the point that it controls every facet of every Americans' lives. With a political majority comprised of low-skilled, uneducated, and "uninformed" voters, Democrats will never lose an election again. Democrat lust for increased taxation will kill the goose that laid the golden egg (capitalism). Modern democrats are actually Communists, doing their dead level best to destroy the American Dream. They are following Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radical" on how to gain power from their hated Conservative rivals. Tactics such as calling Republicans "racists" or saying they want to poison the air and water and kill old people are standard operating procedure. A willing liberal media that allows these obsurd things to be featured pound the points home in the heads of the uninformed masses. Saul Alinsky would be proud! Especially proud of his best student, Hillary!

Answer 10

Sure, global warming is happening SO WHAT!!!
The debate should be about what causes it, and if you look beyond MSNBC and moveon.org, there is certainly NO consensus on the cause. That's THE fact.
I don't believe for a second that it is human caused.
I do believe in taking care of the earth, but taking care of it means we DO something to make it better, not just fence it off and ignore it. It also means that I have to accept that nature, not man is in control. That means climate, endangered species, and every other aspect of this planet that makes life here possible!