What are your politcal views and what do you think about global warming?

Question

I know you AGW alarmist will say that you will not say your politcal views becasue global warming is not a politcal issue. But even so I would like to see reguardless of if you think it is politcal or not I want to see what people say.

Bob your answer is irrelevent those people are only saying becase people want to hear it and becasue they will need votes. If assume you are liberal though based of what you have posted before. I do not see why people can not share their views. I have not problem saying that I am a conservative.

Answer 1

I'm a political agnostic. Both parties sux, we shouldn't give these morons any control over our lives.

Bob believes global warming is going to end on Jan 20, 2009. No doubt he sees global warming as being political. But I wonder why he thinks Rudy Giuliani can save the world?

Answer 2

I voted Republican in the last state election, and was comfortable considering myself a conservative in the past.

I have moved towards apolitical in recent years. Both parties are so polarized, so out of touch with reality. It pisses me off that there are few moderate positions or choices that better reflect the views and understand the lives and aspirations of average American citizens.

The alarming trend towards eroding our three branch system of checks and balances, assigning political appointees to civil service posts instead of promoting qualified candidates, the use of torture in violation of the Geneva Convention, the censorship of scientific findings within the government, and the illegal surveillance of American citizens, are all deal killers for me. They're not only damaging to us today, they're steps towards living in a police state that others will now be emboldened to blow past in the future.

I also have the impression that politicians, essentially all of them, are more "in the pocket" of special interests these days, although maybe I've just become more aware of it.

Global warming is a great case in point. It pisses me off that it's so politicized: "environmental" this and "liberal" that, with a lot of name-calling thrown in for good measure ("alarmists" and so forth). Conservatives who use those labels alienate themselves from the majority of people who fall more towards the center of the political spectrum, which I assume is a bell curve like so many statistical distributions (anyone have a link to a graph on something like that?).

Our damage to our global ecosystem is a human by-product (anthropogenous), and so far the outlook appears to be ominous for all of us. It's far bigger and broader than a party issue.

I do tend to support moderate environmental cases (one issue I have with contemporary extreme ultra-right conservatives), but I can't picture the end result of major societal turmoil as merely an environmental issue.

At the end of the day, it won't matter much if the environment was trashed if there's no one around to notice it (or perhaps 9% of us if James Lovelock is correct).

Answer 3

I think GW is real and is caused in large part my us burning fossil fuels - so my views are basically the opposite of your's.

Politically, I really don't see eye to eye with either party. I would say that I'm a little on the conservative side. In the major elections, however, I usually end up getting discusted with both candidates and vote for the 3rd party guy. Which reminds me, is Ralph Nadar running again this year!?!?

Answer 4

California. "We in simple terms ought to do each thing we are able to in our power to decelerate worldwide warming till now it fairly is in simple terms too previous due. The technological understanding is clean. the worldwide warming debate is over." Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, Governor, California yet many States are following California's' lead.

Answer 5

Ive seen plausible presentations that denounce the co2 theory.

We've probably all heard of the theory that changes in earths temperature has varied over time before man began making c02. I believe analysis of drilled cores of ice or ground backs this theory and that temperatures are related to solar activity.

The measurements that we are taking of co2 emissions and the correlating rise in temperature could be circumstantial I guess, and recorded history hasnt been around long enough to actually witness and analyse significant climate change.

The gulf stream conveyor belt that heats northern europe has switched off before.

I don't really know, I'm all for conserving energy though regardless of whether global warming is caused by co2.

I think I am Apolitical , I don't really subscribe to a right or left or centrist way of looking at things.

Answer 6

I am a conservative, and I think global warming as defined by the IPCC is a pathetic theory that does not have any atmospheric temperature data to back it up. The IPCC is one of the most political organizations in existence, that is currently full of activists disguised as scientists, who are probably not capable of understating the vast majority of the peer reviewed literature they are responsible for reviewing. The science of climate modeling has made great strides in the last two decades however, and once it is clear to all of the alarmists that the climate is cooling, and they were wrong. Some of the theories that are currently in the works will make their way into the science of climate modeling and then and only then can a real understanding of the inner workings of Earth's climate be possible.

Answer 7

I am a lifelong conservative.

It is hilarious to me that "Bob" who probably buys wholeheartedly that Dems were lied to by Bush and that is why they voted to go to war in Iraq, thinks that because a couple of Republicans buy into the global warming lies that suddenly makes it "proof" of a concensus.

The truth is that man-made global warming is a hoax perpetrated specifically to invent a carbon "cap and trade" scam out of thin air. This is an industry ripe for fraud and abuse and has been shown by the Congressional Budget Office to disproporianately affect the poorest in our society.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8027/04-25-Cap_Trade.pdf

Does it matter if proponents are "duped" by the global warming hype, or if they are just looking to cash in on the new cap and trade system? Not really, and it isn't a partisan issue. Wrong is wrong, no matter what the reason.

You global warming alarmists should wipe that smug grin off your faces and take a look around because 2007 has been the end of global warming "concensus". 2007 has brought scores of peer reviewed papers refuting man-made global warming and has seen major proponents of it turned to skeptics. You cannot find anything past 2005 that supports man-made global warming. Go search for it yourself.

You can start here to see the "concensus" torn apart:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

Here's a good paper explaining all the gaping holes in "concensus":

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

Answer 8

So you believe global warming IS a political issue? I know some people have made it political, but I would urge everyone to look at the FACTS - something that's not common in partisan politics. But if you want to go ahead and just ignorantly follow party lines, go ahead. I guess we still do need the electoral college after all...

Answer 9

I'm a Conservative who has been on the fence lately and if there was a viable Libertarian candidate I'd go Libertarian. And I believe Climate change is a very natural cycle of the planet we live on.

Answer 10

I am very conservative.

Global warming does exist. However, it is a cyclical event. The cycle is every 1500 years.

For us to think that we have had some, if any, effect on it or can stop or reverse it is arrogant.

There is also evidence that it might not be an "all bad" event.

.