Why do skeptics claim global warming science is political?

Question

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"(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

These people aren't running for anything:

"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.”

"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."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

Is the National Academy of Sciences liberal?

The NAS was signed into being by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863. As mandated in its Act of Incorporation, the NAS has, since 1863, served to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art" whenever called upon to do so by any department of the government.

NASA?

""Since its inception in 1958, NASA has accomplished many great scientific and technological feats in air and space."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science? (the world's largest association of scientists)

"Founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. Science has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of one million. The non-profit AAAS is open to all."

Answer 1

Presumably for the same reason that some claim the planet is cooling, sea-levels are falling, the ice caps aren't melting, the Sun is getting hotter and all those dozens of other tired old arguments.

Incapable of refuting the science behind the theory of global warming they instead have to resort to other methods. Claiming it's a political issue is a very weak substitute for addressing the fundemental causes themselves - it's almost an admission of defeat "we can't refute the science so we'll do anything else instead".

Politics is certainly involved in global warming (and not always for the better) but it had long been a scientific issue before becoming a political one. You already know this I'm sure, but for the benefit of anyone else who reads this, global warming became an established scientific fact in 1893, nearly 100 years before the politicians became involved.

It was at the behest of the scientific community that politicians and governments became involved, for decades the scientists had been imploring governments to take action and for decades their please fell on deaf ears. It wasn't until the first Earth Summit held in Rio in 1992 that global warming became a political issue as well as a scientific one.

Answer 2

Its like saying going to university is liberal or learning science is training liberals. Its absolutely ridiculous.

Because politics has gone mad. Politicians will say anything or do anything to get elected. I don't get it. I think they need to be held accountable for what they say and if found to have deliberately lied they should be punished. They have interests foreign to science and values that cannot be associated with science. Science is not politics and politics is not science but science can be caught up in political spin or personal views. The problem is that not many people understand how science even operates.

Politics is about managing a country. Science is about understanding the world. How is science a political organization and how would it be politically bias. It would be so obvious if it was because a million scientists would point it out and embarrass those involved.

Its like the so called experts that go on TV and say carbon dioxide is good because its natural and keeps us warm and everything is made of it. Or the forestry experts who say that by cutting down trees they are actually saving the planet because they replant the trees and poison animals. These people are frauds and are seen to be so.

Not one climate scientist would loose there job if they found that it was caused by bird farts or it was a cycle that they could show. They would just study that. Its not the climate scientists that stand to gain money it is the governments, big energy companies and new innovative companies. If this is the case why did the governments deny for so long and then jump on board. Because they wait until the wave off pressure forcing them to act is so strong that if they don’t they will be swept away.

Most of the money scientists get is to do research with and doesn’t pay their wages. This is the money they fight over and the better the project the more money. It just so happens that AGW is getting lots of money. This money is well deserved. Imaging if no money went into it and then we found out 100% without a doubt it was caused by us but we didn’t know the mechanics or the cause. It would be the scientists blamed for failing to predict.

Science is used to make policy. Policy is not a direct result of science because its subject to political process which alters it to suit political alignment. That is what it is.


This said it is in the interest of political parties to try there hardest to interfere with the science to write more favorable policy. Its almost corrupt but this is the US where corrupt behaviour and misuse of power is the norm

Answer 3

Why are all alarmists so eager for a consensus and deny the obvious political element involved. It is no coincidence that GW scare mongering is pushed by the political left. It has nothing to do with Big Oil or greedy conservatives. It has to do with the thought process of the left that if it is from humans, it must be bad. Focusing only on the negative is not a practical thought process. It is an emotional and political conclusion and certainly not scientific. Finding a few so called conservatives (and maybe in your perspective they are) that also are feeling the thirst for Kool-Aid and eager to have everyone think they care, doesn't convince me. I could quote the nearly 50 democrat Senators that didn't ratify Kyoto. Does that mean leftists should quietly give up their cause. Probably not.

I hope that the left understands (well except the previous poster) that science can be influenced by politics. It is interesting how money has been shown to influence the result of studies even at times to the disbelief of those that did not think they were influenced.

Answer 4

What else can it be Bob? I'm called a skeptic because I dig into a topic and discover alternative points of view? I'm referred as a "denier" because I don't accept the main stream thinking on a scientific topic? I am a "nay sayer" and "fringe" because I want to see scientific evidence - irrefutable evidence, that man-made global warming is real. That's all I want. And yes, I know anyone can find that a lot of people made statements suggesting it is, but a lot of people, including those denying today, made claims that Iraq had WMDs!

So, I've got thinking going on. There's also the fact that my daily existence is not dictated by the whims of political frenzy, or of unproven "science." It's enough to care for my family, pay my bills, and keep my business afloat. Finally, and probably most influential in all this, I believe God created earth and all that's in it. When it's time for humanity to end, it is not us humans who will control it.

SO, I guess you could say I'm totally comfortable burning fossil fuels to heat my house and power my vehicles. And the CO2 I just emitted from my lungs has allowed me to take another breath, so, I'm fine with any global warming I might be causing. It's the politicians who, in the name of global warming, will take away the freedoms that many of my relatives and friends fought and died for that is more disconcerting to me.

Thanks for the conversation.....

Answer 5

Bob, how in the name of all that is holy is it NOT politicle?
Intergovernmental panel on climate change much... how about Al Gore's bashfest against bush in his movie? What about the fact that you have many ( not all ) people from conflicting politicle backgrounds backing competeting sides?

Where do you think the funding comes in order to research these ideas? Much of it comes from government.

Look at the amount of emotional hub bub that gets thrown around in debate just on this forum alone.. There are only two subjects in our society that can produce such dissagreement... religion, and politics.

Whether you're for or against the theory there is NO DISPUTE that the argument has traveled into the realm of politics. Unfortunatley it shouldn't be there (I hope you would agree) and this is why we have such a large contigent of people agreeing and disagreeing for all the wrong reasons.

Answer 6

Because for a sceptic or denier it usually is political, but someone who accepts the reality of global warming it's science. To be a conservative does not always mean one is a denier or sceptic, however sceptics and deniers tend to be conservative.

William Clay Ford’s company offers a product line that is the least fuel efficient of any of the major car manufacturer. So when he comes out on the side of the environment, one must wonder if his green exterior is only the colour of his suit. Half the battle for these companies is appearing that you care and building one moderately efficient hybrid SUV doesn't really demonstrate that fact.

Pat Robertson on the other hand had me baffled. Before he found his new climate change voice he was calling anyone with an environmental conscience an “environmental wing nut." Now suddenly it seems Robertson has for some reason joined the ranks of us wing nuts. We have to ask why, what is he up to? Sorry by it's my character to never trust a televangelist any farther than I can throw him, and I'm not that strong. Why would somebody like him with such unshakable beliefs suddenly go from a denier to a backer of climate science? In this case we have to ask not what he believes, but what is his agenda?
So consider this, Robertson is one of the leading Christian Zionists in the US and based on his religious beliefs it is in his interest to do whatever it takes to ensure Israel is for ready for end-times as dictated in his bible. In order to do this, those that appear to be potential threats to Israel must be suppressed by either waging war on them as in Iraq and potentially Iran or by hurting them financially as is happening with sanctions against Hamas.
Robertson knows that as Bush's presidential clock ticks down to zero, his substantial influence in Washington is declining. You'll notice that Robertson's environmental message seems to have begun around the time that the Democrats won the midterms. He knows that the chances of another Republican president are extremely small and chances of keeping war going in the Middle East against Israel’s enemies is even smaller. Robertson must find another way to hurt Israel’s enemies and oil is the backbone of the Middle Eastern economy. By pushing global warming, Robertson is calling on Christian evangelicals to reduce their oil consumption. So by pushing a greener message he can still support Israel with the Democrats in office because it takes money out of the pockets of Islamic nations.
Now that’s a negative feedback.

Answer 7

Science is science, when politicians use them its called political science. After being booed and jeered by over 200 nations at the Bali summit, the USA have finally acknowledged AGW but still using delaying tactics (political science) for curbing the emission of CO2.

Answer 8

Because to a large extent it is. Please note that the only Nobel prize given for global warming was given to a politician and a political organization. Also, it was the Peace prize, which has always been politically based, and not one of the many possible prizes available for science. What more do you need to understand.

Answer 9

politicians use global warming as one of their "campaign materials." politicians always discuss about this phenomenon and state their insights about it that they must establish a etc. fund to stop global warming, and other more. they use it to get more supporters because this phenomenon is a hot one that if one says something, it can change the weight of the scale.

Answer 10

Bob - You said global warming was political yourself. You've claimed that global warming would be better after Jan 20, 2009.

If you think one man of a different political party can fix the perceived problem, then it is a political issue.

Laws aren't scientific in nature - their political. Laws don't solve global warming.