Why dont republicans belieave in global warming? Some people disagree that the cause of the world being warmer is pollutants. But then you have people disagreeing that the world is getting warmer at all. But there is evidence to prove that the world is getting warmer over the last 100,75,50, and even 5 years. That shouldnt be in dispute. though you still have people not belieaving it. So what is the cuase? is it just cancer syndrome. Where people who have cancer, still dont belieave that smoking caused it. It took over 40 years, and mother of lawsuits to make republicans admit the truth. But over that time, thousands died. and now republicans are enacting laws to prevent lawsuits.
Why don't Republicans belieave in Global Warming?
- Thread starter mahram
- Start date
Personally, I'd say a good part of the warming has to do with the sun. But I could be wrong? Let me ask you for your personal opinion here. Can you tell me what caused the ice age? And then, why did it end? Two very simple questions based on your pre-supposition.
I would also ask you to take me where you need me to go. Let's say that "MAN" is the major cause of global warming. Given the position that our pollution IS the cause, how do we reverse the condition? And, how do we last for the 100 years that it will take for the condition to s-l-o-w-l-y reverse itself?
Before we accept either supposition of the earth warming, the earth cooling (which was the theory just twenty years ago), we need to understand that they all premise there research with the phrase "In My Opinion.." None of these people, from either side, will unequivocally stand behind their own research without a major disclaimer.
Well canyonman, you have republicans belieaving the earth is not warmer over the last 25 years. Thats not in dispute. The hard data shows over the last 25 years yes the earth is warmer. They are even disputing that. You can dispute the cause. Either its cycles or man made. But you cant dispute the fact the earth is getting warmer. Its kind of like arguing if your cancer was caused by cigarettes or your genes. You still have cancer. And you have to take steps for the aftermath. Like preparing for more storms, droughts, and other weather related symptons. But nothing is being done.
Quote from canyonman00:
Personally, I'd say a good part of the warming has to do with the sun. But I could be wrong? Let me ask you for your personal opinion here. Can you tell me what caused the ice age? And then, why did it end? Two very simple questions based on your pre-supposition.
I would also ask you to take me where you need me to go. Let's say that "MAN" is the major cause of global warming. Given the position that our pollution IS the cause, how do we reverse the condition? And, how do we last for the 100 years that it will take for the condition to s-l-o-w-l-y reverse itself?
Before we accept either supposition of the earth warming, the earth cooling (which was the theory just twenty years ago), we need to understand that they all premise there research with the phrase "In My Opinion.." None of these people, from either side, will unequivocally stand behind their own research without a major disclaimer.
neophyte321
Guest
I bought myself a raincoat and some scuba gear. Why don't you go fill up some sandbags. We'll call ya when we need ya.
Heres a study made by national acadamy of sciences. Like I said. There is no dispute that the earth is getting warmer. Even bush isnt disputing it. He is saying its not man made. The only question is the cause. And like I said. What the diffrence. Its like saying what caused your cancer. You still have to treat your cancer. What kind of future preprerations are they doing. Is he preparing people for longer droughts and worst weather. No hes saying everything is peachy. If he is so confident, why is he allowing companies to drop hurricane coverage?
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676
While I am neither democrat nor republican, I do dispute the evidence and I must say that I have not seen anything other than a ton of opinions on the subject. There is no empirical proof in either direction. And a political party favoring does not make or break validity of either side. You're actually using politicians as arbitrators for science? Now who is basing their hope on a false sense of understanding?
I did notice that you didn't answer any of my questions also. Reason?
As for your cancer statements. You can't just randomly frame an argument that way. To say that cancer is, therefore smoking is the cause is not right by any scientific measure. And history shows very that few solutions are truly viable when you just throw effort into a solution without understanding the real cause.
Here are three valid (IMHO) questions for you. 1) Can you show me where data supports the logic that a warmer climate is not good for the actual planet and its evolving mass? 2) Isn't that the true question that should be answered? 3) Has there been a worldwide ground temperature study to show that it is not the actual planet that might be warmer thereby warming the air that surrounds it?
You know, the universe and it's components are not here just to support our comfort and existence. Just a layman providing food for thought.
I did notice that you didn't answer any of my questions also. Reason?
As for your cancer statements. You can't just randomly frame an argument that way. To say that cancer is, therefore smoking is the cause is not right by any scientific measure. And history shows very that few solutions are truly viable when you just throw effort into a solution without understanding the real cause.
Here are three valid (IMHO) questions for you. 1) Can you show me where data supports the logic that a warmer climate is not good for the actual planet and its evolving mass? 2) Isn't that the true question that should be answered? 3) Has there been a worldwide ground temperature study to show that it is not the actual planet that might be warmer thereby warming the air that surrounds it?
You know, the universe and it's components are not here just to support our comfort and existence. Just a layman providing food for thought.
The very study you offer states the following:
----------------------
The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that. Other factors that limit confidence include the short length of the instrumental record, which is used to calibrate and validate reconstructions, and the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time. It also is difficult to estimate a mean global temperature using data from a limited number of sites.
----------------------
That means they have no proof beyond 1600 by there own admission. So empirical proof that the warmth is not beneficial to the actual planet does not exist huh?