Why is global warming a partisan issue?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

I don't understand why opinions on the scientific validity of global warming seem to fall along party lines. Why would it?

I mean, if I ask a scientific question, it should have a scientific answer, right? And isn't science supposed to be objective and quantifiable?

Aren't great political debates supposed to surround things which are subjective and fuzzy? Like at what point a fetus is human, whether it's moral to clone sheep, whether war is the best option, whether people should have guns, etc.?

Why is the question of certain gases' effect on temperature a partisan issue? I just don't get it...

And even if we assume that the scientific questions of global warming are up for debate, why should that uncertainty break down along Democratic and Republican party lines? How does the question of global temperatures affect Republicans and Democrats differently? You'd think that if there were anything that affects all people equally, it'd be the weather.

[Donkey®]

Because of money. The right is very insistant in the rhetoric that doing anything about global warming would ruin business.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Because of money. The right is very insistant in the rhetoric that doing anything about global warming would ruin business.

You forgot the 2nd half of this. And the left sees it as a chance to control more businesses and create more government regulations (aka, bigger government).

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I don't understand why opinions on the scientific validity of global warming seem to fall along party lines. Why would it?

because Al Gore did a movie about it and therefore can't be trusted.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Roonie

because Al Gore did a movie about it and therefore can't be trusted.

Yeah, I didn't mention that because I figured it was a given

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Because of money. The right is very insistant in the rhetoric that doing anything about global warming would ruin business.

because there is no money in linking humans to global warming either

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by hsmith

because there is no money in linking humans to global warming either

There is plenty of money in the science funding grants. Plenty going to the companies that help you comply with government regulation. Carbon Credits are fast becoming a BIG BUSINESS and I have already read about suggestions of fraud.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I don't understand why opinions on the scientific validity of global warming seem to fall along party lines. Why would it?

I mean, if I ask a scientific question, it should have a scientific answer, right? And isn't science supposed to be objective and quantifiable?

You make good points. But only the current state of the environment can be factual and quantifiable and compared with past data. The Future prediction models and absolute cause is where you have a problem.


Now tell me what is partisan and non-scientific:


A. Global warming is either not happening, has no human causation, and the debate is a Chicken Little fraud! Leftists just want to hurt the great industrial strength of the United States and the Western World for their Socialist ends. END OF DEBATE!

B. Global warming is happening. It may be a natural event well within the scientific record of the planet that we must deal with, or have a degree of human causation which we must work with and try to change? Conduct more science and develope better technology. Continue debate......

C. Global warming is a fact. The cause is human activity period! Exaggerated claims are good because they alert the public to the problem and cause political action. The DEBATE IS OVER!

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Because of money. The right is very insistant in the rhetoric that doing anything about global warming would ruin business.

The government (remember: both parties have jumped on this bandwagon) has a vested interest in monopolizing and oligopolizing. If you attack small business, then large businesses will take over. Large businesses yield greater income for those on there receiving end of a progressive tax system. One good way to ensure that the revenue is coming from the big guys is to put a bunch of costly restrictions on opening a store. Can you think of better reasoning for restrictions than to threaten everyone with the end of the world if people do not heed the warning signs?

Apocalyptic scare tactics worked well for the right during the Cold War. They also work well for religions. There's definitely a comparison between the dogmatic beliefs of Al Gore and his crew, and those of fundamentalist religious affiliation.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Apocalyptic scare tactics worked well for the right during the Cold War. They also work well for religions. There's definitely a comparison between the dogmatic beliefs of Al Gore and his crew, and those of fundamentalist religious affiliation.

Agreed. In another forum someone made a thread titled "are we even allowed to question global warming anymore?"

My response was this.

Yeah, global warming people remind me of the Catholic Church of the 15-1600's. And Gore is their Pope.

The Catholic Church put Galileo in jail for claiming the earth rotated around the sun. The church said the bible said everything rotated around the earth. Since he disagreed with them publicly they put him under house arrest for the last part of his life.

Same thing now with Global Warming. Don't agree with Pope Al Gore and you are no better than the average criminal.

[SoFlaJDM]

facts are notoriously left leaning... so the conservatives are instinctually against it

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

facts are notoriously left leaning... so the conservatives are instinctually against it

This is a stereotypical cheap shot against conservatives and simply not true. There is more alarmism and incorrect information coming from the left in this debate than the right. Just through the sheer volume and the amount they are able to get their message out there. Their opinions have become "fact." And the general public seems to toe the line without question because the other side of the argument isn't fairly represented and silenced.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by JaJae

This is a stereotypical cheap shot against conservatives and simply not true. There is more alarmism and incorrect information coming from the left in this debate than the right. Just through the sheer volume and the amount they are able to get their message out there. Their opinions have become "fact." And the general public seems to toe the line without question because the other side of the argument isn't fairly represented and silenced.

Just the little article from Livermore National Laboratory that says forests above the 40th parallel actually HEAT the earth. And we can expect them to add up to 8 degrees in the next 100 years. Now remember the UN group and the other alamrists are predicting up to 10 degrees of warming in the next 100 years.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Just through the sheer volume and the amount they are able to get their message out there. Their opinions have become "fact."

This is simply not true. The latest is the IPCC with over 2500 scientists involved with data that shows that humans are causing GW. It is not mearly opinions at all..... to say so is completely dismissing all the scientists today which is 99.9% of them that agree on Global Warming caused by man.

Both parties have jumped on the GW wagon and to say this isn't so is just not factual or true.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Agreed. In another forum someone made a thread titled "are we even allowed to question global warming anymore?"

My response was this.

I love your response! It goes to prove what I've been saying about AGW deniers for months now: You guys actually think you're all modern day Galileos!

Originally Posted by Stylerod

And the left sees it as a chance to control more businesses and create more government regulations (aka, bigger government).

Businesses haven't consolodated under right wing rule? Government hasn't grown under right wing rule? It couldn't possibly be about real concern for the environment?

I think you AGW deniers should be honest and say that you simply don't like government imposing environmental regulations. That's really what this is all about and your reluctance to confront it limits the constructiveness of the discussions on this subject, IMHO.

"are we even allowed to question global warming anymore?" Sure. Heck, you can question the shape of the Earth and insist that it may be flat, but if you do, people are gonna look at you funny. Constantly pretending that the evidence proving AGW isn't really all there or that the scientific community hasn't reached a consensus opinion on it doesn't make sense.

[mididoctors]

its not as though evil right wing capitalists had a monopoly on pollution..

state command planning in the east bloc produced some devasting enviromental disasters..

the Aral sea

[

the political colour does not equal a side in this debate..

if GW skeptics have bought into the right (for the sake of argument) then they are misusing the loyalty of the GOP hardcore to further there aggenda by attaching it to GOP (or vice versa)

it really should not be a partisan issue

unless we believe GOP=libertarian non regulation... with no compromise on the idea of regulation

a non regulation rather than a less regulation party should exist..and even then they should address GW from "it can be solved by the invisible hand" argument

if this schism in belief is not real then the one has to argue that GW skeptics are concentrated in the right end of the political spectrum by chance? (vice versa)

I think political bias must create a predisposition to GW skepticism

Boris
London

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I love your response! It goes to prove what I've been saying about AGW deniers for months now: You guys actually think you're all modern day Galileos!

Let's face it. When someone a who disagrees on mans contribution to global warming is compared to a Holocaust denier or are asked to step down from their professional positions we can see who the real radicals are.

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I think you AGW deniers should be honest and say that you simply don't like government imposing environmental regulations. That's really what this is all about and your reluctance to confront it limits the constructiveness of the discussions on this subject, IMHO.

I think the Government HAS to make sure businesses pollute the least possible they can. Incentives for businesses being "green" are a great way to help that along. I don't agree with people panicking, saying the world as we know it will end in tens years and demand we spend TRILLIONS on a problem that might not even have anything to do with us!

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

"are we even allowed to question global warming anymore?" Sure. Heck, you can question the shape of the Earth and insist that it may be flat, but if you do, people are gonna look at you funny. Constantly pretending that the evidence proving AGW isn't really all there or that the scientific community hasn't reached a consensus opinion on it doesn't make sense.

And this post goes right into my post above. You are comparing someone who see evidence that man is not the cause of the warming we are seeing and you feel they re the same as people who think the earth is flat. Way to prove my point.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

facts are notoriously left leaning... so the conservatives are instinctually against it

This is why we can't have a debate and we get all the bold "Debate is over" talking points.

Bold political statements without "Factual" support are just:

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Roonie

This is simply not true. The latest is the IPCC with over 2500 scientists involved with data that shows that humans are causing GW.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Telling me that the IPCC concluded that humans cause global warming is like Philip Morris concluding that second-hand smoke is harmless. Science is when you take the facts and you come to a conclusion based on those facts. Politics is when you have your conclusion, and then you find facts to support it. IPCC is a political organization. Don't ever kid yourself into thinking otherwise.

It is not mearly opinions at all..... to say so is completely dismissing all the scientists today which is 99.9% of them that agree on Global Warming caused by man.

I don't trust a person that makes the claim that 99.9% of the scientific community is in agreement regarding an issue that is scientifically debated on a daily basis.

Both parties have jumped on the GW wagon and to say this isn't so is just not factual or true.

The fact that political parties jump on the GW wagon means absolutely nothing. I don't give two squirts of piss if everyone and their mother jumped on it. That still doesn't make it scientific, which is the issue here. The debate is a political one, not a scientific one.

By the way, to claim "factual" or "truth" regarding this is, quite frankly, unintelligent and juvenile. Words like that are used to describe actual facts and truths, not theories. Even something as set-in-stone as Cell Theory isn't referred to as "fact." It's about the closest thing to a biological law as we'll ever get, but it's not fact. Facts are empirical pieces of evidence. Theories describe facts. The fact that the two terms are mixed up by the proponents of the theory only lends credence to my comparison between their position and any other faith-based position, a la creationists claiming evolution isn't a fact (when the scientific community never claimed it was). On the other hand, I suppose it's also reassuring when my opponents don't understand the basic fundamentals of science and the vocabulary that goes along with it.