To be a GOP presidential candidate, you have to stop believing in global warming
By Ben ReiningaMay 31st, 2011, 4:46 pmComments (24)If you want to be taken seriously as a Republican, you have to hate science. All four major Republican candidates (counting Chris Christie, and no Palin), have abandoned previously held beliefs that humans are causing global warming. In fact, denying the scientific basis for global warming is pretty much Republican orthodoxy.
Conservatives are responsible for a nationwide decline in belief in global warming; now less than half of Americans believe in human-caused global warming, down from almost seventy percent a few years ago. And, the decline occurred pretty much 100% among Republicans.
Chris Christie, New Jersey Governor (and in the eyes of many, a very strong candidate for the nomination) just opted his state out of a cap-and-trade agreement last week. And Pawlenty, Daniels, and Gingrich have all shunned cap-and-trade deals they previously supported. None, by the way, have cited any change in scientific evidence for the shift.
Predictably, it's Gingrich who is the most absurd. Gingrich once ran the environmental-studies program at Georgia College, and just a few years ago, appeared with Nancy Pelosi in national ads calling for greenhouse-gas-emission reductions. Now, he not only has stopped believing that, he's calling for abolishing the EPA altogether.
Commentarium (24 Comments)
How about an economic reason for the shift, in that it hasn't worked in the EU?
Polluters paying buying carbon credits from non-polluters is like an obese person paying an anorexic to diet for them.
+1. Regardless of your stance on human contributions to global warming, cap and trade doesn't solve anything, and is arguably very harmful to our economy, industry and technological progress.
+1 more. Moving carbon producing industries to Asia is the natural result of cap and trade.
Fair. But the efficacy of cap-and-trade isn't the issue. I'm arguing that they didn't reject cap-and-trade b/c they think it's inherently flawed, but b/c they're Republicans, and as such, they have to toe the party line, be pro-life and anti-evolution, and all that.
Which is unthinking and dogmatic and stands in the way of progress. IMHO.
So you agree with the conclusion - or at least thing it's fair - but cast it in a bad light because they're Republicans? Total BS.
"...of at least THINK it's fair..."
2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record? 2010 was one of the hottest recorded years ever? LALALALALLALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
Wait a minute? It's snowing in mid January at 30 degrees? Global warming is so fucking fake.
Except 2000-2009 wasn't the hottest decade on record.
except that it was.
Woops, I didn't check my facts. NASA says I'm wrong. But I'm going to stew about it a little bit longer before I admit my mistake, because just maybe my unfounded opinion trumps the science behind NASA's findings. OK, sike, I'll never admit I'm wrong!
Because I'M PUBLIUS. CONSERVATROLL OF Hooksexup. BRINGER OF THE RAGE.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html
Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: January 21, 2010
The Middle Carboniferous Period (among others) was way hotter. Judging climate change by human temperature record is not effective. I might be recalling the MCP incorrectly but if it wasn't that one, there were others.
Also, look at Roy Spencer's views of the NASA research.
Please ignore the jock sniffer, he/she is a groupie. I wouldn't cite the NYT as a scientific source particularly given its editorial viewpoint on global warming.
There I go again, ignoring pertinent words like "on record." As in, weather data hasn't been consistently RECORDed by humans any longer than the past 150 years or so. Estimates based on the fossil record, soil, and other historical sources are just that; estimates. Hence, 2000 to 2009 is the hottest decade on record. "Period."
Roy Spencer's theories and interpretations have more holes than my favorite jock strap. https://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencers-latest-silver-bullet.html
I also mysteriously failed to differentiate between a journalistic institution, The New York Times, and a scientific research institution, NASA, when making my weak attempt to refute NASA's data by claiming the data is in question because of my perception of The New York Times' editorial viewpoint. I am either really stupid, arguing in bad faith, or most likely both.
Don't tell nobody, but when I go to sleep at night, I sniff my favorite jock strap. The sweet funk of my ball sweat helps numb the pain of being so wrong about everything.
I'm guessing one of the Publiuses is not the original publius. I will just say to the original publius that if you searched on google scholar for global warming or global climate change, you can find literally thousands of peer-reviewed (that means other scientists fact check it before it is published) that prove the existence of human's effect on the environment.
@Publius - There is a significant geological and fossil record supporting the past. Only you would conclude that "on the record" means "during the past 200 years."
Seriously, dude, I know you're a jock sniffer but come on. You need to be more creative.
Really, julian, you're the poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Dunning-Kruger-effect-and-the-climat...
It is interesting that I always get referred to this website from a professor from Brigham Young University when people try to bring up skepticism of climate change. The site which is not peer reviewed by other scientists, meaning that is like one dood's opinion, mostly.
Now, I know what you will say next. That it is some kind of conspiracy that scientists have concocted together for some reason which I guess is easier for you to believe than other scientists have come to the same conclusion based on scientific standards.
I wonder: do Republicans deny global warming because Democrats accept it? Or do Republicans deny global warming because they don't believe the science?
Personally, it's the science.
Evolution, that wacky, wacky "theory" does not fare well in the GOP either. Perhaps folks will realize the Libertarian party exists?
Republicans deny climate change for the same reason they want to ban abortion/birth control, prevent same-sex marriages and "teach the (nonexistent) controversy". The GOP has been completely overtaken by fundamentalist Christians. So the small-government-hands-off approach the GOP once championed has been overwhelmed by the superstition, repression and sexual ignorance of super-Christians, who insist on controlling every American's private life--it's their "Grand Commission", after all. In their world, everyone's white, male and straight.
Conservative Jews and women will be shocked to hear this.
The issue isn't the denial of climate change. It's the claim that we humans are the sole cause of the change.
We don't have enough data to say what the normal temperature of the earth is, if there is even a normal temperature.
For all we know it's normal to be surfing and drinking pina colada's at the south pole.
Really? Show us any climatologist who makes the claim that humans are the sole cause. In the mean time, you can can explain why all these organizations think human activity is the primary cause in recent history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statem...
The real issue is what, if any, impact human activity has on climate change. Closely related is the issue of whether changing human activity will result in a corresponding change in the climate. With respect to your question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_...
Now you say something