Why do many Republican politicians still deny the fact that global climate change exists and the main cause is greenhouse gas pollution by humans?

There's been a scientific consensus on it for a decade now. How are we supposed to decide what to do about it, if they won't even acknowledge it exists and is happening in the world? The effects are deadly real, we already see that, and it's only going to get worse if no comprehensive action is taken. NASA recognizes that, the United States Navy recognizes that, every major scientific society in America recognizes that, so why are so many people and politicians still in denial?

Do the oil and gas lobbyists have them hooked on their money that bad? Are they catering to uninformed constituents? Or is it just willful ignorance/stupidity?

Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner in our general election, has said he thinks "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U. S. manufacturing non-competitive."

How is a statement that idiotic, inane, and devoid of facts coming out of the mouth of a potential future President? It's insane, it really is.

I understand that the public can be grossly ill-informed - some 40% of Americans don't believe in evolution - but people who write legislation and create policy for the country should really have more sense.

Thoughts? And if you want to know more about the science behind all of this, check out NASA's site, it's pretty informative. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/


0|1
3|23

Most Helpful Guy

  • It is very very difficult to convince a man of something, if his wealth and livelihood depend on him not understanding it.

    2|3
    0|0
    • Yeah, yeah, tell It to George Soros.

      Go back to watching Bill Nye the Jewish Banker.

What Guys Said 22

  • Six hundred years ago, there was a consensus that the earth is flat. Two hundred years ago, there was a "scientific" consensus that bleeding people with leaches was an appropriate treatment for a variety of ailments. Seventy years ago, there was a consensus that we should all eat a diet high in grains. (that was promoted by the USDA and taught in schools. The large grain producing companies lobbied the USDA extensively to get that theory promoted.) Sixty years ago, there was a consensus that butter is bad for us and we should all eat margarine. About 40 years ago, we were warned about global freezing. In the last 20 years, we have drugs that promise to lower your blood cholesterol by 10 points. Suddenly, the accepted normal range for blood cholesterol was lowered so that more people would be deemed in need of anti-cholesterol drugs.

    The problem is that science is far from pure. Climatologists like being paid for their work and almost all of them get paid with money that comes from the government. There is a parallel agenda that goes with the global warming scare and that agenda is politically driven. We have been told that climate change "scientists" changed some of their data to fit their theory. We have been warned that the Arctic ice shelf is slowly melting but we haven't been told that the Antarctic ice mass is increasing.

    Do you need any further explanation for why thinking people do not blindly accept the "consensus?"

    2|5
    0|0
    • That was a better take down than any I could author without doing a buttload of research first, and you did it while managing to neatly avoid the asker's attempt to politically bait people.
      I love it.

    • Show All
    • I also am not a denier and I also do not condone pollution. I am a conservative Republican but I am also a thinking man and I do not agree with everything advanced by the Republican party. I concur with everything that @ksoma said on this subject. Experience will teach you that virtually everyone who speaks publicly on a subject has a bias and that bias is most often tied to money; to believe otherwise is simply naive.

    • @ksoma I have, especially the one where Inhofe threw that snowball in the Senate. I've heard the back and forth, on and on. The problem does come in when people don't believe there's a human effect, though. Then even if they concede climate change is occurring, they assume there's not much we can do, and any regulations, taxes on pollution, or moving away from fossil fuels are not worth pursuing. That's not going to help anything.

  • I would say it's a mix between greed (yes, they want the money from the gas and oil lobby) and willful ignorance.

    Trump's claim about the Chinese is particularly retarded because - ironically - China actually does way MORE about global climate change than the US. During the last decade, the Chinese government has invested huge sums of money in renewable energy sources, especially solar panels. This is something reasonable people in America can only dream of. Yes, China has more pollution than the US but that is because they're the world's factory. They have to produce not only their own stuff but all our stuff as well (plus they're still developing their industry). What American right-wingers don't get is that the whole world acknowledges and understands global climate change. If you go to Canada or you come here to Europe and you say it's fake or some made-up conspiracy, people will look at you the same way as if you'd claim that Godzilla is a real animal living in Japan or that Australia doesn't exist. The whole worlds knows climate change is real and manmade. Even countries like Brazil or Nigeria understand that. The only ones who don't get it are American right-wingers.

    1|0
    0|0
    • P. s. Another reason why right wingers are idiots is because - regardless of whether manmade climate change is real or not (which of course it is) - its causes are disturbing to human life quality EITHER WAY. Let's just take one example: cars. I know that Americans and especially conservative Americans LOVE LOVE LOVE driving. They would probably cut off their own dick before giving up driving. Now, the US is a big country and unfortunately its train system sucks so bad it's barely existent. So I understand that people need to drive if they want to get from New York to L. A. or something like that. But within cities? That doesn't make ANY sense. See, even if we forget about climate change for a moment, cars are pretty dumb. They're loud, they're stinky, they're dangerous (for the drivers and for innocent pedestrians)... there's hardly anything good about them. And yet, many Americans love them to death. I don't get this. In my country Switzerland and in other central/northern European

    • Show All
    • Yes, I've lived in the US for about 2 years and one thing I always thought was how unfortunate it is that so many ignorant people populate America. Politically, I'm a die-hard European but I can totally see why anyone would love the US. It's probably one of the most beautiful countries in the world. There's so much natural beauty within the borders of the US that it makes me dreamy only thinking of it. From the subtropic swamps of Florida to the hot deserts of the south west to the snow-topped Rocky Mountains and the vast forests of New England... it's simply astonishing. But that striking beauty makes it even more tragic that a lot of Americans don't want to take care of it. When the Spanish first came to North America, they thought they had found paradise. It pains me to think that many people living in this natural paradise seem to be willing to waste it away. And I also feel bad for all the smart, informed Americans because I know from my own friends there that they exist too.

    • Yeah, there's certainly very beautiful areas here. I live near the coast and Pacific ocean, but it's also only a couple hours drive up into the mountains which is nice. I can go to the beach in the summer, and skiing in the winter. National Parks like Yosemite and Muir Woods aren't too far. I really do hope we get better at taking care of our precious environment.

  • They want the world to stay the same becayse thats gow yhey made money. Yhru wabt people using oil and gadoline and producing carbon dioxide, because they dont care. Thry dont care about the future of the planet or the the ice caps are melting, where in thr future many coastal cities and beaches will be underwater. I was watching a documentary on youtube this mornig, didn't finish it yet.

    Right wingers are idiots to begin with. Thry might do well in school, and life but it doesn't make them smart. Our world is run by them no matter who is in power, that is why we dont have solar powered cars, that is why we still use billions of letres of oil, and it wnt stop until people demand it.

    People who claim that the environment hadn't changed in the last 100 years are stupud and are denying it because they have an amazing life based off the old ways of doing things.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Actually their isn't a consensus that was based upon a meta research that had very very broad terms for "man made" global warming. ( www.wsj.com/.../SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 ) You have issues of the models being used as they don't account for all vairalbes the fact that green house gases actually increase plant life which then inturn would decrease CO2 levels etc.(This is the view of Scientist Freeman Dyson) Plus you have the issue of it being human made despite the fact that their have been at least seven different ice ages and of course for each ice age to end (or start) you have to have global warming meaning we have had seven global warmings already all of them before humans, one of which is most likely for ancient ancestors of humas developing bipedalism (its more energy efficent and gives better range for forraging and such all of which is beneficial in a high temperature enviroment as it would allow better access to food, shelter and water which would be more dispersed (most likely why most dinosaurs in the peak periods of global warming where bipedal)) So if all of this occured before mankind, and we have had at least one mini global warming event in the middle ages and one mini ice age that occured (I want to say it was between the 15-1600s lasting about a hundred years) all of which where naturally occuring and we still have glaciers which by definition means that we are still within an ice age since an ice age ends only when all glaciasion ceases, that leads to a lot of questiones not being answered and being ignored. Seems odd that all of this data is completely kicked to the way side without explenation without any kind of rebuttel. Hence skeptics. That isn't to say we are not hurting the enviroment, we are (pollution of water, disruption of eco systems and biomes (for instance their has been masive droughts because we specificly have been draining more aquafer then can be naturally replenished and using it wastefully ie trying to use deserts for farming (they even drained massive amounts of water to grow rice (a water intensive crop) in the nearby desert which ends up destroying both ecosystems) So we do cause damage however this one is not so readily explained away as man made, to jump to that conclusion seems erroneous. Its possible its entirely us but that seems unlikely given the data and history/geological data.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Its also possible that its natrually occuring which makes more sense then claiming a processe that has occured many many times naturally before humanity even existed suddenly this one time occured because of humans. Its also possible that its naturally occuring but we are increasing the affects. The fact is data is not reliable, we are going off of limited data that is highly politicised and skewed (the more you toe the line the more funding you get and since scientist rely entirely on dontations this causes politicising of science causing them to release faulty data or agree to things that are not actually scientific (its a bit of an open secret about how unreliable studies are since fact checking is usually not done bcause it doesn't get you grants and funding). So that is why people argue against it. As for why majority are conservatives, I don't know could be simply out of spite or could be because they are more likely to fact check when its presented by democrats.

  • Because their in bed with the fossil fuel industry. FYI Hillary Clinton is also in bed with the fossil fuel industry , hence the reason she exported fracking to other countries as sectary of state and refuses to completely get rid of fracking.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU539RQSYdk

    2|1
    0|0
  • Money, money, money.
    Many of them (Republicans) own or are lobbied by companies that produce a shit-ton of pollution. If climate change were accepted those companies would have to pay millions in order to get their factories up to date and environmentally friendly.

    1|0
    0|0
  • how are ordinary people supposed to opine in favor of the scientists when they're asked to 'look at' evidence they're unfamiliar with?

    confused people realize one thing "nonsense". until it affects peoples everyday lives, it'll continue to be "nonsense" like ghosts and quantum mechanics.

    1|0
    0|0
    • That is a valid point. They really should make the information more accessible, and be clear about how climate change is already affecting our everyday lives.

  • Agreed

    1|0
    0|0
  • Climate change, no one denies climate change
    People just disagree that Co2 is the primary cause of it. They see it as another way to tax individuals, this time just for breathing driving etc.
    Climate change has more to with activity of the sun than some coal plants.

    Also since you brought up evolution as fact. Well it isn't. Natural selection is something exists yet scientists have yet to really prove evolution of species. Although they have a lot of "evidence" It hard to say it hasn't been manipulated in any way. (If evidence were to come out disproving the theory of evolution, biologists will be devastated, almost all of biology is based off our understanding of evolution)

    Also let the deniers exist! if they want to believe something isn't so, who are you to change their minds or call them idiots?
    Giordano Bruno said that the earth revolved around the sun, and there were other galaxies and universes before it was seen as common knowledge and was burned at the stake, because obviously earth was the center of the universe duh...

    Scientists have their own agendas, dont trust anything you hear because "A scientist said so" Science is all about being wrong, making new discoveries and challenging the establishment of science.

    0|1
    0|0
    • They should read the science on it then.

      Evolution is beyond doubt at this point, the theory came out 150 years ago and has only been supported ever more with a preponderance of evidence; it remain the strongest explanation on the nature of life on this planet.

      Deniers can exist, and so can people who call them out on it. Beliefs and ideas are important in shaping policy, so misinformation can't go unchecked.

      It's not just one scientist saying so, it's practically all of them, who are all experts in the field. If new strong sets of evidence arise to prove it all wrong, they'll be the first to drop everything and revisit it, but until then we should heed warnings that haven't changed in a long time and respond when we have time to do so. Besides, I look at the presented data myself and agree with their conclusions.

  • There's scientists that don't buy it and evidence that's not true. I think the vast majority of change is caused by natural things. I think it's mostly a scare tactic for tax scams by the ultra wealthy elite that want all the control over people. I'll believe it if I'm shown evidence that can't be argued. I'm not concerned, scientists are wrong all the time and constantly change ideas on things.

    1|1
    0|0
    • Show All
    • It's curious how we trust the science NASA does to get us on the moon and to explore Mars and yet somehow when it comes to climate change there's this excessive doubt. The same science we see happening on earth, we observe it on Venus too because of the great amount of greenhouse gases pervading that planet. It's not pretty.

      Believe what you want, there's not much anyone can do other than provide evidence and hope people understand it, and science has a long history of people denying what's true, but the problem with this particular scientific theory is it's time-sensitive. Climate change is having measurable effects on our lives and will only get worse if we do nothing. It seems we're going to wait until it's too late to do anything about it.

    • I don't trust NASA for anything or any other govt organization. They lie all the time. Like I said before, I'm not worried about it. There's bigger things to worry about. You are right about one thing, if it is happening, there's very little to nothing we can do about it and even if there was, it's probably too late. I'm not worried about it. If I'm wrong, ill die with the rest of the world.

  • Because concensus is not science. Nor is the IPCC data which shows little to no correlation between co2 and the warming of the planet.

    For the last decade all we've heard is, "It's already too late, we must act now!" Well why? If it's already too late what difference does it make.

    None of the reparations go to any research ending climate change, and the money behind the fraud is immense and has some sketchy organizations and form 990s as well as a few well renound con-artists names backing it.

    The 97% number changes all the time to sometimes 99, and 98. If it's such a big deal, let's get the names of the people who said no, let's get them on television, so we can see how crazy they must be. It's based on the survey asking, "Do you think anthropogenic global warming is due to the increase in Co2?" Which is a lead-the-witness question, Wherein 47% of all scientists said they needed more evidence, 3% said no, and 50% said yes, so they counted the undecided consensus as yes. There were only 1000 people surveyed and most positions had nothing to do with climatology.

    And what about the thirty-thousand climatologists that signed a petition denying any correlation?

    It's an investment scam. The earth is gradually getting colder as it shifts climate again. Simple as that.

    0|1
    0|0
  • As someone who understands both sides the argument I'll hop in
    1. The main argument go's like this
    - Climate change scientist said that the earth would be deforested by the year 2000 Climate change scientist has never made a correct prediction
    - Over 1,000 of years the globe has warned and cooled. The warmest time was the medieval times and it cooled down.
    - Polar Ice caps are gaining ice

    2. "Do the oil and gas lobbyists have them hooked on their money that bad? Are they catering to uninformed constituents? Or is it just willful ignorance/stupidity? " That really a matter of opinion dependent on your political views

    3. "Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner in our general election, has said he thinks "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U. S. manufacturing non-competitive."

    How is a statement that idiotic, inane, and devoid of facts coming out of the mouth of a potential future President? It's insane, it really is. "
    More ad-homiem fallacy I don't really see much disapproval of this claim.
    America is less competitive than China because the businesses in China can get away with paying workers 4.50 per hour. America it's 8.20 an hour minimum. Also China does not have a lot of federally mandated safety and emissions standards that allows them to build unsafe but cheap goods. Also they don't really enforce copyright either allowing cheap knockoffs. In short they are winning because that don't play fair.

    4. I understand that the public can be grossly ill-informed - some 40% of Americans don't believe in evolution - but people who write legislation and create policy for the country should really have more sense.
    Opinion dependent of political views
    There are many Republican atheist that believes in climate change, the theory of evolution. They simply favor small government.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Doesn't sound like you understand "both sides". The reason Trump's statement is relevant is to illustrate how out of touch some politicians are with the reality of climate change. That he thinks China made it up, is objectively ridiculous.

      I don't have a problem with every Republican, I'm just pointing out that a large number of them don't believe in the climate science on this issue, and it's not helping our planet or the people who live on it. As a wise man once said, the planet will actually be fine, it's the people who are fucked.

    • I do understand in fact both sides , I'm neutral on these issues your just very far left.
      To say China made it seem a little off in my book. However, the climate change issue is very politicized. You can get "science"that favors it and "science" that doesn't favor it. I don't even call it science as both sides are complete devoid of any use of the scientific method to arrive at these claims. Just paying off "scientist" to produce what they want to hear. If you can even call them scientist as many don't even have a degree in science or the science there studying. The government and car companies would make money off of stricter climate regulations. While oil and gas companies would not. Their are competing sides to this who have no problem brainwashing the public.

  • I'd have to go with @OlderAndWiser comment on the subject.

    0|2
    0|0
  • 0|1
    0|0
    • you know that the average CO2 level in our earths history is over 2000 ppm, did you know the highest level ever recorded was over 7000ppm? Did you know we are at a all time LOW in CO2 at only 400ppm? Did you know that if we Burn 100% of all known fossil fuels that the CO2 will only raise up to 650ppm? not even 1/2 way to the earths average!

  • Because Republicans are just plain stupid. Global warming and greenhouse gases existed long before humans.

    1|0
    0|0
    • The second half of your reply seems to disagree with the first half.
      If global climate change (as it warmed and cooled) and greenhouse gases existed long before humans, than how, exactly, are republicans "just plain stupid" for thinking that present climate shifts might have causes other than man made?

  • But its a conspiracy.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I used to think global warming would be great. But now like winter better so... boooooooooooo global warming.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Science used to say black people were subhuman.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Because ignoring it means they can continue to appeal to their constituents, many of whom or either anti-science in general, or are well aware of the effects but unconcerned because they are in middle age and make their income from business models that depends on the production of greenhouse gases. Follow the dollar guys.

    1|0
    0|0
  • Becuase they are busy building walls 😀

    1|0
    0|0
  • I watch Fox news for laughs. Especially The 5. (although they do show some news storys not on local TV) It's almost like a religion to them. If a republican or the republican party says "X" they take it on blind faith.
    The CEO of Exxon claims it is a problem and should be watched not go screaming & running for the exits.
    The republicans refuse to even look at his data or facts.

    1|0
    0|0
  • You lost me at scientific consensus. Science is not something you vote on or that experts agree on, that is characteristic of pre-scientific thinking like theology and is exactly what scientific thinking was designed to remedy. In science advance comes from people who don't believe in the consensus.

    In any case the predictions of what was supposed to happen don't fit with what has happened during the time we have accurate data about global temperature (only since the first satellites designed to measure global temperature, before that it's speculation) so there is something the consensus is missing. The actual rate of warming has been about half what the average computer model predicted.

    I don't know the truth of global warming but I can tell when science has been swamped by politics. Time will tell.

    0|0
    0|0
    • No. There are theories in science that are generally agreed upon because the evidence is so over-whelming. This is one of them. Believe as you like, but yes, time will tell. Hopefully not before it's way too late.

    • Show All
    • "Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner."

      This is waffle words, the trees in my garden aren't flowering sooner, maybe they are someplace, you could say that if nothing were happening at all. Accelerating sea level rise ignores the fact the sea level hasn't risen anything like as much as they said it would. Here are what the models said would happen and what has happened:

      wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/.../...bs1.jpg

      You have to learn to recognize weasel words and waffling.

    • When someone is trying to make a case as NASA is here, they use the strongest and most objective evidence they have. if they could tell you "global temperatures have risen exactly as predicted" they would, but they can't so they say something like global temperatures have risen, which could be significant or not. If they could tell you sea levels have risen by some significant amount, again as predicted they would but they can't so they say "sea level rise is accelerating" which could mean anything. accelerating from what to what? Weasel words and waffling. This is the sort of speech politicians use, not scientists.

What Girls Said 3

  • It's greed, pure and simple. Some of these douches will not put down their money even for the good of humanity. It's sickening. "Oh it's ok jim. If we ruin this planet we'll just get another one. " snmucks.

    2|0
    0|0
  • If you have the time, there's a really good book called "Unprecedented" by David Ray Griffin that talks about this in detail. I had to read some of it for a class, but man is it interesting.

    1|0
    0|0
  • Because science is always changing and debunking themselves. But their is more carbon dioxide under ice on the north pole... etc than scientist know to do with it. So how did it get there? my theory is the world goes through cycles, we've never witnessed it. it's just cleansing itself the weak will die the strong will evolve. Would you put your life on the line for the word of a scientist? Science can't even get the age of the earth correct or when humans first started walking on earth that keep a changing with evidence." Global warming " is just to get people scared and make money off their fear.

    0|0
    0|0
    • If your theory contradicts the vast majority of experts in climate science on the issue, who do you think is more likely to be wrong? When scientists tell me that mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes increase your chance of breast cancer, I believe them. I can look at their research and evidence, and believe them, and stake my life on it too.

      Science is never over and simply settled, they are always new details to flesh out, further angles to explore, and new ways to improve and build on data, but when you have over-whelming evidence, and a massive amount of independent research all pointing in the same direction, the basics are set and sound.

    • Show All
    • You're not questioning things with any reason or evidence though, just unsubstantiated claims.

      The fact that you think there's been "cures for cancer forever" really tells me enough about where this conversation was headed anyway though.

    • Lol. Your one of those if science doesn't say so people. Yea, any amount of research would tell you people have found cures for many things in modern society. Evidence isn't a mathematical equation. But hey you believe what you want.

Loading...