Even if Republicans amoung others do not believe in global warming...?

Question

and say that it is just natural climate change shouldn't they still be concerned with the results?

If everything the global warming doomsday soothsayers believe will happen due to global warming, wont it still happen if it is climate change?

Shouldnt we start building our cities to be prepared for this change, and secure resources for this change now.

Personally I believe it is climate change, example of why: the ancient egyptions didnt have green house gases and look at how their world changed. the grassland acros the nile was much much more than it is now, same goes for Iraq. and I may have been misinformed but wasnt the Sahara desert once a lush rainforest? but just because i buy into the climate change idea more than the global warming idea doesnt mean i think we should keep polluting.

Oh, and the third alternative i have heard regarding the change is... its the rapture. And i dont give that any time.

Answer 1

OK, lets say the sea level will rise a foot in 100 years.  If your building is that close to sea level you or your contractors are idiots and it is would not be fair for the rest of us to pay for your stupidity.  You must rebuild on land a foot higher.  What other drastic changes do we need to worry about.  Frankly your worry is paranoia but I don't blame you too much since so many people are working at making you paranoid.

Answer 2

Humans unlike all other animals try to change there environment instead to evolving to suit the environment. For example we wear clothes, live in houses etc.

As a result of being successful at doing this we have this miss placed idea that we can stop climate change.

I don't for one moment believe that global warming is as a result on man's production of CO2 and that it is a natural process that has happened many times in the past and will happen many more times in the future.

All that we can do as a race is except the changes as they occur and change our life's accordingly.

There will be different opportunities for man in the future that we do not have now. For example the some of the current desert areas of the world may be much more wet in the future allowing plant growth.

Tidal rise will also change the geography of the world beyond what we currently understand as our world.

Answer 3

They can not predict the weather for 2 weeks and have some sibilance of accuracy but u think they can now predict it for years. Get real it is the left that think we are burning too much fossil fuels . Got bad news u will probably be the one walking not Gore.There is another problem and that is 97% of all energy comes from the oxidation of Corbin and that produces CO2 . Of coarse the earth has a CO3 recycle system called the plants.

Answer 4

Let's just say for theories sake we were suppose to go into an Ice Age, after all according to some scientist we are due.  We are also over due for a pandemic but that hasn't happened yet why?  Because we as mankind have changed the parameters.  We have better , research, medicines and treatment than ever before so we have changed or postponed the outcome on some disease.  Now getting back to the Ice Age scenario,  2/3 thirds of the population have recently joined the industrial revolution (China and India some Eastern European countries) using coal burning for electricity and more gas burning cars now than ever before.  That is a 66% increase in air pollution alone.  Now add to that all the solid waste that is generated and the land pollution that is created that eventually gets into the water.

Now what does common sense tell you?  Pollution and Climate change/Global warming go together.  We need to find cleaner alternative ways of generating power to run our privileged possessions.  We don't have to live like cave people or pioneers we just have to find a better way, a cleaner way of living.  Politics and partisan support aside  and those that treat this as something that is just in vogue or don't believe it same on you.  This is a real situation we have to open our own eyes and minds and ask what do we see?  Nevermind what Al Gore says or George Bush says or any celebrity who is for or against this topic.  What do your senses tell you?

Answer 5

Republicans with intelligence who study the issue do believe in (mostly) man induced global warming.  A few examples:

"the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere —"

Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

“With overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is adversely impacting the health of our planet, the time has come for the Congress to take action.”

Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican, Maine

"The overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientists around the world and our own National Academy of Sciences are in essential agreement on the facts of global warming and the significant contribution of human activity to that trend."

Russell E. Train, Republican, former environmental official under Presidents Nixon and Ford

"I agree with you (Gore) that the debate over climate change is over."

Rep. Dennis Hastert, Republican, Illinois

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona

"I'm trying to learn [about greenhouse gases and global warming]. The more I learn, the bigger believer I become."

Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican, South Carolina

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

"These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment - and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

President George Bush

The reason is the data and the science.  These people don't get their science from Al Gore, they get it from the best scientists in the world.

99+% of scientists around the world believe global warming is real and mostly caused by us.  And any number of very distinguished people, too.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Here are two summaries of the mountain of data that convinced Admiral Truly and the others, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics.  Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

The "swindle" movie is flat wrong.  I'll bet most of the people above have seen it, or at least heard the arguments contained in it.  And they're not buying it.  It is simply a radical political statement which distorts science.  

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."  

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climat...

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right.  This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way.  If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information.  They also say "Confused now?  Ask the Expert."  The link for questions goes to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

The downside is that it doesn't just get a little warmer.  Coastal flooding, damage to agriculture, and more severe storms will devastate the economy.

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 6

Everything the global warming doomsday soothsayers believe is NOT true. Some out there saying all people in the world will burn up and die in 20 years. That is just crazy. Nothing like that will happen. Others say there will be destructive weather, with hurricanes, droughts and such that are far worse than ever before. I say, "nonsense!" The weather man cannot even correctly tell me if it will rain next week and you expect me to believe that they can correctly tell me there will be unusual numbers of hurricanes or droughts in 100 years? Get real! Such predictions are simplistic guesses based on one or two facts without taking into account all the other factors that cause the weather. The main example of that is that CO2 is causing the warming. It sounds plausible, since CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But calculation shows that the CO2 can only account for a tiny fraction of the observed warming. We simply don't know where 99% of the warming is coming from.

So, about the part about building cities differently. In what ways do you suggest we start building our cities that is different to how we do it now? What possible difference would it make?

Answer 7

Your question betrays an utter lack of understanding of both economics and the issue of global warming not to mention politics.  Here is the fallacy in your rhetoric:

Each dollar we spend on one thing we can not spend on something else.  Your argument only makes sense if the possibility of man-caused global warming is the most important threat facing us today and ONLY THEN if spending such a dollar would actually accomplish something to reduce this "problem".

The fact that it might "feel good" to do something about global warming and actually spend money accomplishes nothing.  Changing the argument to climate change makes your points even worse and is akin to thinking that it might be nice to command the tides to stop rising and falling somewhere in mid-point because we could then have more beach to play on!

Special note to Bob:

You really need to come up with something new.  I've counted about fifty times over the last several months that you've used the same cut and paste answer.  It is time for a re-write, my friend.

Special comment to Anonomama's additional information:

Dude, it is the responsibility of the Asker of a question to make himself clear when he asks it.  You may know what you meant but we only know you through your words.  You have not written a question but rather a murky editorial about what you perceive as irresponsibility on the part of Republicans.  I simply responded in kind.  

I accept your point that what is being touted as man-caused global warming is actually climate change and your examples from history are valid.  But what have Republicans and polluting got to do with this?  And if your point is that we ought to be prepared for climate change haven't we already done so by virtue of the fact that we have both the ability to heat and cool our homes and workplaces?

Answer 8

more temperate weather, higher production, increase of livable land,

what was the down side?

join the heresy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Answer 9

I never thought about it that way, but yes, it would be.  But maybe they are saying that if it is a natural process, that changing our lifestyles will not affect it at all.  I don't believe it is a cycle, but that we are damaging our world irreparably.  I may have my time line wrong, but I thought the extinction of the dinosaurs and the Sahara becoming a desert were about the same time.  I think the Egyptians also were farmers along the Nile by using the floodplains.  The changes they dealt with were due to the changing path of the river.