Bush, Gingrich, McCain, Giuliani - All agree human-caused global warming is real. Are these people liberals?

Believing global warming is real is a no brainer. But saying it is solely caused by man, as Gore states, is quite a different story. That is the difference, save that quail.

I don't know, but I know this: When Al Gore was running for vice president in 1992, he insisted over and over again that the very first thing he would do would be to assemble a team of experts from every field (scientists, industrialists, etc.) to work on developing new alternative energy sources. IN EIGHT YEARS, HE DID NOTHING OF THE SORT. Al Gore's roots are in big oil, and he's a globalist, a hideous combination! Why did they kill the electric car? How can big oil make money off of an electric car?? The "Earth Charter" and "Agenda 21" are not about the environment, they are all about control, mainly by international bankers, over the entire planet.

While certainly humans contribute to global warming, it is by no means the root cause, or anywhere near the primary cause. Nobody argues that global warming isn't a serious concern, just what steps we need to take to deal with it is the real issue. Global warming (and subsequent cooling) is part of Earth's natural cycle, we could not stop it with our current technology, and if we could and did stop it, the results would likely be disasterous. There are so many threats to life here on Earth that it is absurd to place so much overemphasis on science that is not even well understood. A Supervolcano, an asteroid collision, drug resistant flu epidemics are all examples of other real threats to humanity

Also, when you say scientists support Al Gore's global warming, you mis state the facts. Yes, there are some scientists who agree. There are also some scientists who get their names noted by agreeing. Most serious scientists do not take one side or another without hard evidence that says "This is the effect, and this is the cause."

If Al Gore thought Global warming was such an issue, then why doesn't he teleconference his speeches over the internet instead of jetting to Europe?

Answer: He doesn't give a rats behind about how he should personally do his part. His interest is in the personal and political gain he can milk from it.

Don't forget Huckabee. Remember that he and Brownback were 2 of the 3 Republican nominees who said they're Creationists. I guess the scientific evidence behind anthropogenic global warming is more convincing than the evidence for evolution!

Anyone who thinks global warming is a liberal scam should hold a convention with the people who think Bush was behind 9/11 or that the moon landing was staged. It's no more than a paranoid conspiracy theory.

What does a natural cyclical crisis that threatens the Earth have to do with anyone's political persuasions?

The majority of the scientific community around the world seems to agree that the global warming issue is one of the most devastating of our time.

So why do those who choose to reject the threat of global warming always point to supporters' political beliefs?

The two have nothing in common. Global warming is a natural cyclical event that takes places over tens of thousands of years, giving man, plants and animals to adapt to climate changes. Because of man's Industrial Revolution 150 years ago, the effects of global warming have been accelerated, and inhabitants of this planet will not be able to adapt as efficiently.

Whether you're conservative, liberal or independent, it makes no difference: those who want to deny the threats posed by global warming are usually those people who don't want to give up their gas-guzzling Hummers or SUVs; those who don't wish to REduce, REuse and REcycle; and those who don't give a damn about their descendants.

Why is it we'll believe "science" when it accommodates our needs or desires, but we reject "science" when the news isn't favorable to our lifestyles?? -RKO- 11/12/07

I don't think they are all liberals, just all wrong. There is no evidence to prove the CO2 emmissions are to blame for the slight rise in the global temps, actually, the evidence points the other way.

In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02

has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures

began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions

could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the

temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to

fear a coming ice age.

Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of

global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these

rather obvious inconvenient truths?

There are many scientists who do not agree but will not be recognized by the "consensus" and the media. Al Gore's film can be shown in schools in England only if a list of eleven errors depicted in the movie is also provided to the students..

I have wondered this myself, and I can only think of two reasons.

It is in their nature. It takes a little while for "conservatives" to catch up with trends and information.

Another reason is that the Republican party still sees global warming as a divisive issue that binds their base. Republican spinners can take advantage of the anti science bias and fear of government intrusion so natural to the base. They can also appeal to the newly minted, Lou Dobbs type populists by portraying Democrats as making money off junk science, at the taxpayer's expense.

I don't know if that makes any sense; perhaps global warming denial just isn't rational anymore.

Sometimes, it's just not productive to argue about something.

People are going to believe what they want, regardless of the facts. There are more important things to worry about.

Now here's a question for you.

Who were the bad guys who caused global warming at the end of the last Ice age?

The United States didn't even exist, so it couldn't have been the selfish bad Americans who love to beat their chests and feel guilty about anything. So, who were they? and can we go and condemn them, and force them to feel guilty, and maybe pay reparations in "carbon credits"?

No, they're not. This whole thing has gone completely political. It's not about the environment anymore. These people are saying it's real so they'll get elected. It's all about power, and it's all about money.