Why does it seem like it is only the right-wingers who can't seem to understand the science of Global Warming?

The really funny thing is when the deniers claim AGW is just a left-wing communist liberal plot, but don't have much to say when you point out that George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Nikolas Sarkozi, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, etc. etc. etc. all believe humans are causing global warming.

Generally people who deny AGW do so out of fear. They're afraid of big government, taxes, and afraid they won't be able to drive their gas guzzlers anymore. In general, they're afraid of change, and that's what AGW is, both in its results and its mitigation. Lots of change.

People who are afraid of this change slide into denial. And generally, people who fear change are conservatives (which is why liberals are also called 'progressives'). And as we know, the Republican Party lives on fear (liberals are going to take away your guns, let gay people get married and have sex on your lawn, invite terrorists to blow up your house, tax you to death, and in general just tell you what to do).

Generally speaking, the more an individual is afraid of these things, the more politically conservative they are. That's why I think most AGW deniers are extremely politically conservative.

Seems they may be the only ones to study history....

Volcanic eruptions have been the prime driver of our climate for several thousand years now. The little ice age was caused by 4 huge volcanic eruptions in a 50 period in the late 1200's. Tamboura and Krakatoa kept things cool in the 1800's and well into the 1900's. It has been near 130 years now since a major eruption and no, St Helens and Pinatubo were far too weak to do much. The result is warming just as has been well documented in the Midieval warming period. If you want things to cool off a major eruption may do that but, be careful what you wish for if this happened today the resulting food shortages would be the likes no one alive today has ever seen.

There are a bunch of left-wingers who don't understand the science of Global Warming either. The fact is, most people lack sufficient scientific training to know the difference between real science and pseudo science. So it comes down to who does a person (lacking the knowledge themselves) trust in such matters.

Sadly, many right-wingers trust people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity more than NASA (which has more climate scientists than any organization in the world).

Hey there,

I downloaded Doom 95 for free here: http://bit.ly/ZYwmPW

it's a perfectly working link!

Doom 95 is a famous first-person action game.

For me, it's the best game ever.

Ok, here is a leftist environmentalist ; Patrick Moore, who pretty much gets it right on Global Warming. Unlike you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(enviro...

So, you should be careful in throwing around inaccurate accusations about the so-called "denial business" being 100% politically driven. When CLEARLY, the whole issue of GW as we know it, especially where the media is concerned, IS ALL ABOUT POLITICS, not science. The science is incomplete, yet the media paints GW as "settled" and "the fault of man". None of which is true or at the very least has not been proven yet. So, why knock those on the right who are simply pointing out the tremendous amount of misinformation about the politically driven issue of Global Warming.

Might it just be that climatology is a subset of metrology intended as a place to put law school dropouts that could not qualify for more rigorous disciplines.

One of the believers that responded to a question recently hit the nail on the head when he said, as he understood the science. This is the real problem in that they really do not understand the basics of science and how weather and climate work. The basic assumptions their pogrom of voodoo science is based on are so faulty it shows they either have not taken any basic science courses at all or they are deliberately lying for political reasons. The problem you are having is it is history and geology where the information is available that debunks AGW with ease. The answer on C02 rise in relation to temps is that Co2 always trails temp rises. The sun warms the oceans and as they warm their ability to retain Co2 in solution weakens. The more the oceans warm, the more Co2 they release to feed the plant life that can now survive in warmer climates. This reduction of Co2 in solution also lowers the pH of the water because pH goes up and down accordingly to the amount in solution.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-glo...

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#an...

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/T...

http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#an...

I don't know about "95%", but certainly most global warming sceptics I've talked to are right-wing. I think the reason has to do with the fundamentals of their philosophy. They believe in the laws of market economics over anything else, and explicitly or otherwise, they believe that "might is right". It is very difficult to convince such a person that there is such a thing as a common good, that collective action might be needed, or that humans do not have an innate "right" to do whatever they want. Anthropogenic global warming challenges all their basic preconceptions about the world, and because they can't handle this challenge, they end up trying to tell the rest of us that they have found flaws in career scientists' theories.

The amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere continues to grow and we are facing record cold this winter. What more proof do you need that Global Warming is over-hyped? In 150 years of industrialization, the planet has warmed 1 degree according to scientists. That's really a very small amount to get all concerned about.

Global Warming is BS. Climate Change is where it's at, but then there's the problem that Earth's climate has always changed and the scientists studying this phenomenon have not made enough progress to determine to what extent man's activities have an impact on climate change, and most importantly, if our impact is going to have a catastrophic outcome.

The reason why skeptics abound is because global warming / climate change proponent's predictions often DON'T come true. When they say this will happen, and it doesn't, it gives one pause to consider the merits of their argument.

Another thing that concerns me is that their research is not very publicly available. They have these climate prediction models that have been demonstrated to contain flaws. Why would you rely on such models that are incomplete? Saving the planet from this perceived problem is going to be costly, people are not going to be happy about that if it was all for nothing.

Gee I'm a "right winger" with a degree in Environmental Technology and many of my professors don't believe in the AGW theory so whats your point.

I suggest you learn the meaning of the word THEORY and all your questions will be answered. Theory is science speak for "we actually have NO IDEA but this is our best guess" or in other words AGW = SWAG i.e. Scientific Wild *** Guess

You also conveniently sidestep the FACT that many REAL scientists (unlike the left wing eco weenies) don't believe in the AGW scam either. So how can you possibly be anywhere near correct when not all of Science agrees with it?

Because we're the only ones who understand scientific method?

The IPCC had to include anyone who could even loosely be described as a "scientist" to get the result they wanted. Even so, several of their hand-selected group sued to have their names taken OFF the report because it's blatantly political and void of any actual science.

Among actual climatologists, you will be hard-pressed to find any thought more dire than an acknowledgment that maybe, somehow, mankind might be able to influence the climate. (which is pretty-much what the SCIENTISTS with the IPCC said, too)

If Algore knows his stuff, why does he find it necessary to lie about it and to avoid any debate? Why is he LIVING as if he doesn't believe a word of it? Why are ALL of them doing so?

Seriously, according to the IPCC alarmist/bureaucrats:

-We're in "danger" of repeating the climate of the late 1930s.

-If ALL human activity ceased it would make less than 1 degree of difference.

-Warming was faster BEFORE the Industrial Revolution.

From outside the U.N. and Algore we also learn that:

-It has been several degrees warmer in the past, within recorded history.

-No warming is in evidence away from urban areas and when you factor OUT data from weather stations that are no longer operating in their original environments, the whole problem disappears.

Perhaps it's that part about the typical right-winger being a truth-seeker, and a thinker instead of a "consensus seeker."