The Madness Of King Al: More Republicans Believing In Global Warming

gore1A new poll shows that the number of conservatives who believe in global warming has doubled in a couple of years. This is a disturbing trend. If the resistance weakens, the political left will wreak economic carnage.

The poll, released this week by Yale and George Mason universities, shows that 47% of conservatives agree that the climate is changing. This is 19 percentage points higher than it was during the 2014 midterm elections.

The news isn’t entirely bad, though. They haven’t gone full Al Gore. The number of Republicans who believe that human activity is causing global warming hasn’t increased. This, of course, is the important point. Earth has warmed and cooled as long as it has existed. Climate change is a fact. Nature is constantly reshaping itself. The question is what is man’s impact, if any, on the changes?

For us the fear is that for some Republicans it’s only a small step from conceding global warming to believing that man is the cause. The political left has so relentlessly peddled the man-made global warming narrative that it’s conceivable that the political right will eventually surrender the point. This is especially worrisome at a time when data show there’s been no statistically significant warming in roughly two decades, or maybe six. We live in an era, as well, in which climate researchers have been caught doctoring the numbers to fit their warming claims.

So why relent just when the skeptics are winning the battle with facts?

The alarmists have proved themselves and their cause to be frauds on global warming many times over. Their top people at the United Nations have admitted that the global warming scare is not about protecting the environment. The campaign is simply a cover for other political agendas:

  • Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted last year that the real target of environmental activists is capitalism — they want to destroy it.
  • Former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer said the goal is de facto redistribution of the world’s — read: the West’s — wealth through climate policy.
  • One-time Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman Rajendra Pachauri hitched onto the climate crusade because, for him and many others, it was his religion.
  • Author Naomi Klein, who has been blessed by the media as a climate savant, sees the global warming “crisis” as “the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world.” “Change, or be changed,” is her warning to those who won’t passively go along with the left’s economic takeover effort.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Emanuelle Goldstein

    |

    Believe in global warming – no. Believe in climate change – yes. As a Republican, I believe that the climate has been changing ever since the Earth coalesced into a sphere and will continue to change long after homo sapiens disappears from its surface.

    I’ve participated in a number of these polls. The question usually is “do you believe in climate change.” Well, yes I do. But the pollsters don’t always drill down any further. I’m sure if one of those pollsters wants to spin his/her statistics, they could look at my answer and assume that I’m “coming around” to the environmentalist way of thinking. Couldn’t be farther from the truth.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [quote name=”Emanuelle Goldstein”]
    I’ve participated in a number of these polls. The question usually is “do you believe in climate change.” Well, yes I do. But the pollsters don’t always drill down any further. I’m sure if one of those pollsters wants to spin his/her statistics, they could look at my answer and assume that I’m “coming around” to the environmentalist way of thinking. Couldn’t be farther from the truth.[/quote]
    This exactly! It’s like a metaphor for the phony movement itself. Take honest input and then twist it until it says whatever you want.

    I believe the whole man made global warming idea was a perfectly good hypothesis that was just never supported by facts and inquiry. It wasn’t originally intended as a scam, but it was conveniently seized upon by the eco-left as the perfect tool for political exploitation. Ultra-complex, ever changing, and and vulnerable to manipulation by politicians and leftist academics, global warming (now morphed into “climate change”) is the perfect vehicle for the neo-socialist world agenda.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    GR82DRV Global Warming
    “It wasn’t originally intended as a scam ” .
    Agreed but it was intended to be an excuse to
    break the coal miners in the UK and the UN
    officials admit it was used as a means to an end .
    It started to blossom into the full blown scam about the time the Inconvenient Goof came out .
    When hedge fund gamblers got involved and governments saw a pot of new tax payer gold it went off the charts .

    It has peaked because the scary global warming lie is a well known fact with promoters increasingly looking like puffed out big bad wolves . The rebrand to “climate change ” from scary global warming was one of the first signs that the promoters knew the jig was up .

    They are now running around trying to throw thimbles full of water on the renewable charity companies flaming out
    after taking $$Billions in tax payers money .

    People really really hate losing their ass on
    stocks that the global warming industry pitched them . Sunedison being this months poster boy .

    Pension funds that invested in these basket cases may get away with gross negligence once but do it again and the screwed pensioners will have cause to go after the Dumbo’s who blew their money .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Miner49er

    |

    Fossil fuels do not affect climate. Climate change results from a combination of (non-CO2) causes, such as sunspots, solar orbital variations, cosmic rays’ effect on clouds, and plate tectonics. But it cannot be caused by CO2 arising from fossil fuels use,because nature effectively recycles CO2 as carbonate minerals (limestone) through numerous calcification processes.

    Maybe climate is warming. It is supposed to be warming, because earth is in an interglacial period. Which begs the question why some scientists and government agencies try to pad the record by “adjusting” prior-period temperature data.

    Carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuels use are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See Patrick Moore’s recently released lecture http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/.

    There is no empirical evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The rest arise from rotting vegetation. Changes in temperature cause changes in CO2 emissions from these sources, and are not caused by them.

    CO2 is in equilibrium. Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). For more detail see the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Danish researcher Tom Segalstad, and http://quadrant.org.au/opinion

    Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical calcification processes. The simplified formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make magnesium carbonate in a kitchen in a few minutes by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Science used to be an honored profession
    before scientific organizations started whoring out to the highest bidder and political organizations got away with changing date to suit their agenda .
    Global warming is a very good thing and we all know it . That’s why Antarctica has the population of a small town in an area bigger than the entire USA . No Hollywood
    prima donna ‘s buying beach front there .
    When theft exceeds a $$billion does it become social policy ?

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.