Why Republicans (And Others) Place A Low Priority On Global Warming

Blue-Marble-NASA-EarthBy: James Taylor.

Global warming typically ranks dead last when the Pew Research Center asks voters to list the “top priorities for the president and Congress” each year. Yet the New York Times and other major media strain to keep the global warming movement alive by carefully ignoring global warming “skeptics,” and giving undeserved coverage to a small minority of liberal Republicans who call for carbon dioxide restrictions.

An April 2013 Gallup poll found only 34 percent of Americans believe global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetimes. An April 2013 Rasmussen poll found Americans by a two-to-one margin believe finding new energy sources is more important than fighting global warming. Earlier this month, a Rasmussen poll found Americans by a nearly three-to-one margin say creating jobs is more important than addressing global warming.

Nevertheless, the New York Times on August 1 found space on its op-ed page for an essay written by four former Republican EPA administrators calling for even more stringent – and costly – carbon dioxide restrictions than those proposed by President Barack Obama earlier this summer.  These elderly statesmen (average age 72.5) were out of step with their party when they served in office, and are definitely out in the cold today.

Read the rest at Forbes

6 Responses to Why Republicans (And Others) Place A Low Priority On Global Warming

  1. Rob N. Hood September 13, 2013 at 7:00 pm #

    Cool story bro. The general public is definitely ambivalent, as countless polls have shown ad nauseum. The four “dissenting” Republican EPA Administrators is news-worthy IMO. But then again they all worked for the E(vil) P(rojects) A(dministration).

  2. Neilio September 15, 2013 at 4:53 pm #

    The general public is ambivalent, as well they should be. If you read the story I posted it explains why. And it just so happens that virtually every reason given is something that was covered here.

    “the pace of global warming has been very moderate”.

    “the climate models that predict substantial future warming are failing miserably to replicate real-world temperatures”.

    “IPCC’s climate models cannot explain the 15-year pause in global warming and will likely require adjustments to reduce their sensitivity to carbon dioxide. In short, real-world temperatures are proving IPCC climate models to be too alarmist”.

    “global warming is benefiting human welfare, just as warmer temperatures have benefited human welfare in the past. Hurricane activity is declining, tornadoes are less frequent and severe, deserts are shrinking, forests are expanding and crop production is setting new records on a near-yearly basis”

    “new restrictions on U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would have no practical impact on global temperatures. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are already declining thanks to the natural gas revolution caused by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and horizontal drilling, rendering top-down government restrictions of dubious value and necessity”.

    There is more in the article at Forbes, but it just goes to show that we are ahead of the curve here.

  3. Dan McGrath September 17, 2013 at 11:42 pm #

    Good article. Don’t love the partisan slant in the title, but it’s justified once you read on. Nice to see you flexing your guest-contributor muscles.

    • Neilio September 18, 2013 at 5:26 am #

      Well, we do hope that people read on. Right?

    • Neilio September 19, 2013 at 1:47 am #

      I really didn’t think about posting this story until I read it. The title was just what it was. I didn’t intend it to be partisan. And if it is partisan, I didn’t inject that. It was already there.

  4. Rob N. Hood September 25, 2013 at 9:18 am #

    Your mutual admiration society is very touching. You two make a good team, I’ve always said that. Don’t hurt yourselves though slapping yourselves and each other on the back.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.