You don’t have to be a liberal to believe in global warming

Meteorologist Paul Douglas (above), who’s a Bible-believing Christian and a Republican, runs the risk of pariahship among his political brethren by daring to BREAK RANKS with many of them on matters of climate science:

I’m going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real.

I am a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment, and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I’m a meteorologist, and the weather maps I’m staring at are making me uncomfortable. No, you’re not imagining it: we’ve clicked into a new and almost foreign weather pattern. To complicate matters, I’m in a small, frustrated and endangered minority:  a Republican deeply concerned about the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make to keep our economy powered-up, long-term. 


My climate epiphany wasn’t overnight, and it had nothing to do with Al Gore. In the mid-90s I noticed gradual changes in the weather patterns floating over Minnesota. Curious, I began investigating climate science, and, over time, began to see the thumbprint of climate change, along with 97% of published, peer-reviewed PhD’s, who link a 40% spike in greenhouse gases with a warmer, stormier atmosphere.


The climate is warming. The weather is morphing. It’s not your grandfather’s weather anymore. The trends are undeniable. If you don’t want to believe thousands of climate scientists – at least believe your own eyes: winters are warmer & shorter, summers more humid, more extreme weather events, with a 1-in-500 year flood every 2-3 years. For evidence of climate change don’t look at your back yard thermometer. That’s weather. Take another, longer look at your yard. Look at the new flowers, trees, birds, insects and pests showing up outside your kitchen window that weren’t there a generation ago.




  1. You keep getting confused.

    Of course climate change is real. It always has been and always will be with us. It is the ultimate effects and the solutions that are at the center of my debate. I like this guy, thanks for the link.

    Remember, in the same article you linked he also says this :

    “I understand this: capitalism requires growth. Growth requires energy. Anything that gets in the way of insuring an uninterrupted flow of (carbon-based) energy must be inherently evil. My fellow Republicans have an allergic reaction to regulation, but do we really want to go back to the 60s, a time of choking smog and combustible rivers? There’s a palpable fear that Big Government will ultimately prevent the energy industry from extracting (and burning) trillions of dollars of carbon still in the ground; the fuel we think we need to keep America competitive, growing and healthy.

    U.S. reserves of carbon based fuels are 586 GtCO2, according to the Congressional Research Service. Think Progress’s Brad Johnson estimates U.S. energy companies have roughly $10 trillion worth of carbon resources still left in the ground (coal, gas and oil). “A cap on carbon emissions designed to limit warming to 2 degrees C. will mean sovereign states and public corporations must strand 80% of their $27 trillion of proven (global) reserves and related assets, a loss exceeding $20 trillion” he said. This is what the fight is about. Big Energy wants to keep us addicted to carbon-based fuels indefinitely; shareholders want to keep the money-spigot flowing, and lock in future profits. Surprised? Me neither. But in business, as in life, you hedge your bets. We can slowly, methodically, wean ourselves off carbon-based fuels, while investing in carbon-clean alternatives. That doesn’t mean government picks winners. That’s anathema to free enterprise.”

  2. truth hurts

    Expdoc why are you suprised about pat’s confusion?

    If the facts don’t fit, he must say its a right wing, big corporation, tea bag conspiracy.

    He (and liberals) alone know all about science.

    Funny how he also convienently forgets 1st grade biology where co2 (that dreaded carbon) is food for the plants. That we need some carbon to balance o2 levels.
    That the cheapest way to deal with carbon is have more plants, trees, ect to absorb it and give us oxegen.

    But hey basic scientific fact is a right wing conspiracy right pat?

  3. Reality

    He is “bible-believing”, but not socially conservative? Huh? That doesn’t sound like much of a conservative to me. The “fiscally conservative” moderate Republicans in Illinois aren’t really fiscally conservative when their record is examined, so anything that they say has an asterisk by it. What does bible-believing have to do with climate? That sounds more like earth religion to me. It is not very convincing. What is his denomination of “Christianity”, anyways? There are no denominations, there are only protests. The protests were a result of global cooling during the middle part of the last millennium. When the climate changed for the better, i.e. warmed, in the past the earth flourished. http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

  4. shawnnews

    If you want to take the word of the Hoover Institution on science over climate scientists opinions, you have revealed that you select ideology first.
    The republicans could take the lead and say the private sector can solve the need for developing non-carbon based fuels. Instead they have chosen to say there is no problem at all.
    Global warming isn’t a religious issue. So what if the guy says he believes the Bible?

  5. Reality

    Arne Carlson Republikahns care about nurturing progressive government, not reality. Teddy Roosevelt was one of our worst Presidents, alongside Richard Nixon. The socialist Roosevelt was unable to win a third term in 1912. Douglas and Carlson should roost alongside the country club. I prefer Grover Cleveland, a Democrat. If we had Presidents like Cleveland, this country, but particularly the inland north, never would have gotten the way that it is. The sooner that these states figure out the government does not solve problems, the better off they will be.

  6. truth hurts

    Funny not a word from Pat.

    Hmmm guess adult debate without namecalling he is not capable of?

    Or is it even his bluster cannot in any way make the FALSEHOODS of global warming seem true?

    Sometimes no matter how hard you try even Pat can’t make a rose out of a turd.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *