It's the same reason why there are more left wingers than normal people.  Campaigns require money.  The bulk of money comes from the people on the fringe 5% of either side.

the social, "Christian conservative" movement?  I'm highly skeptical...

Hey, I believed Reagan when he said he was going to clean up Washington and reduce government bloat.  And DC still needs cleaning up and the bureaucracy is still bloated, but most of what we have now is GOP-promoted bloat.

Here's a recent story -- Ted Stevens was able to get some pork through last year:  http://www.kansascit...

WASHINGTON | First came the "bridge to nowhere." Now, a railroad to North Pole? Critics of congressional earmark spending took aim Wednesday at a $4 million expenditure for the proposed Northern Rail Extension, an Alaskan railway that would link the village of North Pole (pop. 1,778) to the village of Delta Junction (pop. 840).***

But there also is good news: After seven record-breaking years, the number and cost of pork-barrel projects is way down, thanks to voter outrage and a one-year moratorium imposed by Democrats after taking over Congress.

This is an AP report about the Citizens Against Government Waste, a Republican leaning (but I think somewhat independent) "waste watcher" organization.  And I don't agree with them on everything.  Spending money for an improved telescope in Hawaii (where the darkness and night air are almost perfect for sky searches) to look for any big objects that may come hurtling towards earth is a good investment. 

The Reverend Jerry Falwell says global warming "is Satan's attempt to redirect the church's primary focus" from evangelism to environmentalism...he said some "naive Christian leaders" are being "duped" by arguments like those presented in former Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," which he said should have been titled "A Convenient Untruth."
Lynchburg, VA 2/28/07

Was it Satan that convinced Falwell to forgo his church role of ministering to the poor and feeding the hungry to become a political operative?

http://www.wltx.com/...

Not that I am for one side or the other, as I am not a scientist or politican, but as a citizen I found the information in this documentary more compelling than Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth". 

I'm for reducing foreign oil dependancy, reduction polution, diversifying energy production, energy efficiency and conservation; however, how can some of us be so convinced of a viewpoint after watching this documentary, and "expect" the rest of society to believe the same, while calling those do not agree, deniers, heretics or bushbots? 

http://video.google....

We do know some things: 1) Increasing CO2 will warm the atmosphere. Despite the yap in "Swindle" there is NO serious argument about that.
http://whyfiles.org/...
And 2) There is a measurable, verified change in the earth's temperature (compared to the climate models), beginning in the 1970's. In other words, the temp increase could not be explained by ANY natural phenomena. The change can only be explained by some anthropogenic (manmade) source. And we have one -- CO2 is the culprit, because all other atmospheric contaminants are short-lived (sulfates, water vapor), and would not sustain the measurable temp increase over these many years. 
http://bostonreview....

The documentary claims (1) rises in temperature leads CO2 rises by several decades or even more.  Also (2) they claim that 90% of the increase in the global temp over the past 150 years, can be accounted for during a period of the rise which occurred prior to the 1950's, afterwhich temperature began to decreased until the early 70's. 

While the spike from the 70's low to the current temp is a dramatic spike, (1) what caused the decrease in global temp from 50's to the 70's, during a time of great worldwide industrialisation, and (2) why did 90% of the global temp rise w/i the last 150 years occurred prior to 1950, when industrialisation was a fraction of what it has been during the last 3 decades?

The documentary's theory is based on a steady stream of cosmic rays which increase cloud cover, and the periodic and non-cyclical increases of solar rays, which reduce cloud cover and increase temperatures.  I know from my own studies, solar activity has is a lag affect on temperature, similar to the same lag which occurs daily and seasonally, but it is longer.  The documentary details the solar flare activity influences temperature change.  And while man-made C02 emission are a small fraction of all GHG, the theory believes C02 lags behind and follows temperature warming due to mass releases of the gas from warming sea surface temperature. 

This new article was found in the New York Times tonight
http://www.nytimes.c...

Being that most of us are not scientists, paleoclimatologists and the like, I like to think we should take on issues with an open-mind.  There is, afterall, no harm in this.  The government has already taken on all initiatives to advance technologies and renewable energy sources.  Now it is up to individual states to follow the lead and to allow techonology through time, and the free market to present viable implementation of non-fossil fuel generation sources. 

Floodguy, ExxonMobil spent at least $16 million to create a network of think tanks, websites, paid scientific spokespersons, etc. to spread stuff like this and "manufacture uncertainty."  I'm quoting the report of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air", which details the echo chamber that ExxonMobil built.

Right after this report, incidentally, ExxonMobil started cleaning up its act and cutting funding for these groups.  But their distortionist work remains all over the web. 

If you want to know the scientific truth, read the peer-reviewed, legitimate work of scientists, not some web documentary paid for by fossil fuel giants to bolster their bottom line.

Incidentally, you are completely wrong when you say "government has already taken on all initiatives to advance technologies and renewable energy sources."  The amount that the government has invested in renewables and energy efficiency is laughable compared to how much we put into supporting (and militarily defending) our fossil fuel infrastructure.

The first 10 minutes were a diatribe against man-made climate change and anyone that sees it that way.  Then we endure tedious, elaborate, and undocumented claims that solar activity, and cosmic particles have caused the current climate change.  That is old climate theory, soundly reputed by the wealth of empiric data that shows that; whatever the course, man is now actually effecting climate change with a huge infusion of CO2 into the atmosphere. We could debate where this is going to take us, but I elect to simply get our house in order. To that end, the debate is over, we reduce our CO2 and hope for the best. 

I'll study it more Bubby.

I kinda like the guy too.  Too bad about the (R) by his name.  It just that that "R" carries the stench of so many SOBs.