[Zwischenzug]

Hi. I rarely post but there is a question that has confused me for a while. Why do the political right oppose/deny global warming so much? If there were non-government solution to these problems, would there be more acceptance among the right?

[Rainbow Crow]

You shouldn't really expect a reasonable response on this from American conservatives. They've been convinced that just about anyone with an education is their enemy and is taking part in a conspiracy to help dangerous minorities at their expense, and that global warming is a part of this.

[Social_Critic]

I'm not an American conservative, but I think the seminal idea is that global warming does happen - there's little doubt it's taking place. Some of them question whether we, homo sapiens carbonensis, are the main driver, or if the main drivers are longer cycles associated with solar activity or gerbil droppings.

Some, on the other hand, think it's happening, we are the cause, but there's no need to panic, and the cost/benefit ratio of the CO2 reduction solutions being proposed, especially by the Europeans, is way too low to justify the cost. This is more so if we factor the fact that China and India aren't about to stop growing their economies.

Thus we see a fairly sound basis for some opposition to measures taken by the EU and other tree huggers to stop CO2 emissions, but then we got the yahoo factor, the basic science is smothered by the political bias, and next thing you know we got these right wingers ridiculing everything and saying the world isn't even getting warmer, something any self respecting polar bear will tell you is a bunch of doo.

If you want my educated guess, global warming is taking place, we are causing some of it, and we are wasting a lot of resources trying to reduce carbon emissions when we should be focusing on more important matters. Unless somebody shows me otherwise, I say we would do better spending money on contraception, women's education, and soap operas advocating small families, than we do buying solar panels in Germany, which are one of the dumbest ideas I ever saw.

[Rich]

Sorry I'm confused, I thought Greens wanted to see increased levels of greenhouse emissions. Why else would they push for taxes and quotas for Western countries? Clearly this will push more industry and mining to China and India which have a much higher level of green house gas emissions per unit of out put than the west. Its like why did the Germans push to close down their nuclear power? Presumably its because they like to live dangerously, by closing down their own nuclear plants and importing electricity from their far less safe Eastern European neighbour's nuclear power industries.

[Xbow]

You shouldn't really expect a reasonable response on this from American conservatives. They've been convinced that just about anyone with an education is their enemy and is taking part in a conspiracy to help dangerous minorities at their expense, and that global warming is a part of this.

Wow! What a surprise, another auto generated spray of self aggrandizing liberal bullshit.

If you want my educated guess, global warming is taking place, we are causing some of it, and we are wasting a lot of resources trying to reduce carbon emissions when we should be focusing on more important matters. Unless somebody shows me otherwise, I say we would do better spending money on contraception, women's education, and soap operas advocating small families, than we do buying solar panels in Germany, which are one of the dumbest ideas I ever saw.

I agree but don't expect a rational debate from the likes of Blue Puppy on the subject of Global Warming. For him and his kind the notion of an anthropomorphic cause of global warming is a religion.

[tofu2011]

Hi. I rarely post but there is a question that has confused me for a while. Why do the political right oppose/deny global warming so much? If there were non-government solution to these problems, would there be more acceptance among the right?

I don't know how you can oppose global warming, and no one seriously denies that the earth's climate changes over time. The right's position, at least when it is best articulated is that we should adapt to climate change and avoid conning the public into changing their lifestyles and/or increasing their taxes for something that is clearly inevitable.

[Kman]

Hi. I rarely post but there is a question that has confused me for a while. Why do the political right oppose/deny global warming so much?

Probably because right-wingers are generally more intelligent than people who thinks government is just great.

I also oppose global warming because I dont think you should act on theories that are not proven.

If there were non-government solution to these problems, would there be more acceptance among the right?

Yes I would find that far less egregious, I dont have a problem with less intelligent people spending their money on foolish things, they earned it after all, what greatly provokes me is when they start using the government and force for their crazy schemes.

[Social_Critic]

Xbow, I think that's anthropogenic. I learned the word from one of our Environmental types when I found out we had to do a report about our CO2 emissions to be delivered to the European Union blankety blank office of Global Warming or whatever they called it. Imagine that, we had a couple of Venezuelans figuring out how much fuel we burned so we could figure out the emissions to send to some bureaucrat in Europe, who would do exactly nothing with it.

[itsallgoodnow7]

As a conservative, I can tell you I absolutely believe in climate change. What I don't believe is that man is the reason for the changes. Over thousands and millions of years, the climate on earth has made dramatic swings, all without human beings. It continues to do so in spite of what we do or don't do. So yes, we should be good stewards of nature, but no, we should not waste billions of dollars on things we cannot control.

Further, the far left has used global warming , I mean "climate change", to push their socialist agenda. That frankly pisses me off more than anything else. Honest discussion is healthy so let's stick to that.

[Social_Critic]

Well, I think there's no doubt that driving CO2 into the atmosphere heats it up. I can't debate what fraction of the overall warming is caused by CO2 emissions and what fraction is attributable to other causes. But we do drive some of the warming trend.

I don't see a "socialist" agenda in the drive to control CO2 emissions. I'm a US citizen, but I don't live in the US, and I must say you newbie right wing types are somewhat misled. I used to vote Republican, and decided to switch to Democrat when I realized the party was being driven so hard by a Murdoch-Fox News agenda, which seemed to me more nazi than I could stomach. So if I may say, you're likely no conservative at all - at best you are a neo-con who has been misled by Fox News and Liberty Radio, which spew the most comprehensive and Orwellian mistruths I have ever seen.

[tofu2011]

Well, I think there's no doubt that driving CO2 into the atmosphere heats it up. I can't debate what fraction of the overall warming is caused by CO2 emissions and what fraction is attributable to other causes. But we do drive some of the warming trend.

I don't see a "socialist" agenda in the drive to control CO2 emissions. I'm a US citizen, but I don't live in the US, and I must say you newbie right wing types are somewhat misled. I used to vote Republican, and decided to switch to Democrat when I realized the party was being driven so hard by a Murdoch-Fox News agenda, which seemed to me more nazi than I could stomach. So if I may say, you're likely no conservative at all - at best you are a neo-con who has been misled by Fox News and Liberty Radio, which spew the most comprehensive and Orwellian mistruths I have ever seen.

You switched to Democract because of media bias?

[Fraqtive42]

Further, the far left has used global warming , I mean "climate change", to push their socialist agenda. That frankly pisses me off more than anything else. Honest discussion is healthy so let's stick to that.

Modern Liberals are by no means constituents of the "far-left", which has historically been used to refer to ideologies that view private property as illegitimate and/or undesirable. Modern Liberalism is a characteristically individualist philosophy (inasmuch as it values property, independence, and personal responsibility over interdependence and communal responsibility as well as favoring atomic theories of the state over organic ones), thus the possibility of it being a collectivist 'socialist' ideology is automatically ruled out. This is especially true since a characteristic property of socialism is the elimination of surplus in favor of a worker being paid the full value of his labour, achieved by the collective ownership of the workforce. This property isn't shared by Liberals. Maybe you should learn what "far-left" and "socialist" actually mean before you go and mischaracterize Modern Liberalism as "extremist". Modern Liberalism is a centre to centre-left ideology.

Frankly, your use of libertarian Newspeak pisses me off more than anything else.

[Kman]

Modern Liberals are by no means constituents of the "far-left", which has historically been used to refer to ideologies that view private property as illegitimate and/or undesirable.

No they are socialists who realized that full socialism doesnt work so they settled for the quasi fascist third way economic model of heavy taxation on the private sector.

Modern Liberalism is a characteristically individualist philosophy

And I am Donald Duck, they are not individualist, they support all kinds of idiotic government intervention like the drug war and heavy economic central planning in the form of socialized healthcare and socialized education, then you also have their fondness of regulations in general to control the ''chaotic and dangerous'' free market.

(inasmuch as it values property, independence, and personal responsibility over interdependence and communal responsibility as well as favoring atomic theories of the state over organic ones)

They dont favor property or independence nor personal responsibility, socialized healthcare and their various other welfare schemes reduces the incentive to display personal responsibility.

This is especially true since a characteristic property of socialism is the elimination of surplus in favor of a worker being paid the full value of his labour, achieved by the collective ownership of the workforce. This property isn't shared by Liberals.

Yes it is, you just dont support outright appropriation of rich people's property, instead you want to use the government to steal from rich people and give to poor people. You people do believe that poor people get cheated in a free market system, that is why you support progressive taxation.

Frankly, your use of libertarian Newspeak pisses me off more than anything else.

Being accused of Newsspeak by progressives is so ironic, you people have been distorting the meaning of words for ages, it is you people who stole the word liberal and changed it into meaning a social-democrat or quasi-socialist when originally it meant someone who believed in LIBERty hence the word LIBERal.
You people dont believe in liberty, you believe in heavy government control over the individuals ability to spend his own money, it is nanny statism and authoritarianism.

[Fraqtive42]

Disclaimer: I am not a liberal.

No they are socialists who realized that full socialism doesnt work so they settled for the quasi fascist third way economic model of heavy taxation on the private sector.

What makes you think that they considered "full socialism" in the first place?

And I am Donald Duck, they are not individualist, they support all kinds of idiotic government intervention like the drug war and heavy economic central planning in the form of socialized healthcare and socialized education, then you also have their fondness of regulations in general to control the ''chaotic and dangerous'' free market.

They dont favor property or independence nor personal responsibility, socialized healthcare and their various other welfare schemes reduces the incentive to display personal responsibility.

The are individualist inasmuch as they view the individual having moral primacy over any collective entity. If not then they are not liberals. The third way actually does value personal responsibility, the question is how much they value personal responsibility, which tends to be what Classical Liberals and Social-Liberals disagree on.

Yes it is, you just dont support outright appropriation of rich people's property, instead you want to use the government to steal from rich people and give to poor people. You people do believe that poor people get cheated in a free market system, that is why you support progressive taxation.

No it's not true, because if it was the bourgeoisie wouldn't exist at all.

Being accused of Newsspeak by progressives is so ironic, you people have been distorting the meaning of words for ages, it is you people who stole the word liberal and changed it into meaning a social-democrat or quasi-socialist when originally it meant someone who believed in LIBERty hence the word LIBERal.
You people dont believe in liberty, you believe in heavy government control over the individuals ability to spend his own money, it is nanny statism and authoritarianism.

I haven't distorted the meanings of any words, and I try pretty hard not to simply use 'Liberal' to refer to the left-wing form, as this would be insensitive. I do try to use "Modern Liberal" or "Social-Liberal" instead. There is also a distinction between Social-Democracy and Modern Liberalism because Social Democrats are in favor of corporatist economic models, which usually compromises the individualist ideological roots. The origins are also different, considering that Social-Democracy has Marxist origins whilst Modern Liberalism has Liberal origins. Ideologies grow and change.

[Genghis Khan]

I also oppose global warming because I dont think you should act on theories that are not proven.

Except when we're talking about religion, right?

[Kman]

Except when we're talking about religion, right?

I dont believe in any religious books so I dont know what your talking about really.

[Churchills Legacy1]

There are a few reasons a lot conservatives do not believe in global warming.
1) The guys who are the loudest voices for changing lifestyle to prevent "Global warming" are not themselves setting the example. Obama has not cut back on his travel, driven more than flying, or moved into a smaller more austere residence. Al Gore lives in a large home, flies on private aircraft, and rides around in SUVs, the very things he says he opposes. What Gore does do is making millions selling bogus carbon credits to people who have bought into this fiction.
2) There were a number of ice ages before man lived on the earth. In order for this to happen, the climate would have to cool and then warm. The earth was also a giant ball of fire at one time and was hit by an object that created the moon. These things have happened throughout the planet's history and continue to happen to this day. It was not SUVs or factories that caused the earth to warm in those days.
3) We are basing these conclusions on a little over 100 years of data about a planet that is 4,000,000,000 years old. This is like viewing an 80 year old man walking by your front door for one second and thinking you can determine everything about his life.
4) There are numerous instances of problems collecting the data we do have, including improperly placed and covered thermometers (there are certain standards these specialized thermometers must meet to avoid incorrect readings such as being in the shade rather than direct sun, being a certain distance from cities which generate heat, etc). Pictures of these improperly positioned thermometers are available online. Just recently, several e-mails were uncovered in which certain researchers admitted to burying data that did not support the theory of global warming.
5) There are plenty of meteorologists and scientists who do not agree with the hypothesis, it is not a consensus.
6) Plants absorb CO2 for photosynthesis and expel oxygen. If you increase the CO2 in the air, it is good for plant life, more plant life means more oxygen. This is one of the reasons we do not run out of air with 6 billion people breathing, the same rules apply to man-made exhaust.
7) The solution for global warming is inevitably more government in your life. It is always more money for US taxpayers and we never demand other countries like China clean up their act as a condition of doing business with us. A legitimate case can be made that the Green Movement is an anti-capitalism, anti-US movement.
Conservatives are suspicious of anything that gives the State more power over the individual and many of us see Global warming as a scare tactic/lever into our private lives and freedom. Adolf Hitler used environmentalism as a cover for some of his intrusions into the lives of Germans.

[Pants-of-dog]

I also oppose global warming because I dont think you should act on theories that are not proven.

You do realise that no scientific theories have ever been proven, right?

And you also realise that Austrian economics is also unproven?

-------------

There are a few reasons a lot conservatives do not believe in global warming.
1) The guys who are the loudest voices for changing lifestyle to prevent "Global warming" are not themselves setting the example. Obama has not cut back on his travel, driven more than flying, or moved into a smaller more austere residence. Al Gore lives in a large home, flies on private aircraft, and rides around in SUVs, the very things he says he opposes. What Gore does do is making millions selling bogus carbon credits to people who have bought into this fiction.

Al Gore's hypocrisy has nothing to do with the truth value of his statements. If he said 2+2=4, would you say he was wrong because he is a hypocrite?

2) There were a number of ice ages before man lived on the earth. In order for this to happen, the climate would have to cool and then warm. The earth was also a giant ball of fire at one time and was hit by an object that created the moon. These things have happened throughout the planet's history and continue to happen to this day. It was not SUVs or factories that caused the earth to warm in those days.

The fact that natural factors can cause climate change does not somehow invalidate the fact that humans can also cause climate change.

3) We are basing these conclusions on a little over 100 years of data about a planet that is 4,000,000,000 years old. This is like viewing an 80 year old man walking by your front door for one second and thinking you can determine everything about his life.

No. We have a whole planet's worth of evidence about the climates of the past millenia.

4) There are numerous instances of problems collecting the data we do have, including improperly placed and covered thermometers (there are certain standards these specialized thermometers must meet to avoid incorrect readings such as being in the shade rather than direct sun, being a certain distance from cities which generate heat, etc). Pictures of these improperly positioned thermometers are available online. Just recently, several e-mails were uncovered in which certain researchers admitted to burying data that did not support the theory of global warming.

Please provide evidence for these claims. Thank you.

5) There are plenty of meteorologists and scientists who do not agree with the hypothesis, it is not a consensus.

The vast majority of climatologists agree with the theory. (It is not a hypothesis, by the way.)

6) Plants absorb CO2 for photosynthesis and expel oxygen. If you increase the CO2 in the air, it is good for plant life, more plant life means more oxygen. This is one of the reasons we do not run out of air with 6 billion people breathing, the same rules apply to man-made exhaust.

Plants need water too. Would tidal waves that destroy whole cities then be good for us because they give plants more water?

7) The solution for global warming is inevitably more government in your life. It is always more money for US taxpayers and we never demand other countries like China clean up their act as a condition of doing business with us. A legitimate case can be made that the Green Movement is an anti-capitalism, anti-US movement.

Not really. If free marketeers can't figure out how to make money on the fact that humans are causing climate change, why is that the fault of environmentalists?

Conservatives are suspicious of anything that gives the State more power over the individual and many of us see Global warming as a scare tactic/lever into our private lives and freedom. Adolf Hitler used environmentalism as a cover for some of his intrusions into the lives of Germans.

So, we should not act in an environmentally responsible manner because conservatives are scared? Maybe conservatives should simply stop being scared that environmentalists are actually a Nazi conspiracy.

[DBM]

There are a few reasons a lot conservatives do not believe in global warming.
1) The guys who are the loudest voices for changing lifestyle to prevent "Global warming" are not themselves setting the example. Obama has not cut back on his travel, driven more than flying, or moved into a smaller more austere residence. Al Gore lives in a large home, flies on private aircraft, and rides around in SUVs, the very things he says he opposes. What Gore does do is making millions selling bogus carbon credits to people who have bought into this fiction.

If a heroin addict tells you not to use heroin, his hypocrisy doesn't make him wrong.

2) There were a number of ice ages before man lived on the earth. In order for this to happen, the climate would have to cool and then warm. The earth was also a giant ball of fire at one time and was hit by an object that created the moon. These things have happened throughout the planet's history and continue to happen to this day. It was not SUVs or factories that caused the earth to warm in those days.

This argument is so unscientific its painful. The earths climate is a complex narrative of subplots if you will. The existence of an overarching narrative(e.g. that the earth goes through natural processes or was once a ball of fire) has absolutely NO bearing on whether a parallel "story arc" is true. Lots of things happen at once. Not to mention that people act like the scientists dont take this stuff into account when in fact these things have been known for hundreds of years This argument is completely invalid. I love it when people trot out shit they read in their fucking 9 year old's science textbook as if the scientists who delicate their lives to this narrow and intensive study somehow forgot that there have been ice ages.

3) We are basing these conclusions on a little over 100 years of data about a planet that is 4,000,000,000 years old. This is like viewing an 80 year old man walking by your front door for one second and thinking you can determine everything about his life.

And again, your ignorance of science is made obvious. We've never watched a monkey "turn into a man" either, but we know from empirical evidence that they are related and that it happened through time. This argument is invalid unless you want to disregard the ENORMOUS volumes of science which are based on cumulative observation of related empirical data instead of direct observation.

4) There are numerous instances of problems collecting the data we do have, including improperly placed and covered thermometers (there are certain standards these specialized thermometers must meet to avoid incorrect readings such as being in the shade rather than direct sun, being a certain distance from cities which generate heat, etc). Pictures of these improperly positioned thermometers are available online. Just recently, several e-mails were uncovered in which certain researchers admitted to burying data that did not support the theory of global warming.

I saw a picture of a horse with 8 dicks and a rainbow mane on the internet one time too!

5) There are plenty of meteorologists and scientists who do not agree with the hypothesis, it is not a consensus.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full#

This is considered a consensus.

6) Plants absorb CO2 for photosynthesis and expel oxygen. If you increase the CO2 in the air, it is good for plant life, more plant life means more oxygen. This is one of the reasons we do not run out of air with 6 billion people breathing, the same rules apply to man-made exhaust.

HOLD THE PHONE!! You need to call the IPCC right now and let them know that PLANTS USE C02!!! THIS SHIT IS GROUNDBREAKING!!! WE'RE GOING TO LIVE!!!

Conservatives are suspicious of anything that gives the State more power over the individual and many of us see Global warming as a scare tactic/lever into our private lives and freedom. Adolf Hitler used environmentalism as a cover for some of his intrusions into the lives of Germans.

Aaaaaannnnnndddddddd there it is.......the inevitable Hilter comparison that is the cherry atop the typical ignorant regurgitated American conservative shit sundae.

Is this guy a troll or is he serious? Im new here so.....

[Social_Critic]

Hey pants, since evolution is now proven....what's left is how and why it happens, right? The theory is the how and why, evolution itself is a fact.

So global warming in the last 19000 years is a fact, now we get to argue why and how?