Why do conservatives deny Global Warming?

[_Bond...James Bond]

Why do conservatives fundamentally take the position that Global Warming is false and/or something blown completely outta porportion?

[_Moniker]

Not all conservatives deny global warming. Some deny it 'cause they are led to believe that it is the fringe wackos that like to attack whalers or burn down shopping malls that are a part of a eco movement. There are caricatures painted that are supposed to be aligned with the global warming data and the propaganda is effective for some people. Gore is hated by many and he is held up as the poster boy and of course anything Gore supports must be outside mainstream and fringe.

There are monetary motivations to denying it -- which is why the Kyoto Treaty became an issue, as well. There is no doubt that some people will suffer financially if we faced some of the detrimental effects that certain industries have on the environment and put into legislation changes that these industries must comply with. Yet, I think at this point it really goes beyond that. It's part of the us v. them strategy at this point for just the normal folks that don't interpret the data or care to familiarize themselves with it -- it must be denied by some for it's a lefty conspiracy to strip autonomy away from individuals.

Global warming is linked to any eco friendly movements -- even those that truly are fringe and you get knee jerk reactions.

[_Canucklehead]

Some deny it 'cause they are led to believe that it is the fringe wackos that like to attack whalers or burn down shopping malls that are a part of a eco movement.

Kind of off-topic (hey, this is the off-topic forum!!), but I never realised how important some of those "fringe wackos that like to attack whalers" are until fairly recently. I highly recommend the documentary "Shark Water" for anyone interested in the following issue:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7413948.stm

Check out Shark Water's trailer here.

[_Droopy]

Why do conservatives fundamentally take the position that Global Warming is false and/or something blown completely outta porportion?

No conservative of which I'm aware believes that Global Warming is false. Many conservatives, and Libertarians, deny that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, or occurring in any but a trivial manner, and that CO2 is anything but a very minor contributing factor to the modest warming that has occurred over the last century (if not tiny, by the standards of geologic time).

AGW is also clearly understood as an ideology and a form of politics by other means by very interested power seeking entities, which is reason enough to oppose the idea. Happily, AGW has virtually no empirical support, and so the debate now is pretty much where it has been for the last ten to fifteen years: utopian collectivists seeking the destruction of capitalism, property rights, and deliberative democracy against the classical liberal tradition.

P.S. Global warming, to the extent it was ever actually global (which it never was), ceased upwards of ten years ago, and the globe is in the midst of a major cooling. Whether this is a new phase or a small climatological blip, remains to be seen, but after a decade, we should be moving on and letting the ideologues fume and plot the next environmental crises from which Socialism can save us.

[_Droopy]

Gore is hated by many and he is held up as the poster boy and of course anything Gore supports must be outside mainstream and fringe.

This is, or course, true. Gore is a very dangerous, anti-intellectual populist fanatic who deals in fear, hysteria, and slander of those who disagree with him.

There are monetary motivations to denying it -- which is why the Kyoto Treaty became an issue.

Exactly. The provisions of Kyoto are widely understood, including by many within the IPCC itself, to be virtually worthless as means to lower temperatures over the next century. They would, however, severely degrade the economies and living standards of the industrial west, while guaranteeing the Third World the permanent continuance of its grinding poverty (the only way, Moniker, out of poverty, is economic development).

There is no doubt that some people will suffer financially if we faced some of the detrimental effects that certain industries have on the environment and put into legislation changes that these industries must comply with.

Yes, and if you know anything about the carbon caps and carbon limitations goals of Kyoto, you know that what theses would to is essentially wreck the economies of the west (I use "wreck" not in an absolute senes but in a relative one, because we are speaking of steep declines in living standards). It would not be "some people" but all of us who will no longer be able to heat our homes in the winter or cool it in the summer without worrying about other basic needs let alone any concept of "prosperity". The present world food crisis, brought about by the insane corn based biofuel mandate, (and in this country, exacerbated by an completely artificial fuel shortage), is only the beginning. The economic recession mandated by Kyoto would impose declines in living standards far more severe than this.

Global warming is linked to any eco friendly movements -- even those that truly are fringe and you get knee jerk reactions.

The entire ideology is linked to the environmental movement, much of which has nothing to do with the environment, and the rest being a form of militant fundamentalist Pantheism as hostile to western values as the more secular Neo-Marxist elements.

The environmental movement isn't really friendly to the environment (as the continual burning down of our national forests clearly shows), but it is the most profoundly anti-human movement in modern history, even beyond Socialism per se.

[_Droopy]

The Oregon Petition just announced that it now has 31,072 signers, from numerous earth sciences and related disciplines, including eminent theoretical Physicist Freeman Dyson.

http://www.petitionproject.org

It seems that the body of "deniers" gets larger, and more distinguished, all the time.

And then there are those who watch CNN...

[_RockHeaded]

I am a conservative and I support global warming, unfortunately I haven't seen it yet! Gore pisses me off because he said it was happening. Do you realize that it snowed yesterday! IT'S JUNE!

The liberals should realize when talking about global warming, if you are going to preach something you'd better be practicing it. Flying around in your private jet, driving SUV's and using more energy than a small community doesn't convince us morons of the urgency to your plite.

Here's another thing that the liberals need to think about. From the way I see it the places that have the most liberals are the places with the most CO2 output (hhmm) not to mention they are the dirtiest places in the country. Out here were the ignorant conservatives are it's pretty clean. We take care of the environment (even though urban legend has it that we aren't much for the environment).

Seriously, the cleaning up of the environment, using less energy, finding better alternatives for energy, this is something that everyone is for. It's not just a liberal issue. We all want it. It isn't all about global warming, which is still debatable. It's about leaving a better world for the future.

None if this matter of course because the world will end in 2012.

RockHeaded

[_Mercury]

because its something false and blown out of proportion.

[_The Nehor]

If Global Warming is real in the way Gore says then both political sides are wrong. The Conservatives for blowing it off and the Liberals for demeaning it by suggesting that the minor inconvenience of buying certain cars, recycling, and buying certain products will help prevent it. If it is real, it's going to be more then inconvenient. It will involve massive lifestyle shifts.

[Guest]

Global warming denialism is more common on the right principly for the same reasons that denying cigarettes were addictive was more common on the right. The funding for and cultural dissemination of global warming denialist material came from industry backed sources that hold more sway within conservative circles. In other words, it was to the advantage of certain business interests to promote skepticism of global warming and those business interests held more sway among conservatives. On a secondary point, conservativism has an element that is opposed to what is seen as the excesses of environmentalism, which tradtionally comes from the left. This leads to a point counterpoint between environmentalists and anti-environmentalists - left vs. right. Broadly speaking, the environmentalists were right on this issue and reflexive skepticism of them happened to put you on the wrong side of the issue. Likewise, an odd equation of "natural" with "good" found among the enviro crowd and skepticism of "big business" has lead to elements of the left being irrationally opposed to things like vaccination programs.