Only 13% of Republicans agreed that global warming has been proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans are actually getting more skeptical. How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of ...
04-28-2007, 06:29 PM
| #21 | ||||
| Mission Accomplished NOT!  Independent MN 
| Only 13% of Republicans agreed that global warming has been proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans are actually getting more skeptical. How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of them are. Leading global warming skeptic Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), for instance... The bottom line is that his relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand. But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs. The truth is more complicated — and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement. Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus. National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue. The thinking may have been led by a few, but they found many willing followers. I think the influence of business in the GOP, not just the energy industry, is a factor. The fear is that any policy to address global warming will require business to implement costly changes, or, in the case of unilateral action by the U.S., reduce competitiveness causing profit to fall. Thus the policies, and even the idea the global warming exists are resisted. With Libertarians joining them based on their general opposition to any government interference, opposition has become, as Jonathan notes, part of the party's core principles. Economist's View: Why Republicans are Skeptical about Global Warming Last edited by Roonie; 04-28-2007 at 06:42 PM. | ||||
     |
|
04-28-2007, 07:17 PM
| #22 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by Roonie Intelligence Squared U.S. Announces Panel for 'Global Warming Is Not a Crisis' Debate
Global warming is debated constantly, you just don't hear about it often in the media. You're spoon fed a one-sided story. The degree to which man plays in global warming is constantly debated. Counter opinion is just dismissed or demonized by the media. The global warming alarmists spread the propaganda that the issue isn't being debated and there is a strong consensus in the scientific community to the degree where anybody who dares to question an idea pertaining to global warming is equated to a Holocaust denier or some other absurd and vulgar slander.
__________________ No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid: As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks. Last edited by JaJae; 04-28-2007 at 07:31 PM. | ||||
| |
|
04-28-2007, 07:33 PM
| #23 | ||||
| TPS Member  Independent
| Global warming could disappear, or come full circle and bite the butt of the next White House occupant (almost certainly a democrat). It could hang like a Sword of Damacles over that newperson's spending programs. That's what it was supposed to do to George. We were not at war then. The only issue was tax cuts. The opposition party tried to use Kyoto to keep the cuts from happening. Or at least create bad press for George and reduce his popularity. Remember when George was actually popular? Before Iraq? Kyoto came up on George's watch, about 3 minutes after Bill split, or that's just the way it seams from this distance. Kyoto won't go follow George out the dooor. Can you name the democratic candidate that's farthest ahead in the global warming confidence poll? goldenponderbob | ||||
| |
|
04-28-2007, 07:38 PM
| #24 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Canada recently announced they would not comply with Kyoto. Very few nations are actually complying. It does hurt Bush, but I'd rather us not sign something we'd have no intention of actually following through on. The countries who attack us for not signing aren't meeting the requirements themselves. Al Gore recently called them frauds. And said their global warming data is meant to mislead the people. It is this kind of hypocrisy that hurts the global warming debate. | ||||
| |
|
04-28-2007, 08:26 PM
| #25 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative  Realist
| I don't understand something about the psychology of Republicans... On Iraq, they're willing to take a huge leap of faith on weapons of mass destruction...and even in the face of overwhelming evidence the wmds never existed, they still insist spending trillions and losing thousands of lives is warranted. Why? Because we can't afford to be wrong. Yet on the environment, they demand 110% proof, and even in the face of hundreds of scientists and evidence, they insist that even small measures to reduce emissions are unwarranted. Why? Because, ummm....I don't know...you'd think we also can't afford to be wrong about destroying the Earth less than we can about a dictator having a nuke.  | ||||
| |
|
04-28-2007, 08:50 PM
| #26 | ||||
| Junkie  Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by Roonie except there is new science every day that partially discredits that theory.
Public Affairs Office: Growing More Temperate-Region Forests Could Contribute to Global Warming Possible 8 degrees warming from the forests. So how big is man's part in the warming when even the alarmists arent predicting anything worse then 10 degrees. Originally Posted by JaJae and the best part is the US has one of the lowest increases in CO2. Most of Europe (outside of France) has much higher percentage increases.
Yet we are attacked for not signing the treaty. | ||||
| |
|
04-28-2007, 10:12 PM
| #27 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator  Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by Roonie That's quite a bit of scientific evidence for your position!
 Owait... I think you just proved my point that it's a political debate, not a scientific one. 
__________________ $$_/^_^\__*<}{~))}}""?  ????   ? //\\  **!!]" | ||||
| |
|
04-28-2007, 10:21 PM
| #28 | ||||
| Junkie Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo Finding an offensive bio weapons plant in 1995, finding long range drones in 1998, finding long range rockets in 2003. What huge leap of faith ?
| ||||
| |
|
04-28-2007, 10:25 PM
| #29 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Scientifically, CO2 statistically has a very loose correlation with the earth's climate/temperatures because scientifically it is a very minor greenhouse gas and most scientist agree it plays a very limited role in overall temperature of the earth in comparison to other greenhouse gases. The effects CO2 has on global warming is strongly debated. Basically all scientists agree CO2 has some effect, some believe the effect is so minor it's almost negligible in comparison to the sun and water vapor, some believe it has a moderate effect and others believe it's the smoking gun. The science is debated, but one thing that is certain is this has been politically motivated and run from the start, it is why politicians write what the public reads from the IPCC report. Conservatives argue CO2 is a means for liberals to attack big business/industry and liberals argue that conservatives are just trying to defend big business/industry. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle, but the media only gives us one side of the story. Most of the propaganda the public hears regarding global warming is from the global warming alarmist side and it is the side that dominates our media and our culture. Last edited by JaJae; 04-29-2007 at 03:03 AM. | ||||
| |
|
04-29-2007, 03:08 AM
| #30 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 The leap of faith I'm referring to is that if we don't invade Saddam immediately, (1) he has enough WMD capability to pose a serious threat to us, (2) he's willing to hand off that capability to Al Queda, (3) we need to invade him because because he poses an imminent danger and (4) war is the only choice because other methods won't contain the supposed danger.
The above was highly arguable, but despite that doubt, Republicans insisted we must spend blood and treasure because we can't err on the side of a mushroom cloud. Well, global warming is also highly arguable (apparently), but Republicans seem to insist we err on the side of ruining the environment. Doesn't really make sense to me. | ||||
| |
|
04-29-2007, 07:04 AM
| #31 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo I reckon the majority of the laity in the world don't really understand why we shouldn't be doing anything about global warming. It's important that we don't do it, not only because of how economically detrimental it is to us, but because of how economically detrimental it is to the countries that are less well off.
Your comparison is downright ridiculous once you actually acknowledge that spending money on preventing AGW doesn't just affect us and the countries from whom we get our energy. It also affects the two billion people on the planet that can't yet afford to import a high volume of energy. While, to the proponents of AGW, that might not be so bad because it essentially prevents "Big Oil" from getting new customers, to the rest of the world, specifically those that are unable to afford the energy at a premium, it only antiquates them that much more. The Iraq issue, on the other hand, only directly affects us and Iraq. The comparison is enough to make a utilitarian puke. | ||||
| |
|
04-29-2007, 08:24 AM
| #32 | ||||
| Junkie  Liberal
| Originally Posted by Stylerod MIGHT?!
So you're admitting that the alarmists MIGHT be right, and you STILL ridicule them? Conservatives used to be cautious and pragmatic. Not anymore, it seems. Conservatives used to be in favor of people taking personal responsibility for their behavior. No more, it seems. More scientists say the problem DOES have something to do with us. Many more than say that it doesn't. You should know that. Originally Posted by Stylerod Climate experts who think that AGW is not happening are on the fringe, in the minority. Much like the flat earth society.
Only a tiny, tiny fraction of scientists, scientific acadamies, governments, private businesses, corporations,... organizations of ANY TYPE that have issued statements of opinion on AGW state that AGW is not happening. Sure, just because the majority of scientists have reached a consensus, doesn't mean that they're automatically right. But, we're back to the AGW deniers all thinking that they're the new Galileo, and the vast majority of scientists are either stupid or politically biased. | ||||
| |
|
04-29-2007, 08:37 AM
| #33 | ||||
| Junkie Liberal
| Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby IMHO, this is an awful post. You're faking concern for those poor people.
Tell me, what if we let the energy companies put in pipelines and wires and everything to those poor people in those poor countries, and then those areas were flooded because of the effects of AGW? The energy connections become useless. Those people you seem so concerned about will either die or become refugees. The refugees will put stress on the countries that they move to, making resources scarce. Besides, many energy companies in the US and around the world already agree that AGW is happening, and that we should take active steps to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions. I suppose they don't "understand" either. | ||||
| |
|
04-29-2007, 08:47 AM
| #34 | ||||
| Junkie Liberal
| Why is global warming a partisan issue? Because traditionally Republicans dislike government regulations of any sort (unless it legislates morality). Also, many religious conservatives believe that the planet was given to us by God to use to its fullest extent. The primary reason though, is that environmental causes have most often been identified with Democrats and liberals, and these so-called conservatives would rather cut off their arms than be seen agreeing with a liberal, an enviromentalist, a hippie, or Al Gore - scientific consensus be damned. Last edited by thatguyoverthere; 04-29-2007 at 08:52 AM. | ||||
| |
|
04-30-2007, 12:07 AM
| #35 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby The Iraq war only affects the US and Iraq, huh?
 | ||||
| |
|
04-30-2007, 12:19 AM
| #36 | ||||
| Baka  Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| It is a partisan issue because the actions needed to counter human-driven GW are somewhat partisan. The interesting thing is that a lot of non-controversial sceince is accepted on a lot less evidence. Right now, there is more evidence (that has been acceptably reviewed) in favour of human driven GW, and as someone without enough technical knowledge on the subject I defer to that position. I'm not sure how much impact we can have without destroying the economy though, and it is debatable which action will be worse. | ||||
| |
|
04-30-2007, 06:57 AM
| #37 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo Those who may be stricken with the e-syndrome known as "selective reading" might have missed this the first time, so I'll go ahead and emphasize my statement again: The war between the United States and Iraq doesn't DIRECTLY affect anyone except us and Iraq.
| ||||
| |
|
04-30-2007, 11:49 AM
| #38 | ||||
| Never, never, never give up  Conservative Party High Point, NC
|
Way to prove my point.