[I started this in IMHO because I’m really not looking to start a debate, I genuinely don’t understand; if this turns into a debate, mods feel free to move it to GD.]
Why is it that belief in global warming seems to fall along liberal vs. conservative lines? Most liberals say it’s a fact, most conservatives say it’s a crock. I really just don’t get why it should break down like that. I would think that it would depend on whether one believes that the science that points to global warming is sound or not. Am I just hopelessly out of touch to think that belief in science is not a liberal vs. conservative issue?
I can’t believe that both sides are looking at the science and arriving at their opposite conclusions objectively. So one side, or both, must have some purely political reasons for their stance, but I just don’t get what those reasons could be. Can anyone enlighten me?
I don’t think you’ll find that most conservatives think global warming is a crock.
I think you’ll find that a lot of them think the apocalyptic predictions are a tad exaggerated or overblown, or that the problem is not as serious as others believe it to be. IME, the people who think it’s a complete crock are a rather vocal minority.
I have no idea what most conservatives believe about global warming. Global warming is a global issue, do you mean conservatives around the globe, or just in the United States?
I’m a conservative and here is what I do believe:
I believe global warming is happening
I believe in anthropogenic global warming (i.e. caused by man.)
Where I disagree with a lot of others is:
-I don’t buy into the idea one bit that the Earth is on its way to becoming the next Venus
-I don’t buy into the idea that we’re facing a global holocaust because of global warming
-I don’t buy into the exact figures for warming that alarmists cling to most closely. I tend to put more trust in the satellite temperatures than I do the ones recording on Earth ground stations where the “urban heat island” effect can skew the data.
So basically I agree that it’s happening, I also agree that we are at the least, contributing to it. I don’t know if we’re causing it, and I don’t think science has shown that we are the sole cause of the warming the globe has seen. I speculate it is possible that we are, but I think it’s equally possible that it is partly natural and partly exacerbated by the things we do.
I agree it is a problem, but I do not feel it is the greatest problem facing mankind. I do not feel that it is a looming apocalypse whatsoever. Should something be done about it? Yep, of course it should. Kyoto isn’t it, though. Kyoto was a disastrous framework and I support the United States Senate’s refusal to sign onto it. Until we bring India and China on board we have to recognize we’ll have no real ability to control human greenhouse gas emissions. China and India collectively will comprise the majority of those emissions in the lifetimes of most persons on this forum (i.e. people under the age of 60.)
I support the United States unilaterally reducing its emissions, what I don’t support is is hamstringing ourselves with a treaty like Kyoto. The U.S. can make a statement and assume a leadership role in dealing with this problem by internally reducing our emissions–we don’t need any treaty to pass regulations within our own country.
I think this is because the whole “global warming” thing is tied in with our guilt about our wasteful lifestyles, our exploitation of natural resources, and our dependence on foreign oil. Conservatives tend to reject that guilt. It’s not so much that they’re denying the science – they’re denying the whole “abstain, you sinners” mindset that seems to go with it.
I can understand this. Anyone who proposes artificial methods for ameliorating global warming is ridiculed by the alarmists, who feel that the only solution is to
change our ways and “go green.” Conservatives don’t like to be told that they have to change.
Personally, I think it’s too late for us to “do anything” about global warming; we should start focusing on coping with the consequences.
The problem Marty, is if you’re wrong we are fucked. If the other guys are wrong, worse case scenario we have a healthier planet to live on for a long time.
Ohhh and as to the OP, I think many conservatives believe god gave them the earth to exploit and by god that’s just what they are going to do. Besides anything those godless commie librul pinko bastard tax and spend treehuggers believe, must be wrong.
Stopping global warming would put an economic burden on a lot of corporations. These corporations would generally prefer to avoid this. Conservatives tend to be more favorable to corporate interests than liberals are.
Actually, AGW is just one of many symptoms of an overpopulation of humans. Find a way of solving that problem, then AWG is solvable and maybe reversible. The question should be “Is overpopulation a conservative or liberal concern?” Hmm…both.
The biggest advocates of global warming (or at least the most public) tend to be the most liberal. So already conservatives view their message with suspicion. When said advocates do stuff that seem to contradict their message (for example, a recent global warming conference was chock full of attendees, the MAJORITY of whom came on private jets), they pounce on it as a sign of hypocrisy. If they’re not practicing what they’re preaching, the reasoning goes, they’re only advancing the cause as part of a power grab, or as an excuse to advance a liberal agenda (often including what conservatives see as economic stifling, or socialistic in nature).
IOW, conservatives may not believe in global warming (or warming as bad as some say), but they’re not even sure global warming advocates really believe in it either!
Hrm - I seem to have misread the link. Or at least the source puts a spin on it that may or may not be accurate. Damn me for not following it first. But still, I think my original theory still stands; I didn’t say the accusations of hypocrisy had to be accurate.
(Still, how does a global warming advocate balance message with personal life? It’s an interesting question for the high-profile types. Are they not communicating what they’re advocating well enough? Or does the fault lie in conservatives who just assume that liberals are saying everyone needs to live like Ed Begley Jr.?)
I agree with Leaper that a big part of the problem is that the conservatives don’t believe the messengers. If “An Inconvenient Truth” had starred a prominent conservative, it would be much easier for conservatives to believe and go along. I also agree that there is a lot of doomsaying on the part of many environmentalists, and while my personal view is that climate change is real and caused by human actions, I don’t buy the immediate catastrophe scenarios that many people proclaim. I also think that the environmental community has very little understanding of the immensity of changing the world’s energy system (actually, I don’t think many of us really understand what that will entail). It’s going to be a lot more difficult than putting a few solar panels and wind turbines up and trading locally.
I also think that the response to climate change is a very hard sell for conservatives because it involves a lot of mandated (read government regulated) changes in how we live our individual lives. It will likely require significant taxes or at least emissions caps, both of which are going to require government intervention. That’s something that is completely in opposition to fundamental conservative beliefs.
Finally, because global climate change is indeed global, that means that there will have to be a global response, which means a lot more global interaction at the government level. Conservatives tend to be strongly opposed to international agreements that are seen as taking away national autonomy.
There are major technical challenges to dealing with climate change, but I think they pale in comparison to the social and political challenges.
Liberals just can’t stand that the fact that Americans are so damn “Free”.
We are free to drive our own cars (liberals want us on buses or trains).
We are free to spend our money on what we want (liberals have much better ways to spend our money and would like to raise taxes to pay for their “programs”).
We are free to start our own businesses and make lots of money (liberals want to regulate and tax our businesses into the ground).
Liberals want CONTROL over our lives.
If they could only come up with a “cause” (like global warming) to put the economy in the tank and force everyone to become more dependent on the government, they’d be happy.
In the U.S., I think it deals with environmentalism. Environmentalism, tied as it has been to the notion of government controls, has been a liberal issue. So since global warming has become the new battleground for environmentalism–hey, the battle lines are already drawn. And since people have a well-known propensity to believe what they would like to be true rather than what it best-supported by evidence, people’s factual beliefs line up neatly behind their political beliefs.
