Why do most conservatives disbelieve global warming?

The BBQ Pit
41

There are three main reasons why this conservative doesn’t get too worked up about it. This is not to say I adamantly disbelieve it, but it’s gonna take persuasion from people whose integrity and judgement I respect to swing me around to being alarmed about it.

Reason 1: Alarm about it primarily comes from the left, the same ideology that 35 years ago was clammering that we were killing all the trees; that 30 years ago was claiming the world was running out of oil; that 25 years ago was certain we were all going to die from air, water and polution, etc., etc. Of course none of that happened and today no one is particularly concerned over these calamitous occurrances. I know that nominal steps have been taken to deal with these concerns, primarily due to pressure from the left, but I’m not convinced that they played that much of a role in reducing the alleged danger.

So in this regard, I pretty much feel that global warming is the calamity du jour that isn’t really much of a threat, if it is indeed a threat at all, and that 30 years from now no one will be thinking about it.

Reason 2. And this is the biggie: You don’t know who to believe! This country has become so polarized by the culture war that has been going on for the last forty years or so that it’s virtually impossible to get any information that isn’t deliberately slanted to suit one or another political or social agenda. You can’t believe the politicians, you can’t believe the media and you can’t believe the experts. If I link to an article saying that not one t.v. meterologist in the country believes in global warming, or that the CEO of the Weather Channel says it’s bunk, the left says that they are only saying that because their loyalty lies with corporate interests, and then they hold up the likes of Al Gore and Leonardo DeCaprio (a fine actor btw, whose work I enjoy tremendously) as people who really know what’s going on. If I say this expert or panel of experts discounts it, someone on the left will cite an expert or panel of experts who say it’s legit. Etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Reason 3. There isn’t much that can realistically be done about it at this point anyway, so what good does it do to get worked up about it? Any solution is going to have to involve huge investments of time and money and resouces by nations all over the globe, who are also going to have to work in concert with one another in order to acheive any sort of impact on this situation even if fears over global warming should prove to be valid, and I’m afraid I just don’t see this happening. Have-not countries and countries with shrewd leaders will drag their feet or do nothing knowing that richer and freer countries who are beholden to their citizenship will pick up the slack financially, or they will do nothing to create hardship on their own people in order to lessen the dangers of global warming elsewhere on the planet.

So, in a nutshell: I distrust the messenger; I’m not persuaded I’m getting accurate information; and even if I was I don’t see much that can be done about it…not at this point anyway…and I’m concerned that attempts to deal with it will only lead to more government intervention in our lives, intervention that will be expensive, restrictive, and ultimately, ineffectual.

Or so it seems to me!..And now, a word from our sponsors. :smiley:

42

Sure seems that way. Liberals believe the New York Times (or pick some highly leftist news source) while conservatives believe Fox or the Christian Science Monitor (or whatever the right wing news sources might be).

It’s a complicated enough subject that it shouldn’t surprise anyone to hear a group that’s considered to be rather more forgiving of business say the jury is still out. Then someone will occasionally throw out a headline that says something like “Global Warming Scientists take water vapor into account!”, and while some people see that as a refinement of the models, others wonder how accurate those models have been if they just got around to including it. Then, if someone was only slightly interested in the contribution of water vapor, it’s pretty easy to find some random website that shows misleading numbers - say (and I’m pulling numbers out of my ass right now) 45% of greenhouse effect is caused by water and only 25% by CO2. So, one who isn’t inclined to read farther might think, H2O is the big problem, not carbon!

Then add a few scientific weasel words to an article - “scientists now believe it may have…”, “models indicate a possible x%…”, etc. and show that to the kind of people that don’t understand the difference between “theory” and “hypothesis”, and is it any wonder?

Heck, I don’t think there’s agreement on the rate of change nor how much of it is caused by us, and I’m fairly sure that Kyoto wouldn’t have had a measurable impact (except on economies).
eta - not to imply that the good folk around here don’t know the difference between “theory” and “hypothesis”. I’m talking about them others

43

Isn’t this circular logic? You’re basically saying “conservatives don’t believe it because only liberals believe it.”

44

Not quite. I’m saying that this conservative tends to be skeptical about global warming because concern over it is coming from a political ideology that, IMO, tends toward sky-is-falling predictions of doom and gloom over one environmental catastrophy or another…predictions which in the past have not shown themselves to be valid. Further, I believe that this is partly because some of on the left are genuinely prone to feel fear of this calamity or that and want the government to protect them from these dangers, while others view it as a way to get more governmental control over the populace (and of course, evil corporations too) and force them to make changes that they feel need to be made but which they can’t accomplish otherwise.

So, I’m not saying so much that I don’t believe it because “only” liberals believe it; I’m saying I’m skeptical about it because liberals, with their history of alarmist environmental excitability, seem to be the primary ones who are getting worked up about it.

But remember, this aspect of my skepticism is a relatively minor one. The big problem, IMO, is the lack of credibilty coming from any quarter, left or right, in regard to this issue.

45

We are running out of oil. Maybe a bit later than people were predicting 30 years ago (when exactly where they predicting this to happen?), but oil will definitely run out, and most likely within the lifetime of a lot of Dopers.

I don’t know what people were predicting 30 years ago, but, as far as air pollution, isn’t it considered one of the main factors of the huge increase in asthma in recent decades? Of course, that’s a far cry from “we’re all going to die from pollution”, but
(1) Do you have any cites that anyone actually said that, or were you exaggerating?
(2) Could it be that the steps taken due to the alarmism were responsible for reducing the impact?

BTW, I find it interesting that the Right is very good at spotting alarmism from the Left (e.g. on the environment), but is horrible about spotting alarmism from the Right:
"We’re all going to be turned into Communists!!! Terrorists are going to kill us all!! Give us trillions and trillions of dollars to protect you from these dangers!

You want some billions to help some poor kids get health care? No way! We need trillions to wage war and make sure the terrorists don’t kill us allllll!!!"

Agreed.

This is a very bad state of affairs.

I’m not sure I get this. Even if your pessimistic outlook were correct (which I doubt), should we just twiddle our thumbs and wait for the planet to go to hell?

46

Hi, Starvin’!

Okay. If you feel that way about it, how about doing this?

  1. Try not to be wasteful of paper. If you mess up on printing something, keep it around to take notes on. Use the front and back when you are writing. Rinse and reuse paper towels or use cloth towels.

  2. Eliminate styrofoam whenever possible. Take your own mug to work (other than the one with whiskers).

  3. Turn off the water while you brush your teeth.

  4. Turn the heat down at night and turn it off while you are at work.

  5. Turn the lights off when you leave a room unless you are coming right back.

Most of us have parents and teachers that taught us to clean up after ourselves. What we forget about is that the people who manufacture our clothes and food and gizmos are supposed to do the same. If they are not going to, then I don’t want to buy stuff from them anymore.

If you think the days of polluted water and air are over, read about the Smokey Mountains and the Shenandoah Vallley sometime. The Smokey Mountain National Park is the most visted national park in the country, but people are lucky if they can see it when they are there. The air is terribly polluted. The views are going and the air can be unhealthy. We are losing our dogwood trees.

The saddest thing I’ve seen were the views from Skyline Drive and the Blue Ridge Parkway. One or the other cuts through the Shenandoah Valley. You used to could see forever from the ridges. It’s smogged out mostly. There are photos of the way it was at the lookout points.

Even birds don’t dirty their own nests.

47

I understand why this thread was moved out of IMHO, but here is a clue about Great Debates:

No thread that begins with the premise "[ Group of which I am not a member ] [ unqualified verb ], Why?" is really going to result in anything much more than fingerpointing and straw men and ad hominem attacks and, ultimately, violations of both the “don’t hurl insults at posters” and “don’t be a jerk” rules.

If anyone would like to return to Great Debates with a thread discussing the relative perspectives of different groups regarding either Global Warming or AGW, you are welcome to do so. However, this thread is headed for The BBQ Pit and anyone who posts broadside attacks against one group or another in any (hypothetical) new thread will find their posts moved from the new thread back to this wreck in the Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

48

Oh, perhaps. I don’t have cites and statistics for that era handy, but at any rate my comments weren’t as much of an exaggeration as:

*"We’re all going to be turned into Communists!!! Terrorists are going to kill us all!! Give us trillions and trillions of dollars to protect you from these dangers!

You want some billions to help some poor kids get health care? No way! We need trillions to wage war and make sure the terrorists don’t kill us allllll!!!"*

:smiley:

Well, we all have this attitude to one degree or another. Every day presents risks to our health, safety and welfare. We can be in an accident, get robbed, mugged, suffer some catastrophic ailment, etc. To a large degree there’s nothing much we can do about these things either. So we adopt the attitude that life presents risks and we just have to accept that fact and get on with our lives. We have to think this way or we’d never get out from under the covers in the morning, and this is pretty much the attitude I have about global warming.

However, once convinced of the desirability of doing so, I take reasonable precautions if the situation calls for it. I avoid high crime areas at night, wear a seat belt, try to eat a reasonably healthy diet and see a doctor whenever something becomes a concern.

So, if I could somehow become persuaded that global warming was a legitimate concern and that there were meaningful (as opposed to symbolic and largely ineffectual) things I could do to impact on that, I’m sure I would. But I’d have to be persuaded: a.) that the problem actually exists, and b.) that my actions would have a significant impact on improving the situation.

49

Wreck? I thought we were having a pretty civilized, frank and infomative discussion here. Is there something I’ve missed?

50

Also, **Starvin’ Dahlin’ **, since you’ve always been openminded with me and, I hope, I with you, I looked for a source that I thought you would find credible. This is a link to information from the [National Park Service](http://www.nps.gov/archive/shen/pphtml/23highlights500.html National Park Service), a government website.

It had this information about the Shenandoah Vally pollution and the nation in general:

Those of you who live in the West, imagine that the 90 mile view that you have in some places today might someday be reduced to 15 to 25 miles as it has been in my lifetime back East.

And the article said that it is not natural pollution.

I have watched the population of the United States double. Should I assume from your post that you and your fellow Conservatives want more cars on the road? Exactly what is it that you’re conserving?

Liberal: from liber meaning free.

51

Hi, Zoe, darlin’. You’re tryin’ to turn me “green,” aren’t you? :wink:

Actually you might be surprised at the fact that I do indeed do some of the things you mention.

<snip>

I’m sure there are areas here and there where things aren’t what they should be. Nothing is all good or all bad. I was speaking in general terms of the country at large.

But having said that, and given that email is so slow in your case ( :wink: ) I must digress and tell you about a fabulous DVD I just got from Wal Mart. It’s a two DVD set called The Eagles’ Farewell 1 Tour from Melbourne and it is fabulous! The sound quality, the visual quality, the editing…all superb! And of course Joe Walsh is astounding and a kick-and-a-half. Right up your alley I’d say, and at less than $12 bucks, a heck of a bargain. I think you’d love it, I do.

Many regards, my friend. :slight_smile:

52

So did I and I posted my link before seeing Tom’s mod comment.. Guess I’d better not quote the National Park Service anymore. :stuck_out_tongue:

53

That’s okay, I’m gonna go ahead and look at it anyway. Guess that’ll show him, huh? :wink:

54

Wal Mart?

You shop at Wal Mart?

55

Who’da thunk it, huh?

Actually, there’s one about four blocks from where I live. It’s a giant convenience store for me and I’m there about three or four times a day. :stuck_out_tongue:

56

Not in our lifetimes it won’t. Accoding to my brother, who’s in the oil business and does reservoir modelling, there’s plenty of oil out there. The only issue is how expensive it becomes to recover. As the price of oil gets higher, more and more deposits become worthwhile. And we can convert coal to oil. And we haven’t even looked at Antartica. Now, at some point, it’s going to be more economic to switch to other sources of energy, but there’s no actual shortage of oil.

Someone who bioengineers yeast to produce octane instead of alcohol will become very rich indeed.

57

I think the bottom line is that conservatives are in denial because to accept global warming means that a response involving governmental regulation could be required. The idea that free market forces could restrain GW is ludicrous. Free market forces didn’t clean up Lake Erie, governmental actions did. Corporations and their media shills simply don’t care about anything beyond this quarter’s profit and saving the planet can be done on someone else’s dime.

58

My daily burden.

59

I haven’t seen any AGW threads that did not turn into a debate…

To answer your question: conservatives tend to align with the status quo, and tend to prefer it to be as stable as possible. The status quo will be disrupted by any large-scale efforts to prevent AGW. Suppose, for instance, that your entire business model depends on energy from coal-fired plants. A disruption in that energy supply source will have profound consequences on that business model. It’s a natural reaction to be skeptical about those things which threaten vested interests, so to the extent that the AGW model demands change, it is met with reticence.

If AGW becomes accepted enough that we actually try to prevent it (it doesn’t matter if it’s actually a correct model or not) then conservatives will simply align with the new direction since that will become the prevailing status quo and there will be some stability in it.

At an individual level, I haven’t found any broadscale acceptance of the idea that AGW should affect ME, personally. There may be a conservative/liberal difference in superficial painless changes (“I drive a hybrid!”) but no difference in real personal sacrifice of the degree (“I live like a Tanzanian!”) that would be required to effect any substantive changes. Mr Gore is the perfect poster child for this, of course, with his personal lifestyle consuming a huge multiple of a per-capita ration of AGW-producing resources. The broadscale difference in conservatives and liberals on AGW revolves around what should be done on a global scale and not genuine personal sacrifice. We are all individually equally selfish.

60

To clarify my comment about Mr Gore:

An independent observer would, for instance, look at Mr Gore’s personal consumption and make the conclusion that he too, personally thinks AGW is a “crock,” liberal label and Nobel for public efforts notwithstanding.