Why Do Conservatives Deny Global Warming?

I am averse to engaging in partisan political debates. Ad hominem attacks accusing conservatives of being duplicitous or liberals of being control freaks is divisive and will only succeed in alienating 50% of potential supporters of SCI research and treatment.

I am not a climatologist, but there are respected experts on both sides of the issue. I do not know Rajendra Pachauri and cannot comment about him. However, Al Gore has amassed a personal fortune promoting global warming, approaching $1 billion in assets --- up from $2 million when he left office. I find it somewhat hypocritical that he preaches that the great unwashed masses should all drive a Prius (if they don't accelerate uncontrollably) while he flies around in private jets.

There are certainly vested interests in promoting global warming. Goldman Sachs --- the folks who brought us credit defaults swaps --- are salivating at the prospect of foisting a new bubble in carbon credits. And we all know that many in academia depend upon grants and how that system works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaidMyDues

I am averse to engaging in partisan political debates. Ad hominem attacks accusing conservatives of being duplicitous or liberals of being control freaks is divisive and will only succeed in alienating 50% of potential supporters of SCI research and treatment.

I am not a climatologist, but there are respected experts on both sides of the issue. I do not know Rajendra Pachauri and cannot comment about him. However, Al Gore has amassed a personal fortune promoting global warming, approaching $1 billion in assets --- up from $2 million when he left office. I find it somewhat hypocritical that he preaches that the great unwashed masses should all drive a Prius (if they don't accelerate uncontrollably) while he flies around in private jets.

There are certainly vested interests in promoting global warming. Goldman Sachs --- the folks who brought us credit defaults swaps --- are salivating at the prospect of foisting a new bubble in carbon credits. And we all know that many in academia depend upon grants and how that system works.

---

This gets so old.

People will find a way to profit off of anything. Health care, war,
climate change, politics, etc.

Do you not believe that the opponents of climate change have a
financial interest in winning the debate? How many billions in revenue
does big oil coal stand to lose as fossil fuel consumption decreases?

NASA and similar agencies that are dedicated to climate research
have drawn the conclusion that human activity is warming the planet
and disrupting the natural climate cycle. I don't think Al Gore has
enough clout to persuade NASA to produce phony evidence that
supports global warming.

Very simple. Human activity creates CO2 emissions. Humans
are cutting down forests. Trees absorb CO2. Excessive amounts
of CO2 and less natural CO2 absorbtion means more acidic oceans
and more atmospheric CO2 levels. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More
greenhouse gases creates a greenhouse effect, otherwise known
as global warming.

From those Liberal NASA wingnuts.

Quote:

---

Fossil fuel burning by humans has been the primary cause of the observed global warming during the industrial era. The carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere from fossil fuel use accounts for about 80% of the rise in CO2 from its preindustrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm) to its current level of about 385 ppm, with the remainder due mainly to anthropogenic deforestation. Furthermore, in projections of 21st century global warming, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels remain the dominant cause of the problem.

---

SOURCE

buck,
both sides have a dog in the hunt.i trust neither.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaidMyDues

I am averse to engaging in partisan political debates. Ad hominem attacks accusing conservatives of being duplicitous or liberals of being control freaks is divisive and will only succeed in alienating 50% of potential supporters of SCI research and treatment.

I am not a climatologist, but there are respected experts on both sides of the issue. I do not know Rajendra Pachauri and cannot comment about him. However, Al Gore has amassed a personal fortune promoting global warming, approaching $1 billion in assets --- up from $2 million when he left office. I find it somewhat hypocritical that he preaches that the great unwashed masses should all drive a Prius (if they don't accelerate uncontrollably) while he flies around in private jets.

There are certainly vested interests in promoting global warming. Goldman Sachs --- the folks who brought us credit defaults swaps --- are salivating at the prospect of foisting a new bubble in carbon credits. And we all know that many in academia depend upon grants and how that system works.

---

You appear to have overcome your aversion.

SuzieQ , some pretty impressive information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foolish old

you appear to have overcome your aversion.

---

lol! :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim sampson

buck,
both sides have a dog in the hunt.i trust neither.

---

I trust the scientists over the politicians from either side.

One can acknowledge global warming without supporting how
Washington chooses to handle the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaidMyDues

I am averse to engaging in partisan political debates. Ad hominem attacks accusing conservatives of being duplicitous or liberals of being control freaks is divisive and will only succeed in alienating 50% of potential supporters of SCI research and treatment.

I am not a climatologist, but there are respected experts on both sides of the issue. I do not know Rajendra Pachauri and cannot comment about him. However, Al Gore has amassed a personal fortune promoting global warming, approaching $1 billion in assets --- up from $2 million when he left office. I find it somewhat hypocritical that he preaches that the great unwashed masses should all drive a Prius (if they don't accelerate uncontrollably) while he flies around in private jets.

There are certainly vested interests in promoting global warming. Goldman Sachs --- the folks who brought us credit defaults swaps --- are salivating at the prospect of foisting a new bubble in carbon credits. And we all know that many in academia depend upon grants and how that system works.

---

PaidMyDues,

The heading of this thread asks the question why conservatives deny global warming. It was an honest question because I am truly puzzled why global warming has become such a core issue for conservatives. Why should this be a liberal or conservative issue at all? Is it because liberals have taken it up as an issue that conservatives feel the need to oppose it, despite overwhelming evidence that global warming is indeed occurring and human activity is contributing to it?

You say that there are "respected experts" on both sides of the issue. It is true that some scientists quibble with the details of predicted trends and the models that are being used to predict the consequences of global warming. Many scientists probably are not convinced that curbing CO2 use will reverse or slow down the trend. On the other hand, I doubt that there are many "respected experts" who believe that global warming is not occurring and that human activity is not contributing to the warming.

Conservatives and Republicans use to be more pro-science and pro-environment than Liberals and Democrats. In the past 40 years, Republican administrations have been more supportive of science than Democratic administrations. For example, Nixon, Reagan, Ford, and Bush Sr. were all very strong supporters of science and research. While Democratic administrations have not been opposed to science, funding scientific research were not high priorities for Carter or Clinton.

The recent Bush administration reversed this historic trend and overtly opposed science that did not support their political agenda. Many people know of the restriction of embryonic stem cells at NIH but few are aware of what they were doing in NSF, EPA, NASA, NOAA, and other science funding agencies. The Bush administration installed young political appointees to muzzle government scientists, edited scientific reports to favor industry over public interests, and imposed their socio-political agendas on scientific agencies. When the agencies would not cooperate, they cut their budgets. (Source)

I don't regard myself as being liberal or conservative. Until 2002, I never engaged in politics. I even voted for George W. Bush the first time, thinking that he may be pro-science like his father. I watched in dismay as his administration suppressed science and many conservatives took up the anti-science cudgel. Global warming just seems to be the latest excuse for beating up scientists. Please, I do hope that you are not suggesting that because I hold a view concerning global warming that 50% of "potential supporters" of SCI research will refrain from supporting the research. That would be taking politics a bit far, don't you think?

Wise.

dr.young,
our country specializes in taking politics too far.

Jim, I want to apologize to both you and PaidMyDues for an overly strong response to his earlier post. Having had some time to think about it, I am beginning to agree that perhaps we should simply stop talking about Global Warming. It seems that talk is just getting in the way of action. Whether global warming is happening or not and whether human activity is contributing to the warming, if we conserve fuel and energy, we will be doing our country and humankind much good. Wise.