Why are Conservatives compelled to argue the "Global Warming" issue? Why fight it? Why not play it safe...?

Question

For the sake of future generations?

Snap out of it.

Ok...ok...and when I say "Global Warming" I am not saying MAN is doing it...ok, fools?

PS: I find "Grumpy" to be a Four Star Twit.

Answer 1

I found your question, sophomoric:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sophomoric

Yours: Grumpy

Answer 2

What are you considering "playing it safe"? No cars? No factories? No hairspray? Because that is what "playing it safe" amounts to, even though there is no PROOF that any of those activities is causing this so-called global warming. As far as I'm concerned, this is a NATURAL trend of warming AND cooling and we're just as likely to go into an ice-age as we are a heat-age (Think "The Day After Tomorrow" movie). Either way, there is nothing man can do to stop or slow the process and it is completely egotistical to think otherwise. We do have proof of this happening in the past, what is there about todays temperature change that suggests it is caused/preventable by man? Absolutely nothing.

As for the argument that conservatives argue "global warming" because they are driven by greed -- I find that laughable. What conservative would try to profit some now when they could profit HUGELY in the future by playing and pandering to this global warming scheme? If conservatives (or anyone halfway normal, for that matter) actually believed this was occurring, you can believe they would be the first ones trying to profit off it.

As for the Earth's "normal" warming and cooling... who are you to say that this isn't "normal"? That is even more egotistical that suggesting that man can change the climate of the Earth or that man is the only "intelligent" life out there. You need to get a grip, man!

Answer 3

1. Conservatives don't panic every time it's a little warmer than expected.
2. We mainly believe this is just another temporary condition for the earth.
3. (If it is man caused) We're actually helping to reduce the effects of the coming Ice Age that is 500 years overdue.
4. Even though everyone says that science supports them, science is still divided over the issue.
5. (Again, if it is man caused) To keep up with the pollution China will be producing in the next ten years, we would have to add more cars than the US population and all drive a million additional miles a year! How come no one is bad mouthing China? Also, why were they exempted from the "Holy Writ" of Kyoto? Also, I thought the lefties told us that leftist regimes were more environmentally conscious than capitalist societies.
6. We have one living God to worship and do not have to worship the earth as some sort of divine entity.

Answer 4

Conservatives are compelled to argue the Global Warming issue because to admit the reality of that possibility, they would have to alter their greedy, self-absorbed, lifestyle. This would be the end of the world as THEY know it. They are not interested in sharing the wealth; just accumulating more and more of it.

One cannot eat an SUV however, nor will stocks and bonds provide clean air and drinking water.

For the sake of future generations, we would be wise to conserve. The average person world wide uses 9 gallons of water a day. The average American, 100 gallons.

I try to be as ecologically conservative as possible because I never want my children or grandchildren to say, "Why didn't you do something when you could have; now it's too late!"

In addition, for "religious" conservatives, they would be wise to remember that God will hold us accountable as well for how we cared for HIS earth.

Something to chew on.

Answer 5

Global warming exists. No question. However, how much is natural earth cycle and how much is man's interference? If it is all man's interference, then what industrialized civilization contributed to it when the last global warming led to an ice age 20,000 years ago? If it is all natural, then there is nothing we can do about it anyway. If it is part natural and part us, then all we can do is put off the disasters for a while, so future generations will suffer anyway. Basically, future generations will suffer no matter what we do. As for your question, conservatives always ***** about something, and liberals are all whining cowards, so what real difference is there betweent them?

Answer 6

because just 30 years ago everybody was saying another ice age was coming.

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)"

Answer 7

Because many conservatives, like the current administration for example, make almost all their decisions based on what large companies want them to do. Global warming is not something many large industries want to hear about. Environmentalism costs them money in terms of policy and regulations. So a public that believes in global warming may desire companies to install scrubbers on thier smoke stacks and low overall emissions. Or they may desire new forms of power which might upset the slightly powerful oil industry. Business spends millions of dollars through lobbyists and the likes to ensure official policies don't end up costing them money. The environmental damages are simply not something corporate America cares about.

For laughs, below I put a link to a right wing think tank website. These organizations are groups of 'intellectuals' that think about and create arguments for the policies they want. Notice how all the arguments are wrapped in the required profundidty... but they all serve corporate America's interests. Groups like this are funded by the right to help their spokemen, the politicians, know what they are supposed to say. (yes, these groups exist on the left too.. but the left isn't denying global warming, which is what this question is about) Regardless, I guarantee you can find plenty of anti global warming info on this site, with 'scientists' backing it up even. They fail to mention that frequently these scientists are paid staff, that sometimes even scientists are far right or religious zealots, and that regardless of their inspiration to have such an opinion, they are in the overwhelmingly clear minority to deny global warming.

http://www.heartland.org/

Answer 8

I have been asking that question for years. Everyone thinks that everything is safe until they PROVE it wrong. Then everyone regrets doing whatever they did.

And to the morons that say it has been going on in the earth's history before...no sh*t Sherlock! If anyone knows that it is me! I am a geologist. Quit quoting other people and read the studies!!! It is happening faster than the earth can keep up with! It is not following the "normal" trends of the past. Do you really think billions of cars and other emissions are not going to effect anything?

Answer 9

The issue is if humans are really having a negative impact on climate change at all, or if it's mearly natural.

Furthermore is there really anything we can do to stop it.

Reasons given by opponents of the global warming theory

Some of the assertions made in opposition to the global warming theory include:

* IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models. For example, even those who accept that there is a warming trend point out that there is a big difference between correlation and causality. In other words, just because temperatures have generally been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Industrial Revolution has caused the change in temperature (see post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument). On the other hand, the period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has produced ever-growing "urban heat islands" (see below) that could be skewing temperature measurements that indicate the recent warming.
* Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion (see consensus science). Ergo, because the issue has become so politicized, it is suspected that climatologists who disagree with the consensus may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding.
* Consensus is further compromised in this field of study due to students being attracted to the field by their belief that something should be done about global warming. They complete their education and add their voices to the consensus, which gives a perceived bias.
* Earth's climate has been both colder and warmer than today, and these changes are adequately explained by mechanisms that do not involve human greenhouse gas emissions.
* There is no significant global warming relative to the expected natural trends.
* CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly volcanic in origin, accounting for 97% of the CO2 found in the atmosphere, most of which travels to the oceans. Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions at less than 1% [9]
* Climate science can not make definitive predictions yet, since the computer models used to make these predictions are still evolving and do not yet take into account recently discovered feedback mechanisms (see GIGO).
* Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity.
* Some global warming studies have errors or have not been reproduced.
* Global temperatures are directly related to such factors as: sunspot activity (an 11-year cycle).
* The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. The concern about global warming is equally alarmist.

Some opponents of global warming theory give more weight to data such as paleoclimatic studies, temperature measurements made from weather balloons, and satellites which they claim show less warming than surface land and sea records, though early balloon records have been shown to be possibly erroneous due to mechanical design flaws in the sensors.

Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all the major questions about the global climate.

Opponents frequently characterise supporters arguments as alarmist and premature, so as to emphasise what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global warming scenarios.

Opponents also say that if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now because:

* Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious and for less money.
* A small amount of global warming would be benign or even beneficial, as increased carbon dioxide would benefit plant life, thus potentially becoming profitable for agriculture world-wide.
* There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse gas emissions. A cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth.

Answer 10

Because conservatives are friends to big business such as the oil and auto industries. And if those industries had to spend a few extra dollars to help keep the environment clean that would effect the bottom line. And we can't have the kazillionaires becoming mediocre billionaires now can we?

Answer 11

Who's fighting it? Its there, that's admitted. The cause of it is still be argued about amongst the real experts. So what do you propose we do? Don't bring Kyoto Treaty in the picture because that is a lose lose situation for the US, and China one of the worlds biggest offenders isn't even included in that treaty. So as usual, I hear a complaint and no solutions offered.