Why does the right always try to link global warming, the ozone layer, and y2k?

Question

I regularly see attempts to disprove global warming from the right-wing that include comparing the "scare tactic" of global warming with the "scare tactics" behind the ozone layer and y2k.

The implication being made is obvious: that global warming is a myth, just like the hole in the ozone layer and the y2k bug.

I agree that global warming is a myth like the ozone hole and y2k, i.e it's not a myth, just as they weren't.

The ozone layer hole did exist, and we acted and now that crisis is less of an issue. Comparing global warming to y2k is even more puzzling. The y2k bug was not a myth at all. There were very serious issues in many operating systems and programs that required patching and code changes to avoid failure or problems.

The exact reason that y2k was not a catastrophe is that we acted. We made changes.

Why does the right take two examples of situations where acting averted catastrophe, and claim that they are a reason that we should do nothing about global warming?

mattinhoustintx: You know the saying about those who assume, right?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlJfo39a6ifiZmRwGzDEwYHsy6IX?qid=20070218191431AAZIii9&show=7#profile-info-4b104ce555db154d664b0792eae5daf6aa

That's just one example. I've seen it elsewhere, including discussions with people in real life. (Sorry, I can't provide a link to those.)

Thanks for the link, Karl. I've seen it already. I do review alternate sources, and I've been looking into global since long before people widely knew that Al Gore was giving talks about it, so it's going to take more than a few compromised sources and some pseudo-logical trickery (as crafty as it may be) to change my mind.

Also, there's no real issue regarding natural warming... that's a red herring. Everyone agrees that natural warming occurs. What the data and models point to is beyond that. It's not a myth that we can affect the environment. We know that we do.

Sidebar: I did, in the interest of being as open-ended as possible, go back and try to re-watch the Internet Skeptic's guide... and had to stop because it's just painful how poorly contrived his argumentation is.

Instead of trying to look at the facts, he starts off by cherry-picking news headlines and displaying a bias. All of the traditional misunderstandings are displayed in the first five minutes.

The "Internet Skeptic" has a displayed lack of knowledge in climatology and meteorology just in the first 5 minutes. The ozone hole segment is particularly appalling when he tries to make a causative link between correlation of CFCs in the lower atmosphere to the state of the ozone hole in the upper atmosphere...

Looking aside from the fact that this is a classical fallacy that any first-year research student could avoid, the lower atmosphere is not the upper atmosphere...

It's a horrible source plagued with problems.

Answer 1

I think that there are some right-wingers who don't deny that global warming exists, but they deny that it's caused by humans. The main contributors to the Republican Party are big business leaders, so if they can convince the supporters of their party that we aren't causing a global crisis, then they can keep shirking environmental regulations.

Answer 2

Keep in mind that the left pretty much says that we will be dead shortly. They situation is grave and we must do something about it. This is the other extreme.

Seems that you can find just as much credible evidence on both sides of the argument so who is to believe?

Seems like the Prez's last state of the union speech outlined goals to lessen the contribution of pollutants. Hopefully, these will be met in the United States.

The interesting thing about the global warming issue are not in the science by the politics. The Kyoto Treaty and the statements of Chiroc. He basically stated that this treaty will help lead to a world government. I do not want that. When you research the treaty it basically forces high polluters to buy credits from low polluters hence wealth redistribution. Of course emerging countries can be exempt and pollute as much as they want like China and India. To me none of this makes sense so I tend to agree that we should have no world political solution at this point in time. US mandates should help with the problem in the US and hopefully others will follow.

Answer 3

Regardless of end results, environmentaly as a world evolution we are nearing trillions of tons of polutants annually that we are putting into our atmosphere, our oceans, and our land. It may not kill us but our grand children won't survive it. But hey, keep making excuses, and if some puts a label on it ie: global warming, y2k, etc. I know lets argue that point instead of doing something about it.

Answer 4

The "right" agrees that the planet is warming. They just disagree about the cause.

Saying "a majority of scientists agree" as Gore does sounds good until you find out that only few in the "majority" are actual climatologists.

I suggest you go on Youtube and find the "Internet Skeptic's Guide To Global Warming" - watch it, then reconsider your position on whether or not the warming is "man-made."

The link to it is below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ3EM2a1Qjg

Answer 5

I think it is because we did it. Humans have a tough time admiting there mistakes. Second i think its becuase we can't do anything about it its already done. It has been happening for the past 30 years or so and it is getting worse every year i just think they don't want to admit that there is nothing we could do to fix our mistake.

Answer 6

Because the right seems to thrive on the use of logical fallacies in trying to make their points. It's the only way they have of trying to convince people of something that has no logical basis.

Answer 7

I have never heard the comparison. The issue is not whether or not the Earth's climate is changing. The issue is whether or not it is a natural occurance, or if human production has caused it.

Answer 8

I've never seen this comparison that you claim. Since you have not provided a link, I can safely assume that you haven't either and you just want to drum up some propaganda. Nice.

Answer 9

I think the right is saying that "if" the planet is warming, and that's a big if, that the humans have little to no input in the process.