Why Are Conservatives So Stubborn About Pollution & Global Warming?

Question

Conserva...tion....conserva--tive.

Try to use a little common sense and logic.

Think of pollution like smoking cigarettes.

You can't prove smoking causes lung cancer (maybe it does) but it sure as hell doesn't do your lungs and body any good.

You can't prove pollution contributes to global warming (maybe it does) but it sure as hell doesn't do the Earth any good.

Only a stupid person would insist otherwise.

Answer 1

Think about it... only about 25 percent of Americans think Bush is doing a good job... only about 25 percent of Americans say they don't believe in Global Warming... only about 25 percent of Americans don't believe in Evolution... only about 25 percent of Americans believe that a clump of bloody cells is a human... if you computed a bell shaped curve of the intelligence level of Americans (or any group) the lower 25 percent of the people at the bottom of that curve would really be stupid people... only about 25 percent of Americans believe the Iraqi war is a good thing... about 25 percent of Americans are so shallow and narrow minded that they hate anyone or anything that isn't like them.

I'm not going to point any fingers, but my question would have to be: IS IT THE ALL THE SAME 25 PERCENT?

Answer 2

Why are Liberals such liars, hypocrites, and why do they twist words and make stuff up?

Of course pollution is bad. I don't know a single conservative or liberal who says it isn't. The fight over Global warming however is NOT about pollution. It's about CO2 and whether or not humans are causing the Earth to overheat which is bogus nonsense. Are we polluting? Yes. Should we do something about it? Yes. Is Global warming the priority? No,

Al Gore said 5 years ago that we had 10 years to fix this CO2 problem, yet 5 years later we still have 10 years left.

Most of the Environmental leaders know full well that humans have very little effect on the climate, but if they admitted that they wouldn't get their $10,000 per half hour speaking engagements and fly (in private CO2 spewing jets) all over the world to have their concerts with their Liberal musician friends who tell us we should donate more to the impoverished people of the world, all while evading paying taxes which would help pay for social programs that would benefit the impoverished in their own country.....but I digress.

The point is Conservatives don't deny that pollution exists and that it's bad, we deny Global warming as a proven scientific fact, much as we denied Global cooling as a proven scientific fact only 30 years ago. Just like 20 years ago we denied that by the new millennium the world be so overpopulated we wouldn't be able to feed everyone.

So the mindless liberal automatons can keep on changing their terrible Earth destroying incandescent light bulbs for the more environmentally friendly poisonous mercury filled fluorescent ones that we have no safe means of disposing of. Whatever makes you feel good about yourself. Meanwhile I, as a conservative, will do what I can to make the world a better place by helping my fellow man.

Get back to me in another 10 years and we'll discuss whatever Global crisis they think of next.

Answer 3

First of all, I don't really think its all conservatives who are as you describe. I believe your implied statment is an oversimplification, and overgeneralization.
the people who are as you describe are mostly people holding energy and fuel stocks that will fall once biofuels become the primary source of fuel and energy. They are also the people who buy into the nonsense that switching to biofuels will harm the economy.
these two examples may be one in the same, afterall, if you are holding oil stocks, biofuels will harm your personal economy, even while it is boosting the economy everywhere else.
Second, while dana did have a great question where he derived the answer he has given, which is very good as far as the views of people here on Yahoo Answers, it surveyed a very small portion of our population, and therefore may not be quite accurate on a much larger scale. and yet it might. I would love to see the same questioned he asked used to survey 10 thousand people, so a more accurate and less disputable analysis can be obtained.
I'm not knocking dana in anyway at all, I just feel the target of sampling should be expanded to obtain a more comprehensive view.

The reason i feel most people are so "stubborn" about GW and pollution, is the fact that politicizing the issue, has somehow caused many people to view GW and damage to the environment from pollution as two separate issues, when they are not.
Not to mention, you have corporations trying to target their ads at people who wish to do something about it, but their ads are less than accurate. these ads are the targets of skeptics claiming that these companies are environmentalists, when they are not. They are trying to group environmentalists, and inaccurate, misleading ads in the same group in order to discredit environmentalists. It works with some people.

Then you have people who claim CO2 isn't pollution. YES IT IS. Corn Syrup is polution if you dump enough of it into a river. CO2 is the same way. it is beneficial at certain concentrations, btu once it exceeds that certain concentration, it begins to harm different organisms at different rates according to the concentration they can handle.
Iodine isn't technically considered pollution either, but i would like to see someone, making that claim, eat a tablespoon of iodine crystal. i would like to see someone claiming CO2 isn't pollution stand in a chamber of 1% CO2 and see how they feel about it afterwards.
There have been several cases where large volumes of CO2 have rolled from volcanoes and suffocated entire villages. If it where not pollution, it wouldn't be a problem. It also would not be the cause for forests dying out where CO2 concentrations have grown enormously.
Some folks have a very bad idea of what pollution is, and what it is not, which could be, because of the exact reasons decribes by dana's survey. it also may be the same reason some people think people long ago believeing the world is was flat, was a valid scientific consensus.

Answer 4

your assertion that there is a problem with being skeptical about global warming is rather frightening. Your logic assumes that because we can envision a possible problem, we should take whatever steps we can think of to correct it. I can envision having a brain tumor, that does not mean I want radiation treatment and surgery immediately as a preventative measure. As a scientist (biologist), I have a good healthy skepticism regarding what I refer to as "Consensus Science". Many years ago everyone thought the earth was flat. That was the concensus. If you thought differently, you were pesecuted (ask galileo about that). The actual data that has been used to show global warming is well within its own margin of error (meaning that the data may well be meaningless). Second, assuming the data that has been put forward is accurate, it does not even closely approximate the changes in carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas levels. It is more closely related to changes in solar output. So before I start running around avocating restructuring our entire society around a given problem I am obligated to do two things. 1) demonstrate the probability of the actual existance of the problem, & 2) establish the cause of the problem. Only after I have accomplished those two things can any really meaningful discussion occur on how to rectify the problem. Considering that even the scientist who proposed global warming has recanted his position, I would propose that only a "stupid person" would ignore the possibility that the problem may not actually exist or our methods of combating it may be useless. Science is about being skeptical of all claims. While I suspect that there is some global warming occuring, I believe that the solar output data combined with the geologic record indicate that it is more likely a natural occurance which we cannot significantly impact. As to conserving our resource, yes we definitely need to be better stewards of our planet. Thus far we have only this one to live on. But I have no desire to be pushed into solving the wrong problem by the rantings of such scientific luminaries as Al Gore and his hypocritical stand on energy usage and consumption. By the way, what branch of science was his degree in?

Answer 5

That may change as indisputable conservatives accept the scientific proof about global warming:

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives Tuesday to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

Scott L - Letting global warming hit full force will damage your lifestyle far more than taking some reasonable steps to reduce it. The proper balance between reducing global warming and dealing with it is a good subject for debate. But 100% dealing with it is not a good answer, it's a disaster.

Answer 6

Your logic is extremely flawed.

If I don't believe in man-made global warming, does that mean I also am against envirnomental controls/cutting down pollution?

If you answered yes to that question, then I don't know what to tell you.

I am Conservative. I am open to the idea of man-made global warming, however I base my decisions on FACTS. So far, the pro-global warming crew has only provided me with "models" and "estimates". Throw in political bias, non-blind grant funding, and personal gain, and the science we have is pretty tainted. So until I see clear evidence of both the causes and consequences (not consensus, but evidence, there is a difference). of global warming, I think we need to calm down about "the sky is falling" routine.

However, I do think we need to do more against pollution. I am all for reducing emissions and lowering pollution.

You see, it is possible to favor environmental controls while still rejecting the theory of man-made global warming. Don't package them together.

Answer 7

Ah, the insult. Call me stupid and stubborn and I'll agree with you because I just can't stand to be insulted. You are hurting my feelings so I will just give you what you want.

Why are you so mean? Quit hurting people's feelings. Can't we all just get along.

I should just be willing to spend more money for everything I want because you say it is green?

Smoking is ingesting radioactive particles into your lungs. This can be proven. Radiation, especially when ingested, increases the chance for cancer to occur. Also proven.

There is alot of research about how CO2 and many other things cause global warming. It is based in logic, I agree.

The world has warmed in the past 100 years.

CO2 levels have gone up in the past 100 years.

So far I'm with you.

The leap is to say that either:
Humans are the cause.
OR
Humans can change this course without drastic action.

Let's say I agree humans are the cause. The only solution I can see is to drastically reduce the world's population. I actually got someone to agree that it would be better environmentally to randomly kill off 3/4 of the population.

To agree with the second statement would be to be ignorant of the science.

I conserve because it is better for the environment AND my wallet. But the eco-nuts out there are just pushing an agenda that will reduce my standard of living below that which I enjoy. Poor people would be far more affected and rich people would just buy their "carbon credits" and say they are doing the right thing.

If you want to engage in a discussion on how to improve the environment and minimize effect, I welcome it. But quit calling people evil just because they won't buy a small box-like car and enjoy their air conditioning.

Answer 8

The whole root of their stubbornness is that liberals became concerned about it first and made it part of their political platform. Conservatives naturally disagree with liberals about anything under the sun -- and vice versa.

It's common knowledge that most conservatives love to prodigiously waste away limited natural resources, mostly because it offends liberals. That's why they brag about their SUVs and make derogatory statements towards environmentalists, calling them "Tree Huggers". It doesn't bother me that they like to waste money on big gas guzzling SUVs. It just makes them look stupid in my opinion.

The only thing conservative about them in my opinion is conserving a lavishly wasteful lifestyle like what most Americans have enjoyed over the last 60 years. They don't like change unless it's their idea, and absolutely not if the idea came from their rival party.

The way the 2 party political system is going these days is dividing a once united country.

Answer 9

I think most conservatives realize global warming is a problem. They feel guilty because of conservatives' historically ambivalent attitude toward global warming, and won't back down from their stance because they don't want to be tied in with liberals. They feel guilty for electing GWB, who is the worst environmental president ever. He's been a blessing to companies that flood the air with toxins and dump waste in preserves - totally undid Clinton's work on the environment. Conservatives also love playing the eternal optimisic - they don't want to plague their minds with things like global warming when there are more pressing issues like "Why can't white men use the n-word?"

Answer 10

I'm not sure that conservatism has anything to do with how one feels about pollution and global warming. I am a conservative. I am also very concerned with the pollution of my earth. I just want to make sure we blame the root cause and not the effects from the root cause.

I do not blame the government and corporations for giving us what we ask and demand for -MORE OF EVERYTHING, which is the root cause of all pollution. More people, More & Bigger Cars, More & Bigger Houses, More Air Conditioning, More Processed Foods and drinks, More More, More.

Unlike Liberals, I Blame US.

Answer 11

Here's a little common sense: The only source of heat for the earth is the sun. The greatest green house gas is water vapour but the enviro's can't admit it because even they realize they be laughed out of the park if they advised us to stop boiling water. They label CO2 as pollution even when they know it's necessary to life and even mistake it for CO which is poisonous. This crowds out the real focus on pollution such as SO2 which is harmful. There are sheep who are sacred of Gore's doom and gloom and there are others who simply hate themselves and other humans. You want to live naturally by all means but please get ready for the poverty and disease that go with it. Don't forget bacteria and viruses are natural too and they flourish when things that civilization has brought us like public health, water treatment, fertilizers and pestcides are abscent.