What are the political motivations to denying the human component of Global Climate Change?

Question

I asked a more generic question earlier, and got some terrific answers as to why most people who deny Global Warming do so. Interesting, and lots to think about. (See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070629091646AACc4D6 for those answers.)

But I realized that the answers didn't discuss a couple of aspects. Therefore, here is one about the political motivation.

I realize that President Bush is an oil man, and he and his people might have financial reasons to want to maintain an oil economy, but that just doesn't seem enough to explain to me non-oil politicians being against trying to save humanity from extreme climate change problems.

My question is clear: I want to understand the political motivation to keep denying the human need to work on slowing Global Warming. Please don't lecture me on why my premise is wrong. If you believe my premise is wrong, but have a good explanation for the political motivation, describe the politics-don't flame me for my position.

Wow. There are some terrific answers here. Very much helping me think this through. I wish I could make several "the best answer" together. Right now there doesn't seem to be One Best Answer, but rather some combination of the answers by:

Gymnastics Twisters
Bob
Byderule
3DM
Dana1981
LinLyons

Just terrific. And I will have to go look up that book.

Thank you for your well-considered answers. I'll see if there are any more tomorrow, and then I will try to do the impossible, and pick one as "best."

.
I never did see ONE comprehensive answer. The one I chose is slightly better than the others because author responds directly to my question about the political motivation, rather than focusing on particular people.

Obviously, all answers are speculative--nature of the question. But some answers were more speculative than others, and some were too specific to just Bush.

The thing I still don't understand, though...is even with the political benefits, how can so many politicians turn their backs on the needs of the entire world? How can they turn their backs on the needs of their great-grandchildren?

Answer 1

Well for starters, despite being an oil man and a rather big idiot, Bush has acknowledged that humans are the primary cause of global warming since 2005. This makes it even harder to understand why so many conservatives still won't accept reality.

The political motivation is the same as any political motivation - excite the base and get them to vote for you. If Republicans can play the line that liberals are trying to fool them into carbon taxes by perpetrating a global warming hoax, they can enrage people into voting for them. It's a pretty standard Republican practice - Democrats are trying to sneak into your wallets, so vote for me instead. It's also their standard strategy of playing on misinformation, ignorance, and fear. Most people don't research the science behind global warming beyond what Rush Limbaugh tells them, so it's easy to convince them that global warming isn't our fault, because it's easier for them if it's not. If global warming is a big hoax, then they don't have to change their lifestyles. Fear of change will get conservatives out to vote every time.

In the end I think it may well destroy the Republican Party to make this a partisan issue. Guys like Gingrich and McCain realize this and have said we need to take action - they know it's a mistake to make this a partisan issue and come down on the wrong side. Most Republican politicians are making this mistake, and if the ramifications of global warming become more visible, they're going to pay for it.

Answer 2

I'm using my previous answer, with modifications to make my point clearer.

For some conservatives it's not a case of a specific motivation, just "general principles". If liberals, environmentalists, or, worst, Al Gore say something it simply must be wrong. If Rush Limbaugh says global warming is a liberal hoax, it's a liberal hoax. This is a large chunk of the skeptics.

You can't change that, but it may change as more and more indisputable conservatives accept mostly man made global warming as real. Such as:

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

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate." Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader)

“It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

Clearly, those people didn't get that from Al Gore.

The solution to global warming must be an International one, where we essentially negotiate what our laws will be with other countries, and agree to assume an International obligation to other countries. For some conservatives the very idea of doing that is unacceptable.

If you neglect the general principles factors, and only look at specifics like "the oil industry" you won't be able to deal with the issue effectively. Personally, I think general principles are what's driving the politics of the issue.

Answer 3

The political motivation is very simple: a belief that *your* premise is wrong, the knowledge that there are large numbers of people who believe the same, and the desire to secure the votes of those people by representing their views.

It’s as simple as that, really.

And frankly, I envy you.

Here in the U.K. the main political opposition party (the Conservatives) have abandoned their constitutional duty to oppose the government and have jumped on the AGW bandwagon. So where does this leave me? Who do I vote for in the next election? Who is representing my views in the political arena?

No one, that’s who.

Frankly, I don’t see what the problem is. If it turns out that these politicians are wrong, they won’t get elected, will they?

But let’s consider this: I hope we will all be objective enough to accept that politicians are generally pretty intelligent people. You may not agree with their views, but you’d accept that they’re sane and intelligent, yes? So, why would these sane, intelligent people commit political suicide by stating their support for a hypothesis that was clearly a complete fantasy? The truth is, they wouldn’t. They simply would not do it. Therefore one has to assume that they have decided to back this hypothesis on the grounds that they have enough information supporting it to do so.

Of course, others will say that it’s all about money. They’ll tell us that these politicians deny AGW because they’re in the pay of the oil companies. This argument leaves you with a simple question. Do you believe that a politician will commit political suicide for money? I’m sure that the Global Warming Alarmists (such as yourself) would say yes! Anyone who denies AGW is in the pay of the oil companies; anyone who supports it is a saint. But I would say that that’s an extremely subjective view, far removed from reality.

At the end of the day, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As time passes we will see how the climate turns out. I’m betting that things will not turn out to be anything like as bad as the GWAs are telling us they will be. And given that satellite data is showing that we’ve had no warming for the last 5 years, I think that’s a pretty safe bet.

Answer 4

Well, I'm going to cop out and suggest that the answer is bigger than Yahoo answers. It's not just politics; it's not just climate change.

The short answer is: Our entire western world civilization is based on a hierarchy of haves and have-nots. Beginning with the agricultural revolution, continuing with the industrial revolution, and now especially - critically - cheap concentrated energy made the current situation possible. And now we are so far invested down this path that nothing short of a global revolution in thinking is going to change the status quo. So from this point of view politics is just a side show and climate change is just a symptom.

I suggest reading "The Last Hours of the Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann. I don't agree with everything in it, but it's the most meaningful, concise yet comprehensive answer I've found yet. Feel free to drop me a line and let me know what you think.

Anyone who discounts the anthropogenic cause of environmental problems is, in my opinion, in serious, psychotic denial. I've spent some 35 years reading and writing trying to sort this out. I truly appreciate your efforts (and others here) at trying to frame the problem. I found Hartmann’s book in an answer to Leo's question. It just said "read this book". I've come to the conclusion that this is serious. Deadly serious. I have to decide, just like the rest of us, should I try to do something about this? Is it even possible to do anything about this? Would it make any difference in the end? All I can say right now is: If I have a choice about it, I don't want to be a refugee. I would like to live my life out in relative comfort knowing I tried and didn’t contribute any further to the problem.

Answer 5

There is no political motivation. We just think think that the notion that "the science is settled" is propaganda. If anything the notion "all of the experts agree" is politically motivated from the left.

In 1988 Newsweek published an article that said global warming is real and that all of the expert agree. When scientist started to say lets not jump to conclusions the climate has always fluctuated in the past, they were immediately attacked, and their motives were questioned. Remember this is before the study of global warming even began. If scientists slowly came to this conclusion that would be different. But as soon as the theory of man made global warming came out, the propaganda that "all of the experts agree" also came out. So what is the political motivation for the left for that? Or do you really think that 20 years ago the science was settled for such a complex issue?

In the second assessment report the United Nation's IPCC the scientists, with it lead author Richard Lindzen (one of most well known skeptics) came to the conclusion that there were still a lot of uncertainties in the theory of climate change . But the IPCC in its press released said that the science was settled. What is the political motivation for that? http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0

And if you want to know the political motivation of the left, just listen to the 'even if it is not true, it can't hurt" arguments.

By the way, I was a great fan of Al Gore before he released "an inconvenient truth"

Answer 6

I'm not convinced global warming is a legitimate issue, nor an important one.

However, having said that, I do believe a lot of frantic disbelievers in global warming are politically motivated and would deny it if it were true.

The chemical companies used all manner of propaganda, paid every kind of mercenary they could find to discredit pesticide poisoning of the environment back in the 60s and 70s.

They paid for politicians so they could continue doing what they were doing and making money doing it.

The shipping companies and oil .companies concerning oil spills, same song, different stanza.

Clear-cutting saw mills and lumber companies, same song different stanza.

Asbestos miners and manufacturers, automobile companies, same song different stanza with asbestos.

Coal mining companies strip mining all over the country, same song different stanza.

Copper mining companies strip mining holes that can be seen from the moon, dumping cyanide anywhere they can get by with it, same song, different stanza.

Ranchers running cattle on public lands over-grazing for a pittance lease fee trying to get the last blade of grass if there's one left, same song, different stanza.

Having said all that, I'd observe there's a temptation to believe anything the power structure says is false is automatically true.

Liars, rapers and environmental criminals certainly do so when it suits their interest.

But the fact they say it's false and the fact some believe it's true has no fundamental bearing on the condition of truth.

One day the facts will be in sufficiently to allow me to form an opinion. Until that time, I'll not be whupped into the herd just because one side or the other's able to make itself unpleasantly shrill.

Answer 7

There are political ,religious and economic motives against Global Warming,(And we seem to agree at least most if us here that it is a reality,although we keep bikkering over the details)

And maybe there are even meglomaniacle designs involved

Politicians do not like to loose power
to admit to disasters means having to do something about it .

This means changes in industry and social behaviour which cost a lot of money for those who own everything .

And changes or interuptions in businesses that are making a lot of money as is ,such as agro chemicals

To come to the conclusion that in reality the Government is impotent ,will also undermine the trust and confidence (should it exist )and people will rebell or at least riot

For example in case of coastal floodings there is no solution for mass displacements of people .
There is no water or food for millions on the march .

And march to where ??
every where else already are people

It would end up in residents having shoot outs with migrants for their own survival

When the people realise that they are doomed ,
Governments loose control

That is one of the reasons religions are becoming so popular
prepare the masses for death to accept it calmly is the best solution.

Apart from that, these events where not clearly predicted in the scriptures
To prove God wrong is unacceptable to many ,after all he is in charge and is supposed to know what he is doing ,and again to loose believers means loss of controlled people .

So to stick to the belief means to have to deny the truth .there is no alternative for some .

I did a poll with this very question and all those who did not believe in Global Warming also admitted to being religious
(Granted many religious people also believe in global warming )

How ever what is far more sinister are the actions that will accelerate Global Warming ,http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As3IAHjFzBaf_NxxwAm_jYjsy6IX?qid=20070618163201AAyuI69

Now why would that be ?????
The people who control this world are Evil but they are not stupid.

They know far more than is revealed in the Media ,
Do they know something we do not ?
and by now regard this planet as disposable ???

Or do they want to speed up disasters to force the global comunity into accepting globalization,
as some people think

Answer 8

Why does there have to be a political motivation? I could care less what the Republicans have to say on this issue. I KNOW they are wrong on plenty of issues, and I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them concerning global warming. I'm cynical enough to believe that Republican politicians will cash in on whatever angle they can.

If this were ONLY a matter of encouraging citizens to conserve resources, then I'd say, "go ahead. Fool yourself. As long as you are doing good by the world we share, then it's fine by me." Now, I might worry that allowing bad science to take root only hurts all science in the future, but time usually has a way of righting those wrongs.

But it is a LOT more than urging citizens to conserve. Destruction of the global economy. Redistribution of wealth. All of the graft, bribery, and general corruption that goes with a huge amount of money and power with a "scientific" structure wholly concocted by those who are "admistering" the solution. Then there are the schemes to mess with physical and biological processes - and not in a small way.

Consider this:

if man is not the cause of global warming, then it would be safe to say that the cumulative efforts of over a century of reckless human behavior have had negligible effect on the environment. In order to affect a change, then, we would have to purposefully alter natural cycles with MANY TIMES the force we have applied since the Industrial Revolution began. Do I know the effect? No, and neither does anyone else. But I can guess that it would be a force of such great magnitude that it COULD significantly throw nature out of balance.

If you think that is politics, then I can't help you.

Answer 9

It is irritating that people can't see political motivations on your side. Now that people believe in man-made global warming, politicians can steal (taxes) money from fossil fuel companies and the people. Also, scientists receive government funds for continuing the crisis.

Besides for the few receiving money from oil companies,
it is risky business in not believing in man-made global warming.

And by the way, Bush isn't the reason oil companies are making a lot of money now. The Democrats and the extreme environmentalist have restricted oil companies from drilling for oil. It is like you having an ounce of gold and then the environmentalist will not let anybody mine for gold. You end up making a killing on selling your gold and then people get tick off at you for doing so.

If people would look at a Co2 and temperature chart they would see temperature moves independently of Co2.

Why is Co2 instead of methane blamed for global warming when it also rises and falls with Co2?
(The second link shows CH4, methane. Scroll down 75% to see the chart.)

Because Co2 can be blamed more on man and our way of life, and methane would lead to population controls as the answer, which the public wouldn't support.

Answer 10

Clearly anybody who believes humans are the cause of global warming is VERY naive. But for pure politics..

The INITIAL changes the "chicken little" crowd are calling for would require a tax increase of $4000-$5000 per year for each family in this country. These changes would also have the effect of driving millions of jobs out of the country and into nations where emission controls are far more relaxed. That's pretty pricey for making a meaningless, token effort at something we have absolutely no control over.

Increasing taxes and losing jobs are things which cause people to vote against politicians. And any politician's #1 goal is to remain in office.