Why are conservatives so hostile to the idea that global warming is real?

Question

See the Politics section on this page:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming#Politics_of_Global_Warming

Surely, of all issues facing our society, this one should remain in the zone of political neutrality?

Yet why is it that the vast majority of people who oppose taking action against global warming, seem to be on the right of the political spectrum?

I am aware of the (rather short-sited and amoral) argument that to change anything in the economy could cost jobs and lead to an economic downturn. There may even be some truth in this argument in the immediate future.

However, the correct response to the "economic argument" should be to try to change the economy in order that it 'works with' these problems, should it not? To try to wish the problem away in order to be allowed to continue with an economic plan which was forged 20 years ago (in the Ragan years), seems rather short sited and stupid.

After all, the economy will only survive if we do.

I did not intend any 'character assasination' in my question. If the wording to my question suggested this, then I apologise.

However, it is equally as true that (seemingly) more right-wing groups tend to reject the mainstream scientific evidence (and it happens to be mainstream science for a very good reason by the way).

I'm sure that there are some right-wing scientists out there who come up with this same conclusion in their research (that humans are responsible for global warming), so I'm somewhat confused by claims that it's all a Liberal coup of some sort. (Besides, what would anyone - be they liberal or conservative - have to gain from such claims???)

Also, to those of you who suggest that I'm a "gullible follower", and "unable to do my own thinking", I'm sure that you are well able to show me the righteous path.

To avoid the polarisation of opinions, I now wish I had worded the question a little differently. Perhaps:

"Why is it that evidence for global warming seems to be rejected more readily by conservatives than liberals?"

I do not think this question politicises the global warming debate. I feel that it merely highlights a world truth. (And by the way, if you disagree with this "world truth", I am happy to listen to any evidence you have to the contrary.)

to bustersmycat:
I accept your point about character assassination, but that said, I hardly think that calling someone a conservative falls into such a category.
See my points above how I wish I had rephrased the question.

Answer 1

Perhaps because you libs just accept it as true and expect us to fall in line with you.
Perhaps because you libs love to put us in a pocket and leave us there.
Grow up and you will see that you just politicized the issue.

Answer 2

I believe that most conservatives accept that the climate is changing (yes, there are some exceptions like Ann Coulter) but they do not accept that Man is the cause for this. There are a number of legitimate reasons for this belief (please help Vice President Gore as he faints), for instance the fact that in general the earth has been warming for the last 18,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age and the fossil record before that shows that there were several eras after Ice Ages when the climate was far warmer than it is now (of course, those warm periods also terminate in catastrophic mass extinctions).

However, many 'conservatives' do not use this argument because some of their staunchest supporters believe the universe is only 5000 years old.

I think we have to look at the fact that we live in an over-litigious culture. If they were to accept that human economic activity was causing global warming, that would be to accept causality, and causality leads to responsibility which leads to fault which leads to liability which leads to litigation which leads to financial remedy. We all know how ridiculous the outcome of the tobacco lawsuit was (I believe they are still fighting over the lawyers' fees and California said they would use some of the proceeds to offset police brutality judgments!). This sort of lawsuit would be truly catastrophic.

Just my opinion, since we are in the conspiracy theory mood.

Answer 3

The very idea threatens their pockets and spirituality
But don`t you worry
counter measure are in place

I think that The truth is being distorted at high levels,
And lies have been weaved in.

Some of the real dangers are being hidden because there are no solutions , Public could panic.and Authorities would loose control .and changes will cause loss of profits

I think some facts are exaggerated so that the phenomena can be used to milk the people.

Besides Corporations have other priorities they are more interested in Global Control ,than Global Warming

And is is hard to admit or come to terms with the idea that Gods could be out of control ,unloving or incompetent.

Or that something so insignificant as man can affect his Environment

Answer 4

Such a broad brush doesn't paint very well. And your basic accusation is BS as well. Those that disagree with the latest, greatest, fabulous "consensus" don't necessarily disagree with global warming ... they disagree with the presumption that it is the fault of people. And those that disagree with that "consensus" are not necessarily conservative, either.

But ... assuming your question holds even a kernel of truth in it's assumptions - that would indicate that all of the "chicken-little" gloBULL whining supporters are left-wing liberal whackos, wouldn't it?

It could also indicate that conservatives are more clear-headed, don't jump to conclusions, rely more on common sense than emotional clap-trap when dealing with serious issues, and have a better basic understanding of how this subject is being used as political propaganda by those with an agenda to push more government control over the world's people, economies, and resources.

Answer 5

"Surely, of all issues facing our society, this one should remain in the zone of political neutrality?"

You wish.

Human nature just doesn't work that way. People from different backgrounds think very differently. I saw a good example of this back in 1991, during the first gulf war. I was studying part time to finish my engineering degree while working for a very conservative 100 year old company (they made steam trains in the old days, now they do some big defence contracts), very nice people and very conservative. You can imagine what university campuses are like during war time. Banners, posters, speeches everywhere you look. The office was the exact opposite. When the US airforce started bombing Iraq, everyone stopped what they were doing and crowded around a radio (no internet back then). Absolutely everyone agreed that this was the right thing and that we should be sending ground troops to help out the Yanks. It was quite a learning experience for me.

Answer 6

Do you people have a hard time typing out Anthropogenic? It's not that the Skeptics don't believe in Global Warming. We don't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. The planet we live on has gone through these cycles before, and it continues to change. To think that we live in a static system is just plan....

How do you think the Grand Canyon was formed?

How were the Rocky Mountains formed?

Do you really think that something as dynamic as the planet we live on would be affected by the activities of mere humans is so arrogant it's insane.

It's not that we don't have to clean up our act to clean up the air we breath and the water we drink, but this is getting way out of hand. And it would be great if everyone would see that and start acting in a more rational manner.

People claim the US isn't doing anything, well I know of at least three major Automobile Manufactures that are creating alternate fuel vehicles. And I don't see other Auto Industries in Europe doing that. I bet I could even find other major industries voluntarily changing the way they do things here in the US.

But let's all claim (fellow Americans included) that the US is bad. Bullocks!!!

Answer 7

Conservatives are reluctant to change. The right side of the political system wants to return us "to the way life used to be". (apple pie, white fence, 1950ish) , or at least give us that illusion. Also, it doesn't help that they are in bed with all the major sources of pollution.

They don't care if we survive. They just want us to buy more junk, work longer hours and make them richer and richer. Without a slave class, there cannot exist a leisure society.

See www.storyofstuff.com

Answer 8

I guess on this issue I would be classed as a liberal but I will answer all the same. The difficulty for Conservatives is very clear. Should they accept that Global Warming is a real and urgent problem, which many do, then they have to accept government action which will inevitable impinge on people. The basis of conservatism to which I also subscribe is that people should stand on their own two feet as far as possible and that government is kept to a minimum. Hence the dilemma. Say yest to Global warming and you are saying yes to more interference.
The solution to this is to try and use price mechanisms so that we can still make choices. To give one example. If power companies have to purchase carbon offsets then this will be reflected in the price of power and people will be able to decide how much to use in a way that is carbon neutral.

Answer 9

think about it what has caused global warming. our industry is a big factor. burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor. from cars to factories. now with that the amount of people employeed the amount of gas guzzling cars we have the fuels burned in the homes for heat etc all contribute in a viscious cycle of money and the economy. and to top it off the all the oil refineries big money which are tied in with the auto makers. take a good look at the average fuel consumption of a automobile say 15+ years ago. I had a 86 pickup that got 22 miles on the gal. had a 91 saturn got 33 on highway had a 86 bronco got 20 had a 2000 mazda pickup got 20 have a 2004 explorer got 19. at one point we were doing better on gas mileage then it went down hill again. tinkered with diesel pickup computers a few years back increased mileage and performance why cant the companies do the same. all because of money and they dont want to kill profits. so much for the global warming conspiracy why business keep fighting the politics of it

Answer 10

It's not money-efficient. They don't want to give up their luxuries or fat paychecks they earn at the expense of our environment (oil, meat industry, electricity).

The fact of the matter is that everyone has to sacrifice financial luxuries to help the environment. Citizens are willing to do it, but we need our government to act first because they have all the money. It will cost us upfront, but we won't suffer financially when we adjust to the new sources of power, food, and resources.

And of course, conservatism's philosophy is tradition. Even when change helps everyone, their set of ideals are based around preserving old ideals. They want things to stay the same. It takes a big toll on everyone but they're not going to change their perspective when they don't even support change, in general.

Yes yes, give me the thumbs down. But I can't possibly think much of a political philosophy that believes in God where there is no evidence to prove such an existence, yet they deny something like Global Warming when there is such heavy, and such obvious, evidence to support it.

Answer 11

I think that characterizing global warming naysayers as conservatives is politically inspired character assassination, just like saying that those who disagree with the whole global warming thing are in the pay of special interests like oil companies. It has nothing to do with the argument about the validity of the science or how one interprets the available information.

If I say that I do not agree with the global warming hysteria, which I don't, calling me names does nothing to change my mind. And nobody would make the mistake of calling me a conservative or in the pay of those particular special interest groups that knows even the basics about my positions.

I take it as a general sign of weakness in the supportive arguments for his position when a person resorts to character assassination as part of the discussion.