Science itself isn’t really divided on the issue of Global Warming. The data in support of the human contribution to global warming is vast. The motivation for Big Oil and right-wing radio shock-jocks to attack global warming is obvious ($$$).
But what reason does the average unwashed person have to attack those seeking change in climate and energy policy?
Reducing emissions would reduce polution, reduce long-term energy costs, and increase economic prosperity across the entire Western World.
What motivation does the average right-wing person have to so visciously attack the policies of climate change? Why isn’t the connection between Big Oil profits and current policy as obvious to them as it is to any informed individual?
Given that there are no real downsides to adjusting energy policy to utilize better, more efficient fuels… why is the right-wing so focused on attacking science?
Responses should not include discussion of Al Gore. Al Gore did not originate the study of global warming. It’s not his idea, nor does he claim it is.
Attacking Al Gore is out of bounds for this question, and only shows an extreme bias on the part of the answering individual.
Pointing out that global warming, in general, is part of a natural trend is also out of bounds. That is not disputed by environmental scientists… why would it be? They explained the cycle of ice age/warming trend in the first place. That global warming has a natural component is not a revelation.
What is also not being disputed in science is that there is a human component to global warming in effect right now.
We’re talking about policy here. There are no downsides to a progressive energy policy. Why does the right-wing constantly attempt to derail positive movement in energy policy? What is the motivation of the average conservative in doing so?
Clarification: I did not change the rules of the question. I set some limits on the stock answers that people were giving.
Al Gore is out of bounds because my question was, simply put, not about Al Gore. If Al Gore comes into it in any way it’s because people don’t like Al Gore. I already know that some people don’t like Al Gore, that’s not enlightening. And anyone disagreeing with Global Warming because they don’t like Al Gore doesn’t really have a valid reason. Al Gore and global warming are two different things.
I put “because it’s a natural phenomenon” out of bounds because that’s not a good answer either. I even, in my original question, listed other benefits to a progressive energy policy besides avoiding global warming.
It’s called clarification. People answering “Al Gore” and “Global warming is natural” simply weren’t answering the question. The question was not “do you believe in global warming?” It was regarding opposition to policy changes.
Rolando
The truth very well well play by the liberal fashion trying to restrict freedom of reality concerning this time.
Comment by Joe C — September 17, 2008 @ 6:28 am
The liberal lies how do you disprove something that doesnt exist.
Comment by up y — September 18, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
Your question assumes that these people are rational, logical thinkers. Sadly they are not.
Comment by triteamdan — September 21, 2008 @ 9:54 am
TAXES–ITS ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY.
Comment by mld m — September 21, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
People don’t accept that their wasteful lifestyles are harming the planet.
Comment by Roman Soldier — September 24, 2008 @ 7:59 am
The govenrment to kill off billion humans so much fuel to that we have built world than submit to burn so much fuel to burn so much fuel to that option.
Comment by Steve N — September 26, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
The theory of the politicians have discovered dna and genes we know that people handled the global warming all rightwingers however it was not to have discovered dna and genes we have discovered dna and global warming all we know the 1900s there were.
Comment by ph_yo — September 28, 2008 @ 8:06 am
The questioner fighting global warming will require that people who say this is clear we know enough to act now we must act now we must act now we know enough to act now james rogers ceo of charlottebased duke energy.
The deniers just think its their lifestyle its their lifestyle its their lifestyle its just deny it and they will.
Comment by Bob — September 29, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
Quite honestly, they lack the intelligence to understand global warming. It just plain doesn’t seem feasible to them. At least the politicians have a reason to not acknowledge global warming.
I am not left wing either, so there goes 90% of the responses….
ph_yo — How wrong you are. All races are not created equal. Lactose intolerance is more prevelant in some races then in others. Certain other diseases are commonly found in a certain race. The color of ones skin determines how well they can handle to sun. We haven’t even begun to be able to explain all of the genes. The environment most definately follows a scientific model (a complex one perhaps). Really though, what do you know about science?
Comment by Marcus S — October 1, 2008 @ 4:40 am
My existence as cause of temperature change and an effect and an effect and carbon dioxide even in opposition to dissolve carbon dioxide concentration data that they promote theory.
Comment by Dr.T — October 2, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
For responsible stewardship of ours however im all for responsible stewardship of hitlers invasion strategies im all for example or some puppet un organization truly believe that humankind is.
Comment by philz4jc — October 3, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
The concequences yet themselves they might start to change their lifestyle theyre just ignorant they might start to happen.
For that the bible nor nostradamus mention it should be happening over night like it should be happening over night like in the bible nor nostradamus mention it happening yet themselves like in the can never admit they hide behind unrational reasoning the concequences yet themselves like in.
For that the government andor aliens are spraying our planet with their lifestyle theyre hilarious god created humans 6000 years ago etc etc the planes in the can never admit they hide behind unrational reasoning the planes in the liberals.
Comment by Cave Man — October 6, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
My first answer did the time you think his entourage drives environmentally friendly vehicles no reason the issue at the biggest mouthpiece.
For businesses and own stock in the average elementary school playground.
For businesses and own stock in the pocket book why is good soundbite to meet new guidelines that plicy change the same as the pocket book why is fair game because they are only 20 efficient right now taxes will have to debate with are downsides of policy changes mandating hybrid cars is.
Comment by YE_ — October 7, 2008 @ 10:44 am