Why did the National Review chastize conservatives who deny global warming?

Question

They did a cover story about that. Key quote:

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

Answer 1

Excellent work Bob!

Where's "Dr. Smith" and "JELLO" our most infamous (albiet seemingly intelligent) anti-GW trolls? They seem awfully quiet today.

Why NR now?  Perhaps it's harder to put something ridiculous in print (except in Yahoo! A's) than it is to blather it on talk radio!

Answer 2

Source?  It is not like you not to include your source.  Is it possible to provide it?

Edit:  If you want us to comment you will have to provide us a link so we can read the whole article.  Is this quote being taken out of context?

Answer 3

Because any reasonable person can look at the balance of SCIENTIFIC evidence and see that global warming is a real and serious threat. The “deniers” simply can’t get beyond their own narrow scope of ideology and come up with solutions that will mitigate and prevent the most severe of the possible consequences.

Future generations will look back at the “deniers” as greedy SOBs who put profits for ExxonMobil before people. Deep down even the most ardent “denier” knows that global warming is real; they are just too fearful to do anything about it.

Answer 4

What issue of NR??  Author??

Answer 5

Because it is a debate and they need to engage.  By denial the perception is that conservative don't care about the environment.  And that's not true however perception can be  reality.   I do not fully subscribe to AGW however the earth is warmer and humans have an affect.  I don't buy into the idea that our influence is that great and that we can stop it. That being said I am environmentally aware and we has a family have worked hard to make sure we take care of the environment.  Hopefully in the future I will be able to invest into solar power and get off the grid not because of global warming I believe it is the right thing to do.  

The problem I have with AGW believers is the idealism.  If a group can scare society enough we can force our social ideals upon them.  I disagree with that, and that does not make me a greedy SOB as  stated by one of your responders.   I am tired of liberal verses conservative and one accusing the other of being evil.  Seems to me its the Pot calling the Kettle black.   It is your right to persuade people on Global Warming, it is wrong to put those down who do not fully believe in it.  Especially if you have never met them and how they live.  The idea is to get people into the debate because at least you know they are taking the time to get involved.

Answer 6

Because even conservatives that are half way mindful know the truth. They also know that eventually the evidence will be incontrovertible even to the deniers as their world crumbles down around them. When this happens which every party seems to be affiliated with these people will lose major influence.

Republicans like democrats can be misguided at times on certain issues, but within each party there are intelligent members who are not only capable of seeing truth but also morally awake enough to call for change.

Answer 7

The National Review recognizes the AGW problem now?  Seems the conservative leadership is convinced of the problem.  Guess the new "leader" of the anti-AWG is Inhoffe - and he is no leader.  He is a wealthy real-estate developer that represents the hard-core gas and oil industry in the senate (under the pretense of working for the citizens of Oklahoma).  

I guess with such a highly qualified leader,  the anti-AGW lobby will fight on despite the science and evidence!

Answer 8

Because Conservatives today are mostly Republicans, and to Republicans Party Unity is a sacred value.  Minority gadflies are frowned upon.  The philosophy is, "If you don't agree with the Party's position on the issue, go join the Democrats.  They have as many opinions as they have members.  You'll just be one more".

edit

Curtis, Hoo boy, just what we need.  More of this:

"I think it is time for scientists to consider the possibility that more CO2 in the atmosphere might, on the whole, be good for life on Earth."  

As if they haven't!

Answer 9

Um, because people who sellout there planet, people who take cash to find an angle that lets mega corps continue down there paths towards our destruction deserve ridicule.

It's far easier to come up with a reason to disbelieve, then to prove something, especially when the consumer wants a reason to keep there eyes closed.

Answer 10

Because denying reality is not a sound political strategy.  

It's about time.  Giving liberals 100% control over the solution (if conservatives stayed out of the discussion) would probably be more damaging than doing nothing whatsoever.

Just look at the Los Angeles plan to fund mass transit as if that effectively wiped out global warming, at a cost that would otherwise be high enough to completely offset everyone's total carbon impact for a year (including their coal-fired electricity).  Yet no measurable net reduction or offset would be achieved from that plan (people aren't going to suddenly hop on buses en masse simply because more buses are operating).

There will be dozens upon dozens of pointless "solutions" proposed that will only drain our resources, right when we can least afford to waste them.  Traditional conservatives should be there to kill those proposals.

Of course the Bush strategies of "kill and spend" and completely selling out to corporate interests have proven to be far worse (just look at our the U.S. dollar's dive in value and the resulting increase in gas prices), so hopefully the Republican Party will learn from that failure and get back to basics.

Global warming, "eco", "bio" and "green" initiatives are simply politicians' latest marketing tools for pork-barrel spending (ethanol and biodiesel being promoted as ecologically beneficial by the Bush administration are prime examples of this sort of blatant dishonesty).  We need both parties involved to minimize each others' excesses.

Hopefully along the way something truly productive will occasionally get done as well.

Answer 11

Because the  conspiracy is vast. Al Gore paid them off. Can't they tell that it's cold outside? What's wrong with these people?

Answer 12

You've asked this question before.  I'll give the same answer:

To not engage faulty logic is to let it fester and grow.  Notice what your quote says:  "...shake off denial and get into the...debate".  

It doesn't say AGW is real.  It says get into the argument.  Let your voice be heard!  Otherwise, we're going to lose our way of life to the socialists and their one world government agenda...all because you felt their argument was too ludicrous to be taken seriously.  

Silence is taken as consent...or in this case, consensus.

Answer 13

Mark Anthony, JS and evans are right, the choice was made to engage in the debate rather than just sitting on the side and saying no, since the media won't cover that. This is why Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders have joined the debate as well.

Does it mean we're heading for the catastrophe Al Gore and the Greens who think the IPCC is too conservative claim? No. We are adding CO2 which causes some of the warming we were experiencing. However, it hasn't gotten any warmer since it was in 1998, while China has been pumping record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The link between CO2 and temp is tenuous in the real world and fraught with many complex interactions, but if we add enough it may continue to get warm. This does provide an ace in the hole when the ice age returns but it won't cause global temp to increase the way Al Gore and the Greens blather about.

Neither will it cause sea levels to skyrocket. The only way either can happen is if some external force exerts itself here, such as much stronger solar activity, a solar flare or some other solar event. The Earth just doesn't produce enough heat on it's own to keep us from freezing solid, so it can't melt ice caps on it's own.

CO2 levels have been as much as 20 times higher than they are now and the world went on as before, with temp less than 10C higher than they are now. I think we could endure that temp increase since our technology is quite superior to that used by the ancestors of dinosaurs.

Having a debate isn't the same as losing a debate, which is what the Republicans were doing by denying CO2 could have any impact. Obviously it can, just not as much as AGW advocates claim. Overall, more CO2 and more warming will be very beneficial, but it is still time to move away from fossil fuels. When the ice age returns we'll need them since we won't be able to access oil thru miles of ice and in ice age conditions. It's also vital to give enough thought to any proposal. We'd do far better to subsidize and innovate LED lighting for homes than encourage everyone to turn to CFL bulbs which we know will cause problems once they fill up our landfills in 20 years, leaching mercury into the soil and water supplies. There are many other examples of half-****** but well-intentioned ideas that only worsened the problem they sought to resolve so a debate is needed, then action can be considered and only the best ideas implemented.

Answer 14

Because climate change is real and will affect our planet.  How and to what extent is up to us and we need to take action now.  Some repubs are cashing in on it like with the new shipping route that opened up in the arctic because of melting ice. so some are happy about it.

Answer 15

Probably because the NR wants to do something about Conservatives making a concerted effort to embrace ingorance.

As someone who identifies with certain conservative ideals, I find it perplexing that people who would champion some fairly common sense ideas would so willing and enthusiastic about trumpetting of their own lack of knowledge, or faith in arguments that just aren't true (and often ridiculous on the face of it).

Answer 16

Huh, I did not see your link to the article, Bob, So I added my own.

National Review online reported this story too.

Answer 17

Because they can

* see the writing on the wall

* feel which way the wind blows

* hear the steady drumbeat

* smell their hair on fire

* taste their eminent demise

And it's telling them to

"Get with the program or get left behind".

As much as I wish we could all come together on this

a part of me wishes the most obscene of these guys (a few of my relatives included) would just keep their head in the sand until they are so thoroughly far outside the mainstream of American thought that they just

implode and go away.  

Bushie's do'in "one heck of a job"

Yeah!