Why the right goes nuclear over global warming?

Question

Many here questioned whether global warming is true or if there are true science behind it. The truth of the debate may be more than scientific. The following article from L.A. Times put some political insight into the question.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-chait25mar25,0,3748551.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

So what's your answer to this article?

Answer 1

First off, Chait is an OPINION columnist.  An opinion columnist that has long been on-board with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and the need to implement CO2 controls.  He is as dogmatic as he claims the republicans are.  You can tell by the phrasing he uses.  Pot paging kettle, pot paging kettle.....

Secondly, the nature of the right (ie conservatives) is to oppose change for the sake of change.  That is what Kyoto and other such treaties are.

Third, at this point, human influence is unquantifiable.  Thus, making dramatic changes makes no sense.

Fourth, by implementing Kyoto, we would be damning the Third World to permanent poverty because they cannot afford the technology to get on board.

Fifth, China will pass the US this year (or maybe in '08) for CO2 emissions. India is rapidly gaining.  There are countless other nations that are growing rapidly.  Telling the US to stop is likely to be as effective as pissing into the wind.

Answer 2

It's not that global warming is not happening. It is, as it did many times before.

Problem is that the environmentalist movement appears to have been taken over by the extreme left and have clinged on to the ONLY of the greenhouse gasses that humans produce as the cause of global warming. Since CO2 is the only greenhouse gass masively produced by humans, i.e. industry, to the lefties it is the easiest way to fight agains business, since communism is dead.

Answer 3

That article is clear enough. It says that Republicans are following a line that flies in the face of science. Whether it is because their oil interests might be hurt or that they are following a particular influential conservative.

Or maybe they just want to be rebels and back the other 10% of scientists who didn't agree.

Answer 4

The question of whether or not global warming is real--or wherthe it causes climate change--is purely a scientific question.  But at this point it's no longer a question--the research has fully confirmed bboth.  

There can be a legitimate debate over what are the best policies to put into place--and those are not just scientific. They involve economic considerations, among others.

The right-wing "goes nuclear" over this really for sevral related reasons.  For one thing, most of them don't understand science and how it works--another example being their "opposition" to evolution.  They simply don't understand that "evolutionary theory" only describess and explains observed facts--but says nothing (one way or the other--about why (philosophically) those processes occured.  The same is treuue of global warming--they don't know the difference between a political/philosophical issue and a scientific question--so they think the science can be determined by debate, rather than by observation and analysis.

The other reasons have to do with the fact that the right-wing place a religious faith in their leadership (Bush, etc.)--who will, to all intents and purposes, say whatever the special interests tell them too.  And some special interests (mostly the oil companies) have for years engaged in an active campaign of misinformation about global warming.  One example--you may remember a few weeks ago when Congress exposed the fact that the Bush White House had hired an oil company lobbyist to censor scientific reports on global warming. Also check out the Royal Society (UK) website--they've done a lot of work on exposing other fossil fuel industry propaganda.

But--as I said, the right-wing simply follows what their leaders say without thinking.  Some of these people are sincere--but that doesn't change the fact they are wrong.

And some of this political/economic self-interest is also behind some of the right-wing preachers who decry global warming as a "liberal plot," etc. For example, check out where Pat Robertson invests the millions he makes of his "ministry."  You guessed it--oil.

Why that's such a big threat to the oil/coal/natural gas interests should be obvious--but there's so much bad info out there it ought to be obvious.  They are running scared anyway.  Advanced technology--solar, wind, biofuels and emerging automotive technologies are rapidly reaching the point where they will be competetive with--or cheaper than--fossil fuels.  With the crisis of climate change  to spur the development and growth of those technologies, no one is going to want their oil in a few more years.  And cheaper energy will spur economic growth and help consumers.  Every one wins--except the fossil fuel companies.

Answer 5

That article is just more conservative bashing by the left, with statements like, "Republicans are just tools of the energy industry." and "A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement."

I am registered Republican, but I voted for Al Gore in 2000, I support abortion rights, and so on.

So as a moderate Republican my answer is that the left is asking for what amounts to trillions of dollars to be spent to solve a problem, which even if it turns out as bad as the worst predictions say it will, will not cost that much to cope with. And the demand to spend this money is based on pretty shaky science. The growth in CO2 is well documented and agreed on by all, but its effect on temperature is not. All the predictions are based on computer models that predict anything from a new ice age to dramatic warming based on how they are set up. It is just bad science. Anyone who knows how often the weather report is wrong can see how impossible it is for us to really know what the climate will do in 100 years. And even if the U.S. and all other countries did roll back emissions to the Kyoto levels, it WOULD NOT HELP! All it would do is make the changes occur over a 105 year period that would otherwise have occurred over a 100 year period.

Answer 6

I prefer nuclear because there are no CO2 emissions. Just radioactive waste. Seal it in some concrete, bury it- no problems with the atmosphere.

Answer 7

Well, environmentalism is historically a liberal issue, and if the general public swings left because of it, than our Republican Party will most likely lose influence.

Answer 8

Ok I totally agree with the article saying that as corporates see the global warming threat much more clearly than the politicians who think they are protecting the businesses.

Again I can only praise how bright people in the business world are compared to politicians. And yes, I am honestly right oriented concerning business and totally against right wing politicians !!! And it is not a contradiction anymore since THEY are the contradiction.

Indeed, right wing politicians and their short term views are even a threat to the business world since they destabilize the planet while we in the market like clear and stable outlooks to make forecasts.

I could for example tell you about the endless number of companies taken over by short-term investors who cut costs in R&D and destroy the future of a company to write amazing figures in a short term before plundering and leaving the boat just before it sinks. No good captain owning his fleet would do this !

To return to the global warming question, efforts would have to be taken anyway and the earliest the start, the easiest the effort. This is due to the "lock in" by long term investments. Inefficient plants built now will either remain in 20 years and be an economical burden or be shut down leading to wasted investments.

The Chinese industry is already more efficient than the US industry. Even if you don´t believe in global warming, you can still believe in a shortening gap between energy demand and supply leading to rising prices !!! It sounds obvious, but if you subsidize the oil industry instead of energy efficiency, there might be some very unskilled people planning the industrial policy.

Answer 9

I'm a conservative, but I'm also an intelligent person.  I don't rely on one slanted source for my information.  I think it's weird that people don't.  I also think that denying global warming has a lot to do with the mindset of many conservatives.  It's simply not a part of their everyday lives and discussions, so it's hard to grow accustomed to.  That's not an excuse by any means- just a possible reason.  I think that we should ALL go beyond our comfort zones and learn from others, even if that means having a genuine change of heart.

Answer 10

There are still several "rougue" groups of scientists studying the effects of CO2 on the earth's weather, and they have found no distinct links.  While it's clear that the planet is warming, the anthropogenic contribution is still unknown, despite the majority of climate scientists now subscribing to the existence of human effects on global warming.  

Because the issue is still unsettled, Republicans have the option of choosing to believe the less-likely, however plausible, option that human impacts do not effect the warming, and that it is a normal geologic transition for the planet.  

Anytime an issue becomes political, it ceases to have scientific validity, because the debate takes place outside of the scientific realm, where rules of logic are followed, and places in the pundit realm, where anyone can say or make any claims they want.