Why do Conservatives deny Climate Change?
MrMerkinball
Posts: 1,978
Can someone explain to me why the Republican's (or Conservatives) have taken the politcal stance that Climate change is not real and should be ignored? What is in it for them? IN fact, it seems a little contradictory.
The following points should be addressed:
1. The statistics supporting Climate Change are overwhelming. If I went to 10,000 dentists, and 9,999 said I had a cavity, and 1 said I was just fine - who should I listen to?
2. What is there to lose? Let's say we all agree that Climate Change needs to be addressed, and we spend the next 50 years, developing clean sustainable industry....and then we find out we were wrong. So what? Aren't we still better off? It would be like training for the olympics and not getting a medal. The worst thing is that you are still in great shape
3. Conservative's and Capitalists go hand in hand. There is no greater capitalist venture facing us now, than a Green Revolution.
4. If the Republican's really wanted to secure your country, wouldn't it make more sense to develop your own clean energy, and therefore you weaken your enemy's who depend on Americans purchasing your oil?
Or is it just that? The Conservatives will never support anything that would diminish the use of oil, because big oil is so entrenched in the Conservative Party?
(Go easy on me - I rarely venture on the Moving Train).
The following points should be addressed:
1. The statistics supporting Climate Change are overwhelming. If I went to 10,000 dentists, and 9,999 said I had a cavity, and 1 said I was just fine - who should I listen to?
2. What is there to lose? Let's say we all agree that Climate Change needs to be addressed, and we spend the next 50 years, developing clean sustainable industry....and then we find out we were wrong. So what? Aren't we still better off? It would be like training for the olympics and not getting a medal. The worst thing is that you are still in great shape
3. Conservative's and Capitalists go hand in hand. There is no greater capitalist venture facing us now, than a Green Revolution.
4. If the Republican's really wanted to secure your country, wouldn't it make more sense to develop your own clean energy, and therefore you weaken your enemy's who depend on Americans purchasing your oil?
Or is it just that? The Conservatives will never support anything that would diminish the use of oil, because big oil is so entrenched in the Conservative Party?
(Go easy on me - I rarely venture on the Moving Train).
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I agree with everything you've said. I don't get their mindset either.
the PR campaign and lobbyists are well funded by Big Oil and industry - they use "think tanks" and "op-ed" pieces and right wing media outlets to cast doubt on what is now widely accepted around the world ... they use triggers to convince their audience based on their cause ... ex: Conservatives hate taxation - so, ultimately, the strategy is to convince people that climate change is a fraud and that it is a cash grab by environmentalists who don't want to get real jobs ... based on the iraq war - it doesn't take much to convince conservatives of things they want to believe ...
that is the primary reason ... although the more educated and true conservatives have accepted climate change ... those people although accepting of the science don't really care about future generations so, they would rather not suffer short term hindrances and generally remain on the sidelines ...
the little ice age and before then by a few million years and all the sudden we are worried about it now ?
I have to agree with tybird..follow the money, didn't Al Gore turn this into a money making machine ?
I'm not a metieroligest (spelling glitch) or anything even close to it but I don't have to be learn and pay attention to past history :roll:
Godfather.
How about a new concept? Before congress can change or make new policies there must be a jury called to oversee all new policies . . . a jury made up of regular folks that will not be allowed to talk to anyone relating to the case . . . and any new policies, laws or taxes must be proven beyond a Reasonable Doubt that it is needed.
This would be a better process knowing that representatives (both sides, republicans And dem.) are all paid by special interest.
(I was just called to jury duty last week. The process was very interesting to be involved in. Hence my great revelation.)
jesus dude you couldn't be further from the truth. Conservatives deny the claim that it's Man causing it. I don't deny that there is climate change. I just don't believe that it's man made. and there has been plenty of evidence to support it just from info that has surfaced in the last 6 months.
And we don't hate taxation. Just over taxation. And if you can't see the fact or understand the fact the people that having been crying the loudest are the ones who will be profiting the most when or if Cap and trade passes. That's called conecting the dots
:wtf: Did the war in Iraq have to do with any of this ?
There is no conclusive evidence that Global Warming :oops: I mean climate Change ( next year it will be called something else ) is anything other than natural temputure vaiations which existed before mankind.
For example Carbon dioxide,The primary green house gas produced is not a toxic polutant. CO2 is vital for life on earth.
dude ... we already know you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to the science ... you can post all your unsubstantiated links like you've done in the past ... and guess what - someone will refute it and you will disappear like you did at least 3 times in your "Busted" thread ... you have no response to the rebuttals on your links simply because you don't understand the science ... all you do is regurgitate talking points based on a PR campaigns strategy verbatim with very little understanding whatsoever ...
i mean ... dude ... look at your last point!! ... try breathing CO2 in concentrations above 1% ... ever hear of carbon monoxide poisoning? ... like really - please ... do yourself a HUGE favour and read "trust us, we're experts" ... you have been played ...
you're gonna take ONE person and now use it as a reason to discredit thousands of scientists?
and please - no one post another retread link ... take your own advice and follow the money ...
I watch the history channel
hahahaha
this appears to be the prevailing mentality sometimes.... :x
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
well there big fella maybe after the prom you and your lisbian friend can tune in NASA and watch that also...
shit howdy ya'll might even learn sumthin, I heard thar's a huge ol' hole in the sky suckin the life right out a earth makin the polar cap's melt in all. ha ha ha ha
Godfather.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Money $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Renewable energy=unlimited funds
My original question is not about the validation of Climate Change. I personally don't see anything to debate there...
My Question (and I am not nearly as knowledgable as you all seem you be) is why the Conservatives have chosen the side they did. It's obvious that it is an oil based decision, but it just seems so short term.
Another point, if the conservatives wanted to attract the young voter, what single issue will mean most to that demographic?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
What tax?
Conservatives like money as well as they fear change. They cling to the fossil fuel industry for money as well as the need to insist that renewables are unnecessary since that would mean major change. Science is something they seem to really not be too interested in, unless they can pay a scientist to write what's in the politician's interest.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
yes ... we hope your recovery is going well!
Please dude I have posted pleanty of examples that shows it's a big Fucking SCAM, and the links I posted a 4th grader could understand them. Your just to stubborn so you probably din't even read any of the links,but so what.
I can sit on my ass all damn day and post like some peoople can. I actually have a life and a job unlike some people. and I said CARBON DIOXIDE (Co2) not MONOXIDE (CO) I guess your not as smart as you think you are.
this is another example ... CO2 IS TOXIC at concentrations above 1% ... look it up ... like seriously - don't you feel embarassed for yourself posting this stuff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[2] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.
every single one of your links have been refuted ... just go and peruse your "Busted" thread ... again - go read "trust us, we're experts" ... i suspect you will disappear from this thread as well ...
I don't fear change.....I fear democratic higher taxes larger government change.
What would higher taxes and larger government be a change from? Certainly not a change from anything over the last twenty years.
The only change will be where that revenue is spent. And hopefully how well that large government operates.
the 2 guys that wrote that write great books
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'