Why is it the people who deny global warming happen to be conservative?
929269
They have no logic or rational thought on this subject.\n\nNot one reasonable response with actual hard evidence.  Why? Because there is none.  \n\nJust too stubborn to admit they're wrong.  Just like fearless leader I guess...\n\nBTW scorbore's links above are all bogus (except one) he posts them to every global warming question.  Here's the definitive link;\n\nhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686\n\nEDIT; Hey Scorbore dates don't mean anything.  Do you even know the scientific standard of publication by peer review?  Only one of your links was a peer reviewed publication.  All 928 of mine were.  So, which do you believe your 1 or my 928 :)
959698
It's inherent in the idea of tradition and conformity, which are strong conservative values.\n\nThe conservative model advocates slow change, conformity and respect for doing things the same way they had been done. They oppose radical shifts, and fringe or alternative lifestyles, because those tend to be (as they believe) destablizing influences.\n\nThey also tend to believe that groups make decisions better than individuals, and that people should not be allowed to make choices that are harmful. It's a very parental attitude.
1168013
Are you kidding?\n\nRepublicans tend to be conservatives (though there are exceptions for sure)....\n\nIn general, conservatives want to "conserve" our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and strive to keep the government close to the principles upon which it was founded.\n\nBeing a Conservative...I'd like to remove the Commerce Clause though!!!!!
1012630
People rarely accept the accusations made about ideas that they hold to be truths, especially when the accusations are made by people who are opposed to their ideals.\n\nPeople want to believe things that make them feel better about their lives. They want to feel like they're supporting the good of mankind. Where we all differ greatly is in what we think is good for mankind.\n\nSo people believe the things that stroke their feelings of self worth and reject the ideas that make them feel bad.\n\nThis has nothing to do with conservative values and everything to do with human nature.
254686
And conservative Christians don't?
1041724
Because it is a way for big business to push there idea upon the public to spread fear throughout the world so it is easier for them to sell new products or for government officials to try to win elections studies have shown that that the ice caps go through periods of shrinking and growing and is not unusual for it to do so there is should be no fear of global warming its just propaganda and should be discredited by any self thinking intelligent person!
863668
Global warming is NOT a "natural thing."\nYes, our planet all on its own, for various reasons, does go through cycles of warmer and cooler temperatures.\nHowever, in the last 150 years we have added many billions of tons of carbon in various forms (carbon dioxide in the air is the biggest problem) to the planet's ecosphere -- more than any "natural" cause in the history of the earth.  \nI very much want to leave a habitable planet to my children, so they can do the same for theirs.  That means reducing humans' artificial climate changes which are causing a runaway greenhouse effect -- which is NOT natural.\n\nThe earth isn't going to "die" naturally for another 4.5 BILLION years or so -- why are you so relaxed about moving that deadline up by 4.9999 billion years?\n\n"only" girl -- it's not a theory, it's well proven.  You should keep up with science.
353680
the global warming theory is driven by politics, not science
1073265
The defense is to ignore it as a problem that they can do anything about. The most common argument that you will hear is: "The global climate has been changing throughout its history." We do have more than 100 years worth of data, and yes, there has been major climatic changes in the past.\n\nThere is some disbelief that human actions can affect anything as big as the global climate, too. Arguments that take science into consideration are the best ones, but they're the least often used. Usually, it's just this general statement of disbelief that is given.\n\nLet's take the previous poster's example of the Mars ice caps melting, and how we haven't been studying the Earth's climate for long enough. First of all, there is no statement about how this is beyond the normal seasonal fluctuations of Mars. After all, the ice caps wax and wane according to the seasons. Now, consider how long we have been studying Mars too. Have we studied Mars sufficiently long enough to be able to decide what is or is not normal seasonal changes for Mars?\n\nAnother claim to helplessness is to say, "This is the only choice that we have - without a fuel source, economies would collapse." This argument relies on the fact that there are no viable alternative fuels. However, I would like to see a little less helplessness, too. If we don't have another source of fuel for getting to work, why doesn't the government fund research into alternative fuels? Before you say there is no money, think about how much money we spent on Iraq. Wouldn't it have been better spent on research & development of alternative fuels? If we are no longer dependent on foreign oil, then we are not funding terrorists.\n\nAnother tactic is to attack people on a personal level, to distract attention away from the problem. In truth, it's difficult for the individual to make big changes in the world, and that is why for things like that, the government has to step up to the plate.\n\nHowever, I do not want to be mistaken for towing a party line. I do not limit this rule for Republicans or Democrats. While the Democrats have been slightly more environmentally friendly, I would like to see somebody more radical from either party come into office - you know, somebody who is willing to try to fix the problems that the government is presented with, both on a national and an international level.
1085430
Because they feel that they are the only people who work for a living and have morals.  The reality is that many who preach Conservative values have had mommy and daddy pay for their education, apartments, cars, etc...  They are often raised in families with money and receive large inheritances to help start businesses (ex: Dubbuya) and forget that there are middle and working class folks who bust their backs everyday to pay bills.\nIt's easy for Conservatives to criticize people that are not born with silver spoons in their mouths!\nOn moral values- Rush Limbaugh and viagra, Tom Delay and his fine crew, and Rev Jimmy Swaggart and his sex scandal...  Need I say more!
1093830
Here's something to dwell on:\n\nGlobal Warming has become a religion run by fanatics reminiscent of the leaders of the darkest days of the Inquisition that nearly destroyed civil society only a few hundred years ago. We are not to question the great god of Global Warming. Those who do are separated from civil society and labeled as heretics. \n\nThe simple truth is there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. In fact, as the media frenzy screams global warming, there are a growing number of scientists who are expressing their doubts.  In 1992, just prior to the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders signed The Heidelberg Appeal, a quiet call for reason in dealing with the climate change issue, which expressed a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. Today, the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 scientists and leaders from 100 countries, including more than 70 Nobel Prize winners.\n\nAlso in 1992, another statement from some 47 atmospheric scientists was issued saying greenhouse global warming theories derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. The statement went on to say, "We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science."\n\nIn 1995, over 85 scientists and climate experts from research labs and universities worldwide, signed the Leipzig Declaration. In part it says, "In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For these reasons, we consider ‘carbon taxes’ and other drastic control policies – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."\n\nIn 1997, a Gallop Poll of eminent North American climatologists shows that 83% did not support the claims of the green house theory of Global Warming.  In 1998, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) issued a petition for signature by atmospheric scientists saying there is no scientific evidence indicating that greenhouse gases cause global warming. That petition was signed by more than 17,000 scientists and leaders involved in the issue. \n\nGlobal Warming scaremongers have tried to discredit these statements from the opposition, saying either they are too old to be counted in today’s debate or that they weren’t signed by real scientists. Neither is true. One only has to look at the signers on the documents and statements to know who and what they are. The relevance of the documents can be answered in two ways. First, most of the signers of these documents from the 1990’s hold the same positions today. Second, as is the fallacy in the Global Warming debate, such drastic climate changes, as described by scaremongers, would not come about overnight. Though the proponents would have you believe otherwise, 15 years is but a microsecond in the study of the earth’s activities.\n\nHowever, there is great question about the validity of the documents promoted by the Global Warming crowd. In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the United Nation’s report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the report to make it conform to the P
451150
They are not conservatives at all. They call themselves Neo-Conservatives which is not conversative at all. They are pro big spending, pro government, pro intervention, pro pandering to illegals, pro regulation, pro church inside of state.
511072
notice how no one has answered...\n\nthat means there is no legitimate info to back up a viewpoint that involves wasting energy (notice how i've omitted "conservative" because that would mean they would "conserve" something!)
879786
Conservatives don't have any more or less interest than anyone else. Religious nuts masquerading as Conservatives are uncomfortable with their own sexual insecurities/inadequacies and, rather than deal with them, try to bring everyone else down to their level so they can feel "normal."\n\nThe fact is that they are not "normal." A fixation or obsession with what's going on in somebody else's pants is a form of perversion in itself.\n\n.
200158
Isn't cool and Conservative in the same sentence somehow wrong. Especially these days when they are down to 37%
999435
Perhaps you are too young to remember this, but 20 years ago (when I was in elementary school) the environmentalists were worried about global cooling.  A couple years later when I got to Junior high all of a sudden it was global warming that the environmentalists were all worried about.  \n\nThe truth is that the most liberal (generous) readings were that the Earth's average surface temperature had risen by 1 degree farenheit.  Those readings were taken from airport thermometers.  Temperatures taken in trees showed no significant changes.  \n\nAddressing the airport readings...In the early 20th century airports were out in the country far from urban areas and runways were generally made of dirt as were the roads, but by the end of the 20th century they were a part of the urban sprawl.  Cement sidewalks and paved roads and runways cause the temperature to rise and could explain the 1 degree increase in temperature all by themselves.
706254
ok now here is some truth for you. Global warming is a THEORY nothing more, it has not been proven. an ALL the scientists do not agree. more than half do not agree and because of that they do not get media coverage. That is why all you hear is global warming on the news because it gets ratings. Many, many scientists agree this is a phase, the earth has wamring periods and cooling periods, we just now are getting out of a cooling period. every here of the "year without a summer" in the 1770's. that was the height of the cooling period. if you look back further in the 1300's it was hotter then, than it is now according to historical evidence. Volcanoes produce almost 10 times the green house gasses then humans produce per year. Nature is not this fragiel little thing like all the libs want you to believe, its very tough and adaptive it recycles many of the wastes we produce but also many of the wastes itself produces which in comparison to ours is infintismal. I agree we should not be reckless and find better, cleaner and more efficient ways to do things. If you want the truth, yes global warming is true, the "globe" is "warming" but not because of the Dodge Diesel you drive, but because its a cycle and in a few centuries it will begin to cool again. Most people here never heard of what these very same scientists were saying in the 70's. the same people screaming about global warming were do the same thing about "global cooling" in the 1970's and some suggested we put coal soot on the ice caps to gather heat from the sun to melt them. Look it up, its true. So before you goes starting going nuta about this global warming farse, do your homework instead of believing everything you hear on the ratings driven news everynight.