A question about global warming for conservatives

I know that just a few months ago you conservatives pride yourselves in not believing that global warming was real and that all the scientists who came forward with evidence that connect the rise in average temperture with carbon emission were delusional or lying.What about now, especially now that the Bush administration has admitted that the problem is real? I just want to get a feel of what the conservative side is thinking on this issue.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I always thought that it was a bunch of hot air...

You tar us all with a broad brush.Most political (non-religious) conservatives had no doubt about man’s role in Global Warming. As usual, the vocal minority got all the press. Any dolt (except the religious kind) could read the literature and see the facts.Please, Taz, make allowance for us political types who see Conservatism in light of the expanding (intrusive, pork-barrel) role of government and its affect upon our pocketbooks.But, I cannot fault you for this alone. It appears my party has as deserved a poor reputation as do the democrats.It's the old joke: Democrats believe that all money belongs to the government and each year congress gets to decide how much you get to keep. Republicans believe they must get the government out of our pocketbooks and back into our bedrooms where it belongs.My kingdom for a Lincoln/Kennedy Third party.

I'm not a climatologist, so I don't know first hand about global warming or how obvious or complicated the evidence is. In my ignorance I will accept the majority consensus of the scientific community.But as an evangelical Christian, I am just as confused as you and just as irritated that my group almost unanimously doesn't "believe" in global warming. I don't see why this would be a religious issue at all, its not like the Bible has outlined that it is impossible for man to warm up the earth's atmosphere. I did ask this once on a purely Christian forum and they unanimously jumped on me that global warming science was based on atheistic principles??? But unlike evolution, which I now accept as fact but for which I see they would have reason to object (literal genesis: the fall: theology, etc), I don't know WHY Christians are involved in this issue at all. It is not about the science, we are all as ignorant of that as we are of evolution. Its something else and I haven't figured it out yet. I can tell its not just the science because to defend their position they gave me links to scientists who object to global warming. But the pages they linked to were scientists talking about the weather over the past 500 million years, while everyone on this private forum was a young earth creationist (except me obviously). So they don't even seem to care where there science comes from (they must think any science that assumes the earth has more then 500 million years of history is faulty from the start) as long as it says what they want it to say.So why don't Christians want global warming to be a reality? When someone can answer that question let me know. I would think the rapture ready type would like it and just use it as one more point of evidence that the end is near and we are all going to hell in a hand basket.BTW, I'll tell you why I(!) don't want it to be real! I don't want to get cooked... But that has nothing to do with my trust in Jesus.

just a guess--they don't want to take responsibility for our mistake. And I don't think this applies only to the fundie christians who reject global warming. I think this applies to everyone who rejects it.Why? Because fixing it requires a lot of hard work and money for a future outcome in the somewhat far off distance. Most people don't care about the future that far off. We are a culture of "I want it now!" That, and if they can't see a tangible benefit for themselves, why should they bother?In all, an excuse to not do something. Pathetic.

No, you're not I find this hard to believe. Just about every conservative I have talked to in real life have said that there's no such thing as global warming. Just about every christian church I've ever heard talking about this issue have said that they didn't believe in global warming. Even on the news I consistently saw conservatives like Ann Coulter trying to pass global warming off as a fantasy. And lastly, the Bush administration, before this year at least, have consistently tried to block scientists' attempts to present their evidence even at a point where they were sensoring papers that were submitted. Again, I find it hard to believe that, after all that's happened, the majority of conservatives actually believe the scientific community on this issue. But we're not talking about taxation or economics. There's a reason why I have someone else do my taxing for me... don't know anything about it.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Not all that long ago we had choices between Rockefeller and Goldwater where we were looking for the better of two great candidates. That is no longer true. However the position of the Bush Administration was that carbon emissions were not even pollutants that could be regulated until the Supreme Court stepped in. The Bush Administration is still taking that position announcing only last week that the US could not support mandatory limits and should rely instead on future evolving technology.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

They do, and they also believe we cannot do anything about it and it a desirable thing anyway.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The thing that makes "small-government conservatism" a mug's game is that I've never met two conservatives who could actually agree on what to eliminate. Or rather, they can agree - they both agree that what should be eliminated is what benefits the other guy, and that what should be kept is the stuff that benefits them.Honestly you guys are as much dupes as the global warming deniers; I don't see that there's any reason to make allowances. The deniers have the data that they ignore, and you small-government guys have all the data you ignore, such as the fact that government expands its scope invariably because there's a need to do so. If the free market was sufficient to provide for all needs, then government would never have been developed. And what do you think happens to that money? It falls into a black hole? The government expenditures under Democratic leadership typically put more money in everyone's pocket, because there's a lot the government can do to prevent you from going into debt or indenturehood to meet your basic needs. Under Republican leadership, taxes are cut - for the rich, and business subsidies increase. Conservative leadership winds up costing a lot more. Anybody who's been paying attention for the past 6 years knows that.But, you know, keep pretending like there's some kind of substantive difference between Bush's conservatism and yours. The only disagreement is that Bush preserved the programs that benefited the rich rather than the ones that benefit you. Seriously - check out Barack Obama. He may be just what you are looking for. They're already calling him the next Lincoln, and it's not because he looks good in a stovepipe hat.Sorry for going so off-topic, but the idea that a small-government conserative has any standing to assert that their position has any kind of intellectual merit has been laughable for the past 6 years.

When you say they think it is desirable, do you mean they think a warmer climate would benefit us? Or that it is bad news for us but it is better since it means we are closer to the rapture?

The later. We have a member here in particular who is always claiming end times prophecy being fulfilled even though the reality of course refutes his assertions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I started this thread with the intention to get to know the current views of conservatives on the issue of global warming, especially now that the Bush administration has acknowledged the problem. I really did not intend to debate with anyone, and I ask that people (ahem... liberals) don't jump in and try to pick a fight with conservatives.If I remember correctly, there were plenty of conservatives here who doubted the existence of global warming, or at least the proposed cause of it. Please tell us what you think.

might i refer you to newt gingrich's infamous appearance on the diane rehm show?http://wamu.org/programs/dr/07/05/15.php#15863it's infamous because he was supposed to stay for the full hour but left abruptly when he didn't like the questions.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

I try my best not to allow myself to be labeled politically, it leads to too much stereotypical reactions (lol @ taz), but here are my views, label me.I think the greatest issue on the debate is not wether it is true or not, the greatest issue is not losing sight of the process. I believed it at first and i still do, but there is credible evidence on both sides of the see-saw. The process that cant be lost is the scientific one. Scientist with opposing viewpoints shouldnt be massacred or labeled as heretics and murderers, they should be listened to, sure. Argued against, sure. But definatly not shot down, ripped to pieces, and blacklisted. The funny thing is, the ones who usually do that are either the politicians or the scientists who have a wish to have political influence; decisive action seems more aluring then appeasment.They (both sides) are theories, and no absolutely decisive climate change has yet occured to show it one way or the other. Decisive being a key word because its been ths hot before and even if this weather-trend is not on the climate-calandar, there is more than one variable in a climate model, which tend to be psychotically complex.Please dont flame me, respect my post. The opposing party of a scientific debate shouldnt be a pariah, thats all im saying.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

---

This statement is false.

I'm sure their viewpoints would be given due consideration if they'd submit them and their research to the peer-reviewed journals.But the climate-change deniers never do that. They go right to the press and to the politicians.Which makes their claims very suspect, don't you think? The truth of the matter is, there's no scientific debate to be had about climate change. Anthropogenic climate change has been established beyond reasonable doubt, and the only people who deny it are the people no evidence could convince.