Why is The Right (seemingly) so Anti-Climate Change?

[dmw16]

I am a bit all over the place with regards to my political views. I am fiscally conservative and am in favor of smaller government. I prefer a government that leans towards strict-constructionist views. Socially speaking I don't believe the government should be involved with abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research limitations, or anything else that goes towards legislating morality.

With that said, here is what I can't figure out; why does the right seem to be so anti-Climate Change? I understand that there is conflicting data on the subject. It seems that is generally accepted that there is change happening to our climate but its cause is not as well understood. People I know personally who hold advanced degrees in a mix of sciences seem to feel climate change is a reality and it is at least partially caused by people.

But what I can't figure out is why it is such a polarizing issue politically. Especially considering that politicians and pundits on both sides really don't know what they are talking about.

For instance, I was listening to Mark Levin last week (who I generally enjoy) and he was saying that the idea that warmer air can hold more moisture than cooler air is bull. This was with regards to why global warming could have some impact on all the snow we are getting in the DC area. It seems like fairly basic knowledge that warm air holds more moisture. In this case, the Mark just assumes that Global Warming is bull and that warm air thing is wrong.

So why does this issue seem to drive people to extremes? Whether climate change is happening is an academic question that should be determined and then a course of (non-partisan) action taken (or not taken) accordingly.

Sorry for the slight rant, but I just don't get it.

 

[Robor]

Environmentalism is generally attributed to 'the left' so 'the right' is against it - especially the modern day 'right'.

 

[Tom]

it's inconvenient. Or God's will, depending on the bent.

 

[nick1985]

Why did global warming become climate change?

 

[ElFenix]

part of it is trading certain economic penalties for uncertain enviro benefits doesn't necessarily make sense.

Whether climate change is happening is an academic question

unfortunately that question went political decades ago.

 

[dmw16]

Why did global warming become climate change?

I guess at this point we (or at least I) tend to use them interchangeably.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Since we're speaking in generalizations here. IMO, the 'right' tends to believe that we (humans) OWN the earth and it's gods will that we can use it to whatever purpose we should. Fossil fuels are infinite, the pollution we create will have negligable impact, and anything to counter that is for tree hugging eco-terrorists to do.
The 'right' tend to side with big oil, big polluters, etc, and any regulations or progress in more efficient or cleaner energy would subsequently do harm to their friends at Mobil or National Grid aka, a dent in their wallet.
Change is eventual, we will have electric vehicles, solar powered homes, wind powered generators, it will just take time. All great dynasties die off, railroads are a great example, a railroad tycoon 120 years ago was a king. Today they're a suffering businessman trying to figure out a way to make their company money.
There are plenty of 'lefties' who are in the pocket of big oil, big pharma, etc. It's more of a 60's throwback when tree huggers tended to be hippies, left wing, anti-nam folk, and it's bled over to the 21st century.

 

[Jaskalas]

1: The science isn't settled.
2: The left supports it.
3: The solutions attack freedoms.

 

[monovillage]

Because Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't about the science, it's about a political agenda.

http://article.nationalreview.com/424508/climate-gtterdmmerung/the-editors

"Former Colorado senator Tim Wirth was unusually candid when he remarked in the early days of the climate campaign that “we’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Not surprisingly, after Wirth left the Senate and the Clinton administration he ended up at the United Nations.)"

"The sources for these claims (in IPCC AR4) turned out to be environmental advocacy groups — not rigorous, peer-reviewed science.

"One of the central issues of Climategate — the veracity and integrity of the surface-temperature records used for our estimates of warming over the last few decades — is far from resolved."

"Dissenters who pointed out these and other flaws in the IPCC consensus were demonized as deniers and ignored by the media, but they are now vindicated. "

 

[Deeko]

Its very simple, actually. The right resists big government and favors free markets. The global warming/climate change advocates want more and more government regulations in place to try to prevent it. Therefore, the right resists - they don't want to give the government that kind of control over their lives/business based around science that is hotly disputed.

 

[NetGuySC]

It is my understanding that the right does not disagree with climate change. Science has proven that the earth's climate is somewhat cyclic. The problem is with the scientific assumptions that climate change is now all man made, is the problem.

 

[yllus]

Since the "Right" is not the "Left", a natural us versus them suspicion comes into play (this time for good reason, at least on the political side).

 

[dmw16]

Its very simple, actually. The right resists big government and favors free markets. The global warming/climate change advocates want more and more government regulations in place to try to prevent it. Therefore, the right resists - they don't want to give the government that kind of control over their lives/business based around science that is hotly disputed.

I wish this part was true. However, both sides contribute to the growth of government as well as increased intrusion into everyone's personal lives.

No one wants to be the commander of a dingy, everyone wants to be the commander of a super carrier.

 

[spidey07]

The Right is all about personal liberty, freedom and The Constitution. All of which any means on controlling peoples behavior or productivity because of Global Warming goes very much against.

But you know, we can't have our thermometers set to 72 degrees and drive SUVs. No sir, those days are over - Barrack Hussein Obama.

 

[rudder]

Why did global warming become climate change?

When it snowed 3 feet in Washington.

And answering the OP it is because the left wants to tax everyone into poverty to prevent climate change.

 

[alphatarget1]

I am a bit all over the place with regards to my political views. I am fiscally conservative and am in favor of smaller government. I prefer a government that leans towards strict-constructionist views. Socially speaking I don't believe the government should be involved with abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research limitations, or anything else that goes towards legislating morality.

With that said, here is what I can't figure out; why does the right seem to be so anti-Climate Change? I understand that there is conflicting data on the subject. It seems that is generally accepted that there is change happening to our climate but its cause is not as well understood. People I know personally who hold advanced degrees in a mix of sciences seem to feel climate change is a reality and it is at least partially caused by people.

But what I can't figure out is why it is such a polarizing issue politically. Especially considering that politicians and pundits on both sides really don't know what they are talking about.

For instance, I was listening to Mark Levin last week (who I generally enjoy) and he was saying that the idea that warmer air can hold more moisture than cooler air is bull. This was with regards to why global warming could have some impact on all the snow we are getting in the DC area. It seems like fairly basic knowledge that warm air holds more moisture. In this case, the Mark just assumes that Global Warming is bull and that warm air thing is wrong.

So why does this issue seem to drive people to extremes? Whether climate change is happening is an academic question that should be determined and then a course of (non-partisan) action taken (or not taken) accordingly.

Sorry for the slight rant, but I just don't get it.

Because self righteous assholes like algore tells people to cut back in their emissions while living in a 10k sqft home and fly in private jets.

 

[dmw16]

But you know, we can't have our thermometers set to 72 degrees and drive SUVs. No sir, those days are over - Barrack Hussein Obama.

I know plenty of people who still do those things.

 

[dmw16]

Interesting responses.

My view has always been that our ability to do serious damage to the earth is pretty limited. It's was here long before us and will be here long after us. It has been hit by countless objects from outer space and so on.

The real upside (in my eyes) of thinking that we can impact the climate is that it will accelerate our conversion to more sustainable forms of energy which (in the end) will be positive. Fossil fuels are a limited resource and having to buy them from overseas isn't the greatest thing anyway.

 

[Deeko]

I wish this part was true. However, both sides contribute to the growth of government as well as increased intrusion into everyone's personal lives.

No one wants to be the commander of a dingy, everyone wants to be the commander of a super carrier.

Sure....but environmental regulations are one of the areas the right doesn't like big government

I'm not saying that stance isn't hypocritical - just that that's what it boils down to.

 

[rudder]

I know plenty of people who still do those things[ thermometers set to 72 degrees and drive SUV].

And those people pay more for doing that. I keep my thermostat on 68 and drive a car that gets 40 mpg. My natural gas and gasoline bills are lower as a result.

 

[Robor]

The Right is all about personal liberty, freedom and The Constitution. All of which any means on controlling peoples behavior or productivity because of Global Warming goes very much against.

But you know, we can't have our thermometers set to 72 degrees and drive SUVs. No sir, those days are over - Barrack Hussein Obama.

What a load of crap. If you were new I'd swear you are a parody poster.

 

[Deeko]

My view has always been that our ability to do serious damage to the earth is pretty limited. It's was here long before us and will be here long after us. It has been hit by countless objects from outer space and so on.

Sure. Even if we managed to wipe out most of life on earth, something else would adapt. There have been mass extinction events - such as the P-T event, where over 90% of marine species and 70% of land species went extinct.

The problem with the hippies is they are liars. They don't care about Earth - and if they do, they're stupid (as the above suggests). What they really care (or really should care) about is the impact of global warming on humans. So basically they're either liars or idiots.

Not all of them, before some of you jump down my throat. Just the 'save the treeees maaaan' environmentalist hippies.

 

[blackangst1]

Your title is misleading. There isnt a conservative who thinks the climate doesnt change. But rather, where the disagreement is, is 1. how much (not whether or not) man has contributed, and 2. how much (not whether or not) man's changes could/would affect for the positive. Hell...there are studies out that show if earth stopped polluting altogether it wouldnt have a significant effect on climate change. And there are, of course, studies that show man has been the greatest contributer to climate change. As Jaskalas said, the science isnt settled.

 

[ElFenix]

The Right is all about personal liberty, freedom and The Constitution. All of which any means on controlling peoples behavior or productivity because of Global Warming goes very much against.

But you know, we can't have our thermometers set to 72 degrees and drive SUVs. No sir, those days are over - Barrack Hussein Obama.

the right is all about personal liberty and responsibility until actually asked to be responsible.

 

[dmw16]

And those people pay more for doing that. I keep my thermostat on 68 and drive a car that gets 40 mpg. My natural gas and gasoline bills are lower as a result.

Gotta pay to play. In this case, I think the free market has driven up the price of fuels. No one is telling anyone not to drive SUV's or set your thermostat @ 72. But if you want to do those things you'll need to shell (haha, get it, fossil fuels, Shell ) cash to do those things.