Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
Why is Global Warming a . . .
Topic Started: Mar 4 2008, 04:20 PM (1,298 Views)
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Why is global warming a left/right issue?

The lefties says humans are contributing to global warming.

Rigthties say nope.

Why is this be left vs. right?
Any guesses?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Good question Kenny. I've wondered that myself.

I have some ideas, but I hate to generalize.

Groupism is bad.
:lol2:
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Because to correct global warming would have an adverse impact on business.

And those on the right care more about business.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Mar 4 2008, 04:22 PM
Because to correct global warming would have an adverse impact on business.

And those on the right care more about business.

This makes sense to me.

It is clear what the right has to lose.

But what's in it for the left?
What do they gain by spreading a lie?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
QuirtEvans
Mar 4 2008, 07:22 PM
Because to correct global warming would have an adverse impact on business.

And those on the right care more about business.


Another way to look at it might be that to "correct" it would take more government interference.

That interference might hurt both business and pleasure.

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
QuirtEvans
Mar 4 2008, 07:22 PM
Because to correct global warming would have an adverse impact on business.

And those on the right care more about business.

That's typical democrat talk, and quite ridiculous. If it was all about business it would be easier to just stop selling lawn tractors and start selling wood heaters.

It's really quite simple. Democrats, now comprised mainly of leftwing fruitcake ideologues, are prone to fall for conspiracy theories and other such "sky is falling" nonsense, and they are conditioned to accept whatever argument their "side" puts out there. Years of brainwashing has left them unable to think for themselves. They have been programmed to have Pavlovian responses to certain topics - not Quirt's comment on "business".... among these are environment, capitalism, business, "big oil", etc. They're also searching for a set of religious tenetsto replace the ones they have shouted down in the public square, tenets that will reflect their various "causes". Combine an environmental issue with capitalism, oil, business, and a few other things, organize it like a religion, and it's a leftist's wet dream. They're accustomed to having their thinking done for them, and they *want* someone else to organize their lives for them. Liberals also absolutely love what they call "thinking in shades of gray", which in reality means "wandering around in circles clueless, unable to reach a decision". Reaching a decision is anathema to liberalism.

Conservatives on the other hand do not fall for stuff like this. We know how to think for ourselves, and we look at both sides and make a decision. We don't need to wander around in the weeds impressing ourselves with our "enlightenment" - we look at the facts, make a decision, and then leave our minds open should the facts change. We like a clean environment but we understand the concept of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Conservatives don't accept the global warming story because the science is not there to support it. In fact, the science is there to prove it wrong, and that is now being acknowledged. Liberals accept global warming because Algore told them to, and because it's just a nice "touchy feely" crusade to be on, as it makes them feel like they have a "cause".

On short - liberals suffer from a mental disorder, conservatives don't.



Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I have a theory that we all kind of sub-consciously go along with the 'accepted' position of our political allegiance for the majority of things. I might be wrong, of course, but I'd love to hear what Tony Blair thought about this before making a final decision.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Personally, I think the answer is that conservatives are mentally defective, and unable to process either logic or science.

I'm sorry, is that insulting? Sort of like saying that people have a mental disorder?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
It's worth noting that many conservatives outside the US have no problem agreeing that global warming is an issue. I think the initial question in this thread is inaccurate.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
QuirtEvans
Mar 4 2008, 07:48 PM
Personally, I think the answer is that conservatives are mentally defective, and unable to process either logic or science.

I'm sorry, is that insulting? Sort of like saying that people have a mental disorder?

Yeah, but as a yellow dog democrat who suffers from the debilitating mental disease of liberalism, you're not qualified to offer a diagnosis......
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
It's because conservatives want to maintain the weather status quo, and so therefore deny that any changes might occur.

The liberals, on the other hand, are very eager to change the status quo, and so therefore embrace the changes that might occur.

And they all have mental disorders! (After all, it's an equal opportunity program here -- if the liberals get to have a disorder, then we shouldn't leave out the conservatives)
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I think Sam is right on. Conservatives like to keep things as-is, and liberals like to change (for better or worse).

That and, like all issues, politicians have to pick sides. Even with "common sense" issues, it seems we always pick sides.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
The notion that Conservative=status quo/liberal=change is an incorrect one.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Larry
Mar 4 2008, 08:55 PM
The notion that Conservative=status quo/liberal=change is an incorrect one.


This is well documented by Larry's avatar.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LadyElton
Fulla-Carp
:popcorn:

:yawn:
Hilary aka LadyElton
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Mar 4 2008, 08:55 PM
The notion that Conservative=status quo/liberal=change is an incorrect one.

I was somewhat joking in my post. Humor is sometimes hard to bring out online.

(I was serious about the equal opportunity thing, though. :wink:)
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Improviso
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'
Quote:
 
The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.

Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.

“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”

The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.

Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.

“I have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.


Former Thatcher Adviser Monckton Warns Global Warming Alarmism 'Kills People If You Get the Science Wrong'
Quote:
 
Science is a very powerful thing and it’s important to get it right.

That’s the message Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy advisor for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s, told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York. 

According to Monckton, the movement behind global warming alarmism can be traced to some ugly things, and being wrong about it could have a grave impact on humanity.

“I think the question you’re asking is who’s behind the scare,” Monckton said. “There’s been a long history of scares recently and scientific frauds of various kinds. It began, I suppose, with the eugenics movement in the 1930s which led to Hitler. It followed on with the lyceum movement in Russia under Stalin. It went on with the great leap back under Chairman Mao which led again to tens of millions of deaths. The point you’re making is that this kills people if you get the science wrong.”

Monckton used the banning of DDT, which was linked to the deaths of 40 million children dying from malaria, as an example. The World Health Organization lifted the ban on Sept. 14, 2006, and that was, as Monckton said, “The science standing in front of politics.”

Monckton held the media responsible for the one-sided portrayal of the climate change issue and stated that global warming alarmism can be defeated when refuted by science.  He used a recent court ruling in Great Britain as an example that restricted showing Al Gore's documentary, “ An Inconvenient Truth,” in schools.

“You sell far more papers by saying, ‘Gee, wow – World to End; Shock; Sensation’ than you do by saying ‘Climate Continues to [be] Changeable,’ which is the truth,” Monckton said. “So where the media is largely closed on this, but the courts are not and that is the place where if you go and make a reasoned argument based on the science, you can always beat the other side, because their science – and we heard it over and over again today – is simply incorrect.”

The idea of the media being “closed” on the subject was supported in the Business & Media Institute’s latest study, “Global Warming Censored,” which found the U.S. network news leaving out skeptics of climate alarmism 80 percent of the time.

Monckton blamed the attention garnered by global warming alarmism on a combination of factors, but said it wasn’t conspiratorial.

“Now here we are once again with another scare,” Monckton said. “It’s the same people behind it. It’s the international left. It’s the media wanting a scare story. … It’s not so much a conspiracy I think, as a coincidence of outer interests who is set to take and advance their causes collectively by getting behind this nonsense.”

Monckton told the audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away.

“They’ve got the science wrong and it will gradually penetrate to the general public that they have got the science wrong and once the penny drops – that will be the end of this scare too,” Monckton added. “We’re not far away from it now.”
Identifying narcissists isn't difficult. Just look for the person who is constantly fishing for compliments
and admiration while breaking down over even the slightest bit of criticism.

We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
taiwan_girl
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
I think that Kenny is generally right in that the majority of people who think global warming is a problem (or will be a problem) are more democratic and those who do not think it is a problem (or will be a problem) are republican.

What I do not understand is why people would be opposed to changes that would help the environment, whether or not global warming is actually true.

Will it cost money? Yes. Will some businesses be effected in a bad way? Yes.

Will many new businesses (hiring new employees) start up to develop new technologies to implement the changes? Yes.

"When one door closes, another opens".

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
taiwan_girl
Mar 5 2008, 10:18 AM

What I do not understand is why people would be opposed to changes that would help the environment, whether or not global warming is actually true.


One man's help may be another man's hinder.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 02:20 AM
Why is global warming a left/right issue?

The lefties says humans are contributing to global warming.

Rigthties say nope.

Why is this be left vs. right?
Any guesses?

That's only a phenomenon in the US.

In most of the rest of the world, there is no significant difference between left and right with respect to global warming: They accept the scientific consensus.

The US news are quite funny in that they somehow feel they must always report "both sides", to keep the news reporting "balanced", as if it were a symmetrical situation with good arguments on both sides and still an "open question".

So, keep in mind that the US is more or less the only country in the world where this debate is still considered newsworthy.

Here is an interesting article on Balance as bias discussing this matter.

So, considering Larry's quite convincing arguments in this regard, I must conclude that the American right is just more intelligent than the rest of the world.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
That's hardly an unbiased article itself, Klaus. You also might want to get out more - some of your countrymen aren't lining up in the lemming line the way you seem to think.......
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Okay so let's say for a moment that the right's skeptisim about accepting GW is related to higher costs for businesses.
That's understandable.

Anything that costs businesses money is bad.
It lowers profits and reduces shareholder value.
Profit is the oxygen of business, capitalism and in fact our way of life.
There's nothing wrong with this.

I get it.
I am a liberal, but I need a job.
Company must be profitable.
I can understand if business owners oppose excessive taxes or govermental intervention or other stuff that lowers profits.

But the business owners, the shareholders, the CEOs even the republican senators also are humans too. (Well most of them.) :P
They breath air.
Their grandchildren will need to eat food.

All the other threats to profits are yucky, but they pale in comparison to this GW thing.

If it is really happening global warming is the most terrible and serious thing to ever happen to mankind.
All of mankind, even the righties.
Corporate profits are meaningless if the planet self destructs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
And a healthy planet is meaningless if we've all starved to death.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Klaus
Mar 5 2008, 07:37 AM
The US news are quite funny in that they somehow feel they must always report "both sides", to keep the news reporting "balanced", as if it were a symmetrical situation with good arguments on both sides and still an "open question".

So, keep in mind that the US is more or less the only country in the world where this debate is still considered newsworthy.

Excellent point Klaus.

America's "balanced journalism" thing gets corrupted into an equality thing.
By represent both sides of everything it suggests that 2+2 might just equal 5 too.
After all we wouldn't want to discriminate against those 5-ites.
We are all equal, so it follows that everyone's ideas are equal too, regardless of how hairbrained they are.

Example: Evolution and Creationism are just both just theories and as such are equal and should both be taught to children.
Science is just another religion too. :wacko:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Klaus
Mar 5 2008, 11:37 AM
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 02:20 AM
Why is global warming a left/right issue?

The lefties says humans are contributing to global warming.

Rigthties say nope.

Why is this be left vs. right?
Any guesses?

That's only a phenomenon in the US.

In most of the rest of the world, there is no significant difference between left and right with respect to global warming: They accept the scientific consensus.

The US news are quite funny in that they somehow feel they must always report "both sides", to keep the news reporting "balanced", as if it were a symmetrical situation with good arguments on both sides and still an "open question".

So, keep in mind that the US is more or less the only country in the world where this debate is still considered newsworthy.

Here is an interesting article on Balance as bias discussing this matter.

So, considering Larry's quite convincing arguments in this regard, I must conclude that the American right is just more intelligent than the rest of the world.

[off topic]

Another parallel is the "evolution vs. creationism" debate.

Excepting fundamentalist-Islamic states, I think the US is the only hold out against teaching the theory of evolution in public school science classes (and where major Presidential candidates still can't afford to embrace the theory of evolution publicly). Though I'm glad that "intelligent design theory" doesn't seem to grab any headline these days, which, I suppose, is progress.

(Now doesn't this make you Second World people feel good? :biggrin: )
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5