Posted on 04/23/2011 11:17:44 AM PDT by presidio9
You might think that those who are skeptical (or downright intransigent) on a CO2 basis for global warming are bigger wasters of energy or greater polluters than those who accept climate science.
Not so. Skeptics are just as green. Their reasons may simply be different.
In 2008, Ed Maibach and colleagues did a survey (Who's 'Greener', Democrats Or Republicans?) and found that percentages of people concerned about our climate future to varying degrees were about what you would expect; on the fringes were outright deniers that pollution could be bad on one side and on the other side were people who believe anything advocacy groups like Union of Concerned Scientists tell them. In the middle were varying levels of skepticism and acceptance and that has likely gone up and down as issues like ClimateGate (and UN claims about 50 million people in a global warming Exodus by 2010) came to the fore or new studies showing melting ice came around.
So why wouldn't skeptics be less environmentally considerate? As discussed in Were Republicans Smart All Along? They Accept Climate Change But Not Global Warming disbelieving a CO2 basis for global warming does not mean lack of concern about the environment, it's more that climate scientists and journalists chose to become cheerleaders for global warming - and that was never going to win hearts and minds when it came to good policy decisions. Skeptics still care, they just aren't convinced the other side is caring about the right thing.
Stephanie Pappas at LiveScience recently caught up with Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale University Project on Climate Change, who helped with the 2008 survey, and he noted all of the groups, from outright skeptics to true believers, conserved energy at the same rates.
"The dismissive are conserving energy and saving energy as much as anyone else," Leiserowitz told LiveScience. "It's about thrift, conservation. These are core American values."
Why? To some, conserving energy is saving money, to some, it is dislike of OPEC dictators who control much of the oil supply. It doesn't matter why, the fact is they do it. Insisting that people not only act the right way but truly believe is religion, not public policy, so doing the right thing is good enough.
Environmental advocacy groups have shrilly insisted they are being outspent and that is why they have lost ground publicly. That was never true, not even close, but it brought in donations because activists wanted to believe it, much like they want to believe they're the only ones who conserve energy or care about nature. Matthew Nisbet, associate professor of communication at American University in Washington DC but more famous here for his staunch advocacy of framing science (cynical opposition to our belief that people out there are smart, they just don't like being deceived or manipulated) did a study and showed that not only were advocacy groups not outspent, even the more generous agreement to accept environmental group statements for how much they spent on global warming ad campaigns was well beyond what detractors were able to mobilize.
Instead of lamenting a money cause for skepticism, the onus is back on climate science to rein in silly kooks who think they are trying to help and become trusted guides for the public once again. But, no, the commentary on Nisbet's work from the usual suspects is that it wasn't peer-reviewed (it's an analysis of money spent - yet the Himalayas are melting passed IPCC 'peer review' just fine, even though it was a comment from a magazine article printed as fact) while Joseph Romm of ClimateProgress.org panics and claims opponents of climate legislation outspent environmentalists 8 to 1 and thinks that because other true believers also don't like Nisbet's analysis it must be flawed. Logical fallacies make lousy science.
I'm not a big fan of his framing stance but Nisbet is right on this one. Because climate change is an issue that impacts all of us, it has to be acted on by all of us. So why people use less energy or tackle charge is basically irrelevant - stopping terrorism, saving money, caring about Sierra Club - what is important is that they do.
Damn straight. I use the old Techumseh rototiller my great grandmother left when she died. It was built around 1938 or so.
I’m betting that its probably earth friendlier for me to continue using it than it is to manufacture a new energy efficient model.
I don’t buy into the warming agenda at all... and I have to say I’m a super conserver. And yes, I do recycle...to me it’s a FREE trash pick up( we have to pay for private or haul it ourselves), and we use a lot of glass bottles I live in a blue state, and you would think all my dem neighbors would have HUGE recycling bins... but noooooo. They barely ever put anything out. I’ve actually gotten the biggest containers the county offers.
I realize that most of these recycling programs cost us more than they’re worth... but that’s not the point. They are already mandatory and in force, so you’d think the gvoernmental types would be swarming to follow the agenda.
Is anyone shocked?
Libtards have no credibility.
I know 10X more about conservation and energy usage than my libtard sister, who thinks consrevatives are neanderthals.
The modern ;left is just about feelings - not action.
Bingo! A number of years I started a company that does energy efficiency work in mostly industrial applications... I won’t get into the details of it but some time ago, I crunched some numbers of past jobs and realized that our small company had collectively reduced electrical power for our customers by thousands of megawatts. Do my customers think they are doing something good vis a vis climate change? Some no doubt are motivated by that pat on the back, an atttaboy and perhaps even some incentive dollars from a guvmint somewhere... but for the most part, they are doing it because it makes good business sense and it helps their bottom line.
As for me personally, I’m in the midst of building a house in a northern clime that will be totally off-grid. People often have commended me for this thinking that I’m motivated because of some deeply held philosophical leaning as to doing something ‘good for the environment’...... I have to correct them and say, “well, now that you mention it, the reason I’m doing this is because I have absolutely no trust that the electrical grid isn’t being totally driven into the ground because of the influence of a bunch of envirowackos with all the wind and solar that they are trying to push on to it. When they have totally messed it up, I still want to comfortably operate my house.”
I think that there is another point here... if a person believes in the climate change nonsense as proclaimed by Al Gore et al, they probably aren’t really that swift. Somebody who calls BS to what truly is BS is in fact much smarter. Since reducing your energy bills is all about being smart, which side logically succeeds the best at it?
That’s because the warmies are more interested in telling you what to do than in doing it themselves.
That’s because the warmies are more interested in telling you what to do than in doing it themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.