Posted on 06/20/2006 5:36:45 AM PDT by libstripper
Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this? After all, if the science is as conclusive as Al Gore, Time, Newsweek, The New York Times and virtually every other spokesman of the Left says it is, conservatives are just as likely to be scorched and drowned and otherwise done in by global warming as liberals will. So why aren't non-leftists nearly as exercised as leftists are? Do conservatives handle heat better? Are libertarians better swimmers? Do religious people love their children less?
The usual liberal responses -- to label a conservative position racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic or the like -- obviously don't apply here. So, liberals would have to fall back on the one remaining all-purpose liberal explanation: "big business." They might therefore explain the conservative-liberal divide over global warming thus: Conservatives don't care about global warming because they prefer corporate profits to saving the planet.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Close, but no cigar. The left is comprised of three key groups: (1)perverts, (2)losers and (3) opportunists who prey on perverts and losers. Global warming is a hot button issue because it gives leftist opportunists a justification for increasing government's reach at the expense of freedom and enterprise.
They don't call 'em Watermelons for nothing...
(Green on the outside, pink on the inside...)
Answer:
1) We don't really believe Global Warming will occur; it's probably just a liberal myth created to socialize (read: impoverish) the world
2) If Global Warming occurs, humans are hugely adaptable, and we'll cope just fine
3) If Global Warming occurs, we doubt Al's doomsday scenarios
4) Preemptive action to prevent Global Warming requires mass starvation (how will you move food?); we're not excited about global genocide
5) Kyoto alone will have virtually no effect on Global Warming, if it is true
6) No other country has taken proactive action that resulted in adherence to Kyoto. Only Russia and the U.K. have achieved their goals via de-population (Russia) and Thatcherite breaking of the coal unions in favor of natural gas.
Didn't Breshnev say something to that effect when he resigned? The road to global communism is through environmentalism, or something?
7) If Global Warming is occurring, it's a result of natural forces far beyond human control.
You missed a the biggest one--flush toilets. I'm not making that up. Just read Ann Coulter's magnificent book, Godless
Oddly enough, I've found one type of organic food that's quite useful--prepackaged hearts of romaine lettuce. They keep very well.
WHY? Because they still believe
Al Gore invented the Internet,
and that Gore was right when he
said he and Tipper were the
models for "Love Story!"
Exactly!
As a pilot I follow the weather very closely on a daily basis and have for almost 30 years. I'd love to see a consistently accurate forecast 12 hours out.
One thing that always comes to mind when some Greenie gets all worked up about so-called "Global Warming" and says "this is the hottest day in 100 years" or "this is the hottest day on record", I always wonder, what caused the hot day 100 years ago and what about the "record" hot days before records were kept?
Enviroweenies also ignore the one source of global climate records that they always cite for so-called man made "global warming", that being Arctic ice cores. These ice cores show that the mean temperature over the last 175,000 years is around 22.5 C. The current global mean temperature is around 15.7 C. Clearly, on average, it has been much, much warmer over the past 175 centuries than it is now or is forecast to be 50-100 years from now.
He might miss a few of them but not a lot by any measure.
Passion versus reason.
Because they are not really bright people.
I've never seen it described so perfectly. I'll be using your theory to define liberals from now on.
Thanks!
I catch a radio guy from the twin cities on weekday pms. He said the key word on these global warming stories is "since"
Prager misses one point: the fact the Bush is largely indifferent to global warming - thinks its threat is vastly exaggerated - the Left will be spurred on to exaggerqate it even more, as part of its anti-Bush mania. If Bush declared himself in favor of wind farms, I bet the left would suddenly think of all sorts of reasons why wind farms are a bad idea - visual eyesore, threat to birds, ineffective, etc.
exactly
For an example of what rising water levels would do to coastal city populations, consider what happened in New Orleans. Most of the poor people scattered across the country. Most of the more financially able folks stayed there (because they were able to afford houses on higher ground and were less affected). And the political leadership started making noises about "Gee, looks like we can't just sit around and wait for Uncle Sugar to fix things, we're going to have to go to work."
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.