Why liberals fear global warming far more than conservatives do

Townhall.com ^ | June 20, 2006 | Dennis Prager

[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.

[Steve_Seattle]

I can never get a global warming zealot to answer the question of whether they think global cooling would be preferable.

[Jim Noble]

The most important answer is that global warming or cooling has been occurring for the entire natural history of the planet, that it (climate change) is entirely natural and expected, that there is NO EVIDENCE that human activity either accelerates or retards climate change, or that such a thing is even possible.

[wayoverontheright]

Within the environmental movement, there are two camps. There is the global warming is caused by CO2 and only CO2 group, and there is the other group that is concerned with particulate emissions, water purity, wildlife issues, etc., who WILL entertain the POSSIBILITY that if global warming is occuring, it could be caused by either solar activity or natural climate change.

The first camp has cloaked their Marxist agenda in the environmental movement, and will continue to use it to beat capitalism over the head. For me, CO2 warming is a complete hoax, conveniently invented to aid losers to win at SOMETHING.

[Minn]

I've heard Prager on the radio before. If you looked up the phrase "bringing a butter knife to a gun fight," in the political dictionary, you would find his autographed photo.

You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Prager is as sharp as they come and methodically destroys idiot liberals like Mike Farrell that are foolish enough to debate him in public. You must be confusing him with somebody else.

[DBrow]

Liberals are also very arrogant.

Everything that happens must be caused by humans, or if not, can and must be controlled by (liberal) humans.

The thought of something bigger than humanity, with forces so vast and unknown, that cannot be put under liberal control, is very scary.

The recent evidence that the Sun does not have a constant output is an inconvenient truth that must never be mentioned (unless you are Roger Waters and can set the controls for the heart of the Sun).

Many climate scientists have speculated that the global climate is strongly influenced by the Milankovitch Cycle of the Earth's orbit, and there is some data to suggest that the theory is correct. This concept must never be mentioned by liberals or the liberal media, because making the entire globe socialist would not change the course of global climate change- it would be beyond liberal control. A terrifying thought, that there could be something beyond the control of a liberal!

[Nomad817]

It's also just how politics works in general, when an issue becomes two sided people who wouldn't normally care at all about "global warming" or whatever feel like they have to defend or oppose it just to further their own little basket of issues they care about, and they become so entrenched that all of a sudden admitting that either "maybe it is an overreaction" or "maybe humans are having negative impacts on the environment" becomes unthinkable and admitting defeat. This is true on pretty much any issue you can think of. The truth is even the people worried about global warming aren't really doing anything to prevent it they just want to complain, there is only a small percentage that honestly cares enough to make the sacrifice, so its really a nonissue and eventually we will either come up with new ways of doing things and technologies or run out of fuel anyway.

[DBrow]

Cities would also be impacted by a fall in sea level.

Boston just petitioned the Feds for permission to re-dredge its main shipping channel, which is 40 feet deep at high tide- the big boats have difficulty getting in and out. A ten foot drop in sea level would mean curtains for most coastal city's shipping, until they rebuilt docks and re-dreged. (It would be reported on the Dredge Report online no doubt).

[ssaftler]

The difference between Prager and Coulter is that when Prager finishes destroying a liberal idiot, the liberal never realizes he's been taken out.

Sorta like putting the frog in boiling water (the Coulter method) vs. putting the frog in nice cool water and turning on the heat (Prager method).

[edzo4]

I live in an area where the temperature can fluctuate 50-60 degreess in a matter of hours

the fact that the temperature has only changed 1 degreee in one hundred years seeems incredibly stable to me...

[FrankR]

Liberals have never learned the lesson of "The boy who cried wolf", therefore the rest of us have become highly skeptical of anything they say or do. If a liberal/democrat says it's good, I tend to avoid it at all costs.

If everything is an emergency, then nothing is an emergency.

[TSchmereL]

Rejecting Kyoto was one of the wisest things George W. Bush has done as POTUS.

[Texas Eagle]

Do conservatives handle heat better?

No. We're just smart enough to turn on the stupid air conditioner.