Friday, February 23, 2007
|
|
Should Conservatives Buy Into "Climate Change"?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
9:17 AM
|
|
Yesterday, I wrote that John McCain was further offending the conservative base by going to California and attacking President Bush for not being aggressive enough regarding the environment. (In fairness, I should also note that Mitt Romney has been all over the map on this issue, too).
It seemed obvious to me that McCain's move in CA was a political mistake -- one more example of McCain going out of his way to stick it to conservatives.
But then, this story made me wonder if McCain might actually be catching the zeitgeist ...
"A majority of Republican voters in South Carolina believe global warming is occurring, but is a problem people can resolve, according to a new survey."
Now, if this is true -- that the majority of South Carolina GOP voters believe in global warming -- this is a clear sign that times are changing.
Well, this morning I opened up the Washington Post to find this op-ed written by the conservative Republican governor of South Carolina:
"When George W. Bush, The Post and the insurance giant Lloyd's of London agree on something, it's obvious a new wind is blowing. The climate change debate is here to stay, and as America warms to the idea of environmental conservation on a grander scale, it's vital that conservatives change the debate before government regulation expands yet again and personal freedom is pushed closer toward extinction."
(I'm guessing SC Governor Sanford didn't see this survey -- and then write the op-ed -- but I could be wrong) ...
My question isn't whether or not "climate change" is happening. That's another discussion. But I think it's safe to say that the political landscape, regarding the issue, is changing.
More from SC Governor Sanford:
"I believe conservatives have a window of opportunity, but that window is closing fast."
"First, conservatives must reframe the environmental discussion by replacing the political left's scare tactics with conservative principles such as responsibility and stewardship. Stewardship -- the idea that we need to take care of what we've been given -- simply makes sense. It makes dollars as well, for the simple reason that our economy is founded on natural resources, from tourism and manufacturing to real estate and agriculture. Here in South Carolina, conservation easements are springing up across the state as landowners see the dual benefit of preserving the environment and protecting their pocketbooks."
While South Carolina is known as a very conservative southern state, it should also be noted that it is a coastal state very attuned to the tourist industry. So I suppose it's possible that this phenomenon is not as pervasive as it might seem.
... I wonder how the folks in Nebraska, for example, feel about this issue.
So the big question remains: Have politicians like McCain and Sanford merely drunk the environmentalist "kook-aid" -- or are they ahead of the curve?
We report, you decide...
|
|
"Consensus & Science do not mix!!!"
Thanks for the non sequitor, but everything that scientists agree on now is CONSENSUS. Honestly, the vast majority of scientists agree on something and you think that is the reason to believe the exact opposite? What do you do when you go to the doctor? Do you refuse antibiotics because the consensus is that antibiotics will cure that strep throat? Are you serious with this line of reasoning?
" "People who can objectively evaluate the science..." are called scientists "
Thank you. Now, go read Jounral of Climate or the IPCC report instead of right wing opinion pieces.
"at the very end of your screed you speak absolute truth with"
I didn't write that. Check again.
"The statement is blatantly wrong."
Well, that's a nasty case of uninformed opinion you have there. Slap some facts on that sucker and it should go right away:
No solar trend since 1978:
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
|
|
Let's start with John McCain. It seems obvious to me that McCain's move is one more example of McCain going out of his way to be all things to all voters. First it was "Reverse Roe", now this! The good(?) Sen. is shameless in his quest for votes. Reminds me of that movie "Say Anything."
When Boris writes... "There has been no increase in solar activity to cause this warming." I wonder if he is doing it with a straight face or trying his hand at satire. The statement is blatantly wrong.
BUT
He follows it up with... "People who can objectively evaluate the science can see why there is a consensus." Which leads me to think he ACTUALLY believes it.
Boris, buddy...chill out! Believe me when I tell you this...Consensus & Science do not mix!!! Consensus gave us a FLAT PLANET that was the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. Science on the hand PROVED something different. Or do you disagree? The truth is "People who can objectively evaluate the science..." are called scientists. NOT Politicians or political appointees or paid consultants for a Sci-Fi movie.
Make no mistake either that when Al Gore wins his Oscar it will be under false pretenses but that is just another "Inconvenient Truth", the film is not a documentary. They would have at the very least shown a REAL polar bear drowning, not an animated segment purporting this 'fact'.
Then again, maybe I am being to hard on you. Maybe you are a satirist because at the very end of your screed you speak absolute truth with the lines... "The Democrats are wrong, that's all I know! Wrong, wrong, wrong! For them, it's not really about the science, only the ideology. Sad, but true."
IMHO that is so True, True, True because for a great number of the "godless" they NOW have a religion they can WARM UP TO.
|
|
i can't believe you conservatives!
you always accuse the left of having no faith when you are the ones without the faith. look at all you doubters.
doubt that humans have an impact on the dangerous impact on the warming of the planet. doubt that CO2 has anything to do with it.
DOUBT, DOUBT, DOUBT.
where is you faith???
don't you believe all of the scientists that see the global warming and the human cause?
these people are really, really smart! how can you not believe them?
haven't you seen their computer models? the whole planet is just going to sizzle and we will all fry!!!
if you don't believe the scientists, what about Al Gore or even all of the celebrities that are trying to inform you about the dangers?
hello? haven't you seen An Inconvenient Truth? well, will you believe him AFTER he wins the Academy Award???
Al Gore says there is human casused global warming.
Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves, Joanne Woodward! WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO GET YOU TO SEE THE TRUTH?? |
|
|
Politicians are motivated by the "Greed" of the notion they can take credit for "fixing" any voter accepted wrong. Real or imagined. Politicians are adherents to the old adage "After this therefore because of this".I call it ATTBOT. If politicians take action, any action, on Global Warming and GW reverses (even naturally) they can say "Look what we did worked". If Global Warming continues without change or increases, politicians will say, "We did not do enough, we should have spent more". Doing something is a no lose attempt at a remedy. If politicians do nothing and GW reverses, they can take no credit for a remedy. If GW gets worse or continues, politicians can be severely criticized for a lack of action. ATTBOT becomes the mantle under which most actions are taken--except war--there is usually a verifiable result to war and ATTBOT provides very little room for rationalization and no cover for bad decisions. |
|
|
Sadly, I have seen many examples of people who believe that anyone on the left is automatically wrong, about everything, for ever, and this determines their position on global warming. The Democrats tend to be on the global warming believer side, therefore: "Global warming can't be happening. Well, OK, maybe it's happening, but we have nothing to do it. Well, yeah, OK, maybe we have something to do with it, but we're not the primary cause. OK, I guess we are the primary cause, but it would cost too much to do anything about it. OK, maybe it wouldn't cost too much to do something, but... but... The Democrats are wrong, that's all I know! Wrong, wrong, wrong!" For them, it's not really about the science, only the ideology. Sad, but true. |
|
I think the responses to this post sum up the right's problem on global warming. What will it take to convince a good portion of the right wing that global warming is human caused?
Frog's post is a good example--not to pick on anyone:
"I think it's warmer mostly because of increased solar activity"
Of course, this is just a guess. Because if he had looked at solar TSI over the last 50 years, he would see no trend. There has been no increase in solar activity to cause this warming.
"CO2 levels could very well be the trailing indicator of warming--coming mostly out of warmer oceans"
Another wrong guess. It is undisputed that humans have increased CO2 concentrations by 30&. We know this through a variety of lines of evidence including isotope ratios and the basic chemical reaction for burning fossil fuels.
People who can objectively evaluate the science can see why there is a consensus. I expect that Sanford will see that window of oppurtunity close well before most on the right agree with the science on this issue.
|
|
How sad. A couple of months ago, I read an article that caused me to believe Sanford was a genuine conservative, and that his star was rising. Now he has thrown it all away with his idiotic position on Global warming. Please listen, conservatives: ANY belief in global warming concedes the entire debate.
Global warming is strictly a political issue, and a conservative who admits that it is occurring paints himself into a corner, because the logical extension of the argument is necessarily apocalypse. If the world is heating up, and it is because of mankind's activity, then doesn't logic compel a complete elimination of activity that causes it? Of course it does. But there is no evidence to support global warming, only data that is being manipulated and tortured by leftists to make it appear to be evidence.
Governor Sanford has stepped on a land mine and blown his Republican career to bits. |
|
I totally agree that we should we should jump on the bandwagon. That's what bandwagons are for. When Al Gore and Lloyd's of London agree with the governor of South Carolina, I'm personally convinced that a hypothesis based upon inconsistently collected uncalibrated 100 year old data further correlated and projected by incomplete and uncheckable climate models must in fact be the fact. We better wake up and smell that coffee.
Don't you feel warmer? I feel warmer. Yes, I think we all feel warmer. |
|
|
Global warming isn't really even a debate any more. It's practically religion. |
|
Would it surprise anyone to learn that the poll which showed S.C. GOP'rs supporting action on manmade global warming was the paid for by an environmental group trying to affect voter attitudes in my state?
I'm on Hilton Head Island, SC and our lifestyle is affected much more by overdevelopment and traffic than the possibility the sea will rise a foot or two in one hundred years.
South Carolina will not be scaremongered! |
|
It's worth reading through the survey used by the polling company (Ayres, McHenry) cited at the S. Car website. Link here:
http://www.ayresmchenry.com/docs/EDToplines.pdf
47% of Republicans polled thought that global warming was due primarily to natural climate cycles, with 37% thinking it is primarily due to human activity, and 16% answering "Don't know."
This indicates, at the very least, that the 56% of Republicans who thought global warming was happening didn't all think it was due to human activity.
(Democrats predictably broke down as follows: 64% said global warming is due to human activity, 16% to natural cycles, and 20% "Don't know.")
The survey didn't ask what anyone meant, or thought was implied, by the expression "global warming." It was not defined, which tells me that respondents weren't necessarily all harboring the same thought in their heads when someone said "global warming." Republican skepticism about human activity being the primary cause of global warming appeared to remain healthy, and about what I would expect.
I do want to hear GOP candidates address global warming -- but not because I want them to jump on the "sky is falling, must tank the economy and our way of life NOW" bandwagon. I want them to give evidence that they have done more than read USA Today headlines. |
|
The warming is happening. I grant that. The controversy is about whether human action was the cause, or a significant cause, or can now provide any significant impact on the whole process. I think it's warmer mostly because of increased solar activity, and there's nothing we can do about it because we didn't cause it. CO2 models are not the only explanation of the warming. CO2 levels could very well be the trailing indicator of warming--coming mostly out of warmer oceans, and not the cause. It's not Earth's first warming cycle. We'll survive just fine. So let's not let the World's socialist anti-capitalists make it an excuse to hobble the economy and centralize the government even more.
|
|
|
|