Why do many conservatives deny global warming and the fact that it is man-made?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Because they trust Jim Inhofe over most actual scientific researchers.

[Derek]

Because they trust Jim Inhofe over most actual scientific researchers.

You know what you said it. That comment ^ is making me switch parties. All this time I've been a conservative until I realized that the GOP trusts Jim Inhoffe over most actual scientific researchers. Why didn't Obama just say that from state to state instead of talking about the economy? I mean wow you really converted alot of us conservatives. You should talk to Tom Delay and convert him next.

[k-onmmunist]

1. It isn't denial, because it isn't man made.
2. I'm a goddamn commie and I don't believe it's man made
3. Why do you make troll threads like this?

Wrong side of the bed this morning, Winston

Yeah well. I'm sick of people calling it global warming denial. It isn't denial, and anthropgenic global warming is nothing but a theory and a dubious one at that.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It's okay, because according to now vindicated Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State... this heatwave (in the northeast) is caused by greenhouse warming.

Nevermind that rural areas aren't breaking records like the cities are.  According to the likes of Dr. Mann, the cities provide the real accurate global temperatures!  The rural areas simply have a "cool bias".. never mind that that's like 99% of the global land surface... if it don't fit the cookie cutter theory, we just toss it out!

In his interview with clear skies news, he brings up the "record heat in the northeast", the rapid decline in sea ice that is "likely to break a record", and the fact that the most recent 12 months were the hottest 12 month period on record for the globe.

The interviewer just sat in stunned wide eyed bewilderment with that gum chewing, hair twirling "Oh.  My.  God.  You are just soooo f**king smart!!!!" look on her face.

If she had done her research, she could have responded in kind:

1)  The records are only being broken in the major cities where the Urban Heat Island has a strong impact on temperatures.  In fact, summer temperatures have been cooling for the past 40 years over a vast portion of the eastern U.S.

2)  While it is significant that we have just finished a 12 month record hot period for the globe, temperatures are set to plummet and the long term models are going crazy saying we could be seeing global temperature anomalies 0.2-0.4˚C below the average.. or colder than any time since the Mt. Pinatubo induced cooling of 1991-1993.  This time it would be brought on by the cooling Pacific ocean, volcanic activity, and the most inactive sun since Mary Shelley was scaring her vacation mates out of their wits with a manmade monster in the year without a summer in 1816.  All natural factors.

3.  The rapid sea ice decline in May and June was not caused by rapid loss in the high Arctic, but in two principal areas:  Hudson Bay and the Greenland and Labrador Sea region between Greenland and northeast Canada.  Since these areas always lose all of their ice every summer anyway, once it melts completely, the melting trend for the Arctic as a whole will slow.  And slow it has... it has gone from a record pace to the slowest melting pace in at least 10 years at roughly 35% the rate that we saw this time in 2007, the previous record minimum.  And the weather patterns look to remain very favorable to ice retention.  The strong low that ground the loss to a halt is weakening but spreading over the Arctic which will slow the outward spiral of ice towards the landmasses (Alaska, Siberia, Canada, Greenland).. but also slow any influx of warm, salty Atlantic water into the Arctic basin.

4.  Dr. Mann forgot to mention the fact that global sea ice coverage is near the long term mean because Antarctic sea ice extent is very high, having recently seen the 3rd highest positive ice anomaly ever recorded.

When it comes to climate science, the climate scientists get so worked up into a frenzy over the real, alarming changes in the Arctic that they completely forget about its evil Twin on the other end of the world.  That polar region is getting colder and icier and is, as of now, making up for the loss of ice in the northern polar region.

[muon2]

1. It isn't denial, because it isn't man made.
2. I'm a goddamn commie and I don't believe it's man made
3. Why do you make troll threads like this?

I am an arch-conservative and feel that man does contribute to climate change.  But a very legitimate question is "How much does human activity contribute to it?"  The second question is, "What human activity causes it."

This is an accurate portrait of many conservatives position. There is little doubt that human activity has substantially increased the CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century, but the strength of that link to climate change is still being studied. Those studies are heavily dependent on how one models that many variables involved, and depending on the model used one can reasonably come up with anywhere from 30% to 70% contribution to warming with the rest due to natural cyclic activity.

I would also add one other factor that I have encountered. The warming hypothesis is rejected because the necessary economic adjustments needed and made by some due to the anthropogenic warming conclusion are unacceptable to many conservatives. Rather than fine tune the economic response or go back to school to learn to sort through the nuances of climate models, it is easier to reject the offending conclusion out of hand. There are enough model variables that makes this a simpler line of attack.

[J. J.]

As a bit expanded answer:

1.  I'd bet Muon can remember this, but we had a global cooling scare in the 1970's-early 1980's.  That was based on two decades of cooling.  I'm therefor skeptical of some predictions.

2.  The temperature on average has been increasing since 1750.  However, until recently, like the last two decades, it was cooler than during the medieval period.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period  That obviously was not caused by human activity; there were fewer humans and there was no industrialization.  A fluctuation is natural.

I am an arch-conservative and feel that man does contribute to climate change.  But a very legitimate question is "How much does human activity contribute to it?"  The second question is, "What human activity causes it."

This is an accurate portrait of many conservatives position. There is little doubt that human activity has substantially increased the CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century, but the strength of that link to climate change is still being studied. Those studies are heavily dependent on how one models that many variables involved, and depending on the model used one can reasonably come up with anywhere from 30% to 70% contribution to warming with the rest due to natural cyclic activity.

In terms of greenhouse gasses, the one that increased the most, has been methane (CH4).  CH4, while not creating as much of a greenhouse effect as CO2, has made up for it in growth.  CO2 has increased about 38% since 1750; CH4 has increased by 149% over the same period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

The problem is that industrial activity is a minor cause of the CH4 increase; increased biomass is culprit.  Much of that is due to agriculture; rice patties produce it, for example, as do wetlands (those things we want to preserve). 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

To moderate global warming, we might have to limit biological activities, including telling a few hundred million Asians to starve to death.  Something tells me they are not going to be too cool with that.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You do have to look at the costs, but, as noted above, the costs might just not be in corporate profits, jobs, or productivity.

[Derek]

I also think that global warming is a hoax to stop capitalism.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

conservatives tend to be more skeptical of claims that humans are capable of changing nature, either for good or ill

[Vepres]

Because they believe in the virtues of skepticism and not simply believing what the establishment tells them, particularly when the evidence never seems to be rock solid.

At least, that's why I wish most denied it. The reality is, if it is true, solving would require *gasp* a carbon tax or worse, regulation

[All Along The Watchtower]

Because Republican politicians with ties to the oil industry tell them not to believe.

[Derek]

Because Republican politicians with ties to the oil industry tell them not to believe.

There you go again. Throw out a conspiracy theory without evidence that the GOP doesn't believe in global warming for just that reason. I could say the same thing about why the democrats want to regulate because they aren't endorsed by big oil. Oh wait, they are.

[© tweed]

massive corporate-media misinformation propaganda blitz.

[??????????]

The reality is, if it is true, solving would require *gasp* a carbon tax or worse, regulation

The US doesn't even contribute much of a drop in the bucket. If you want to combat any so called "global warming" look to China or India.

And it's irrelevant to me, even if somehow humans were changing the earth it would have no long term or meaningful impact. Most animals would adapt or be naturally selected out of existence.

[J. J.]

I think we better know what we're doing before we do it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

massive corporate-media misinformation propaganda blitz.

Both sides are guilty of a misinformation propaganda blitz.

[Derek]

massive corporate-media misinformation propaganda blitz.

Both sides are guilty of a misinformation propaganda blitz.

What about global warming though? Do you deny it?

[feeblepizza]

Conservatives deny global warming and the "fact" that is it man-made becuase it ISN'T man-made, it is natural, and isn't even that much of a problem. Conservatives are simply smarter than liberals and you need to get over it.

[ARescan]

It's a natural cycle. When the Earth warms, the ocean releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Just as long as we stay in the range of our photosythetic production potential, which is why I support the expansion of Rain Forests as they are our #2 photosythentic producers to the ocean.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It's a natural cycle. When the Earth warms, the ocean releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Just as long as we stay in the range of our photosythetic production potential, which is why I support the expansion of Rain Forests as they are our #2 photosythentic producers to the ocean.

the oceans are by far a net carbon sink.  The carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere has been us.

It has also been established through numerous intensive studies that the initial warming at the end of.. say.. ice ages is not greenhouse gas related, but that the release of more CO2 into the atmosphere exacerbates the warming.

[Bo]

I probably should have asked about evolution and global warming in the same thread.

[SPC]

Because Republican politicians with ties to the oil industry tell them not to believe.

Which Presidential candidate received the most contributions from BP? That ought to at least raise some eyebrows as to who the true beneficiaries of cap-and-tax are.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

How much man contributes to global warming may never be quantified.

[Goldwater]