Global Warming: Liberal vs. Conservative

[Adam's Apple]

Why The Left Fears Global Warming More than The Right
By Dennis Prager, World Net Daily
June 20, 2006

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.

But such an explanation could not explain the vast majority of conservatives who are not in any way tied into the corporate world (like this writer, who has no stocks and who, moreover, regards big business as amoral as leftists do).

No, the usual liberal dismissals of conservatives and their positions just don't explain this particularly illuminating difference between liberals and conservatives.

Here are six more likely explanations:

For full article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50715

 

[catatonic]

Great post Adam's Apple, all of it is correct to my knowledge.

However, this doesn't account for the concern raised by the scientific community itself which is composed of conservatives and liberals (see Los Alamos, NM for instance), and who are a much more alarmed group. And rightly so, for they are probably almost the most informed group too. This is even more true among those studying it in particular.

The article at worldnetdaily is completely true, and I am respecting them more and more, and a great comparison of liberals and conservatives, but the only problem is that some people may jump that global warming isn't indeed the humongous problem that it is.

I want to spread the relevant points here:

"The national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, have signed a statement on the global response to climate change. "

CFCs have massively damaged the ozone layer, despite skeptics and their tactics.

The GOP is facing increasing dissent over Bush's climate change policies, with their 2008 candidate expected to support Kyoto.

I also want to emphasize that it comes down to a few sentences.
The importance of dealing with global warming is based on statistical correlation. No one understanding correlation has raised a legitimate criticism to whether that statistical correlation measures the actual problem. The problem publicly is that too many people don't understand or apply correlation that have influence on the climate change policy. Also Dennis Prager has never acknowledged being informed of this correlation.