Comments on: Why Republicans deny global warming.

By: Renate Bob

Renate Bob — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:05:50 +0000

There is more to it than psychology.
Big Oil and car manufacturers and other business concerns have spent millions on spreading the propaganda and then saying that Global Warming is propaganda. It may hurt their bottom line.

Right -wing radio has also done its thing. You can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time, especially since the science knowledge in this country is abysmal.

There are many other examples: people don’t “believe in” evolution, people believe in ghosts, the Rapture, etc.etc.

The US is not exactly the most intellectual country in the world.

By: Eric M. Armstrong

Eric M. Armstrong — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 05:35:02 +0000

It’s a wedge issue. It’s as simple as that. Many republican politicians are actually relatively smart people that believe whole-heartedly in the reality of global warming. But admitting such truths would be blasphemous to their base and would jeopardize their reelection. That’s US politics for you — reelection always takes precedence over the common good.

By: Tony Coyle

Tony Coyle — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:49:55 +0000

note to self: LIST tags do not work!

By: Tony Coyle

Tony Coyle — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:48:50 +0000

Ah! But there you get to the crux of the matter. Many republicans are happy in their land of superiority and status quo. Investing in new technology is challenging, it means changing behavior, it means that what I know is no longer useful or worthwhile.

My wife and I are continually trying to interest neighbors (mostly republican) to invest in a number of neighborhood-scale projects:
an energy farm (pilot would be to build a roof of solar panels over the parking lot at our clubhouse/pool - the cost would be repaid in less than ten years, and the pool would be able to be open for at least two more months every year.)
Water recycling (we have a lot of runoff that just hits the drains — why not use the existing catch basins and sequester some of that water for our own, later use for watering lawns and so on.)
car pools: most people have golf carts. we suggested investing in some pool cars so that people could use them for all the very short trips people make (to the grocery store, etc). The clubhouse would be an obvious depot (it’s accessible and close to the streets). We also suggested pooling for school runs (lots of people refuse to put their kids on the school bus!)

Most of what we see is simply selfishness. When you speak to folks individually, they respond “That’s a great idea”. When you look for support, they don’t want to know. It’s fine for other people, but we can’t possibly!

Some people have invested in technologies for themselves(!) but that only works for some things (limited water capture, for instance), and loses any scale benefits.

By: ed west

ed west — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:34:07 +0000

This is a beauty! Now I can sleep. It doesn’t make it any better, but at least there is a reason for their denial, I guess.

By: therese

therese — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:44:52 +0000

I saw “Camp Jesus” last night. A documentary that touched on conservatism and global warming and I could not understand why the staunch Replubican anti-global warming stance. Now I get it. The “club” mentality (how pathetic) to eschew anything democratic suits their need to “conserve” their ill-founded “beliefs”, while this “W” administration suppresses evidence (there’s a shocker) and panders to big, dirty business. If only they could get away with investing in growth technology (oh no, that would be “girlish” flip-flopping) they might be in favor of it. But they must “conserve” their beliefs and will continue to do so until the world boils over.

By: grumpypilgrim

grumpypilgrim — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:43:12 +0000

Brian writes: “Many Republicans associate the Global Warming ‘movement’ with a singular face. Al Gore.”

Brian might be right, but Republicans have been denying the existence of global warming since LOOONG before Al Gore picked up the issue. Accordingly, I think Brian’s comment is not entirely valid. Yes, it is a political issue for Republicans, but I think it has a whole lot more to do with their traditional vested interests (e.g., the oil lobby, the car lobby and other big dirty businesses) than with Al Gore.

What makes no sense to me is the Republican argument that reducing pollution will reduce growth and kill the American economy. History has demonstrated over and over again that investment in growth technologies is THE best way to spur economic growth. Can there be any doubt that economically-viable technologies for reducing pollution and saving our own species (along with many others) will be a growth technology? America would be a whole lot smarter to be the world’s innovator in this field, and profitably selling the results around the world.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:49:23 +0000

To me it’s simple. Many Republicans associate the Global Warming “movement” with a singular face. Al Gore. To them this nothing more than a political issue with a democrat figure-head. The environmental aspect is merely incidental in their eyes.

By: Dan Klarmann

Dan Klarmann — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:37:26 +0000

Chaotic systems have predictive loci called “strange attractors.” You cannot tell very far ahead what an exact value will be, but you know what ballpark it will be in to a known plus-or-minus value.

Fractals, the math we have for dealing with chaotic systems, were developed by studying weather in the first place.

But this is a few years of math study ahead of that which the current administration seems to be cognizant.

By: projektleiterin

projektleiterin — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:46:47 +0000

“‘Climate myths: Chaotic systems are not predictable’”
Nothing is predictable, but you can make a good guess with statistics.