Why liberals fear global warming far more than Conservatives do?

[Darth Executor]

AN is not YEC. I know you didn't ask me but I like talking for other people without their permission.

[norwegen]

Hmmm, here is one reason:

-- The Left is prone to hysteria.



The belief that global warming will destroy the world is but one of many hysterical notions held on the Left. As noted in a previous column devoted to the Left and hysteria, many on the Left have been hysterical about the dangers of the PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance of phone numbers (incipient fascism); secondhand smoke (killing vast numbers of people); drilling in the remotest area of Alaska (major environmental despoliation); and opposition to same-sex marriage (imminent Christian theocracy).

I believe this is true. Liberals can be hypersensitive. But I would concur with them that human activity is contributing to global warming. Kudos to Sylas for his links. Science assumes a position that is neither left nor right. Hypotheses, assertions, opinions, etc. may be wrong, but facts are facts.

Why do they fear global warming more than conservatives do? Maybe, like you say, 'big business.' The more money conservatives make, the better the boats, shelters, etc. they can buy to protect themselves from flooding and adverse climates.

[Matt the Bat]

God demands stewardship:

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. ~ Genesis 2:15

God will punish those who destroy the environment:

The nations were angry, and your wrath came, as did the time for the dead to be judged, and to give your bondservants the prophets, their reward, as well as to the saints, and those who fear your name, to the small and the great; and to destroy those who destroy the earth. ~ Revelation 11:18

But they will also reap what they sow.

[salvationfound]

I get confused and somewhat annoyed about Global Warming. Does it exist?
Personally I'm not sure. I get annoyed when people tell me of my
responsibility to quote "save the planet". Problem being that no one has
convinced me completely that it is a problem nor that the actions that they
ask me to take will even do anything. So what should I do if after I look at
the arguments on both sides and find the whole thing inconclusive should I
just take the global warming believers at their word? Or should I just take
my own position and live my life that way?

But I do always wonder at the non-Christian view of things like global
warming. As a Christian I believe my actions have consequences both in my
eternal life and in God's kingdom as a whole. But I wonder of the atheistic
motivation for global warming. Let's say the horrors of global warming will not
occur for let us say 200 years. All of us on Theologyweb right now are dead
long before then. So what is the motivation to prevent global warming? Not
to mention as someone already did the sun is gonna burn out anyway so we
are in a losing battle no matter what we do. So what's the point? Our
children's children? Big deal we won't be around much longer to see them
anyway. I just don't see how without God the future of our planet even
means anything.

[Simeon]

Dennis Prager cites another of many reasons:

-- The Left is far more likely to revere, even worship, nature. A threat to the environment is regarded by many on the Left as a threat to what is most sacred to them, and therefore deemed to be the greatest threat humanity faces. The cover of Vanity Fair's recent "Special Green Issue" declared: "A Graver Threat Than Terrorism:

[Simeon]

The foundation of the Christian worldview is that one chooses ones beliefs (and is infinitely rewarded or punished for choosing to believe the "right" or "wrong" thing).

You have an interesting perspective on Legalism, but what was that again about Christianity(TM)?

[Simeon]

All this is great, except for the first sentence. With the rest, you illustrate what is positive in Christian worldviews, and if you make this your main motivator, then you'll be doing better than most of the rest of us.

However, the first claim is disturbing, and -- no offense intended to you personally – in my opinion it illustrates one problem with Christianity that has a less laudatory impact. It is far too often associated with naive gullibility and ignorance in matters of straightforward science. I might be unfair linking that to religion; but after years of dealing with other forms of scientific naivety, I do suspect a strong link.

Global warming is complex, and projections difficult. But there's no longer any credible basis for doubt that it is real. There is a powerful lobby for denying the reality of climate change and the major contributing influence of human activity, and this is pandered to by a host of poorly founded and misleading books and research.

The book "Eco-Sanity" is now quite dated. I've not read it myself; but I gather it does make some useful refutations of various myths common within the environmental movement. The basic idea of trying to find strategies by which self interest and political freedom can work for positive environmental results is a good one; but it won't happen automatically by just taking a completely hands off approach and trusting market forces.

If the book is suggesting that global warming itself is a myth, however, then it's out of touch with reality, and that is dangerous. It might have been arguable back ten years ago when it was first published, though even then it would have marked it as dubious. But now, such a conclusion is outright foolishness.

The National Academies of the eight G8 nations, plus China, Brazil and India, have just last year released a statement which pretty much captures the scientific consensus.

In brief, climate change is complex, but there is strong direct evidence now that "significant global warming is occurring" and that "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".

Just two days ago, the NAS (the major scientific body in the USA) released a new report: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years for Congress. Here is an associated press release, and the opening statement made to congress.

They confirmed that the surface of the Earth is becoming warmer. Most of this rise appears over the twentieth century, to levels that have definitely not been matched over the last 400 years, and probably matched not over the last 900 years.

This is measured. Global warming is happening.

As is normal in science, there is a ferment of debate and dispute over many details. This debate all takes place within a broad consensus that climate change is real, and that human activity is a major contributing factor. Alongside this, there is a strong anti-science denial going on, with refusal to acknowledge that there is anything particularly unusual in current rates of change, or denial of the close link between climate change and human activity. Such denial is at this stage due only to lack of education or to a resolute refusal to look at readily available data.

There is an interesting report in ABC news about the phenomenon of popular skepticism about global warming in contrast to the by now almost universal recognition of warming by the scientific community. See When It Comes to Global Warming, What Do You Believe?

Cheers – Sylas

Darn.

It appears that the Sun is getting hotter. (And who is complaining about the Sun god Helios?)

The ice caps are melting on Mars! Argh.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rming-on-mars/

So, where is Al Gore when the little space people of Mars need him?

Back on track:

Oh yes, our Climate is complex and sadly, our records of climate before 1600 are dubious at best. Quote: "Global Warming is happening".

Sure, that is one perspective on Climatic Change!

In any case:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/envi...aterworld.html

"What If All the Ice Melts?" Myths and Realities

by Wm. Robert Johnston

(Debunking the hysteria and refuting manufactured "crisis" of Al Gore.)

Greenland's Ice Cap getting Thicker?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1485573.htm

(Uh-huh crack pots goin' crazy for crack pot "science".)

Next, we could discuss how the South Pole Ice Cap is growing thicker.

[Simeon]

No, but technology and money can stave off the effects local. For example, building a sea wall would negate a modest rise in sea level. Basically, the same events are far more dangerous somewhere in the third world than in America or Europe.

And nobody wants 20th century BC standards, or if they do they are a very small and stupid minority. Just because people want responsible limits put on industry doesn't mean they want the complete destruction of our entire transport infrastructure, the eradication of all our medical knowledge and ability etc.

What if we reduced the number of people exhaling C02?

More fun:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/23/warming-skeptics/

[Sheepdog]

i do agree that the earth is warming. it seems to have a lot to do with natural causes, though we have contributed to it to an extent.

unfortunately, there isn't much to do about it. we can cut back green house gas production, but only to a marginal extent without crashing the economy. the poor are always the first to lose jobs, so you have an environment vs. the poor dilemma, and i'm no convinced a significant change in our activity will change the trend anyways.

it does make me sick what some Christians have said in this thread. while it may or may not be true we can't screw up the world too much totally before God puts an end to it, it is also true that we can make things really uncomfortable for ourselves and others. having been working in the LA area for the last couple of months, i've come to a different perspective on the environment... it greatly discourages me that out here, it's bad for your health to stay outside for too long. (the smog is really a serious problem).

just remember, dispensational or otherwise "Jesus' coming is imminent" Christians. the immenency doctrine also means that he could not be coming back for another 2000 years. Luther said that if he knew the end was coming the next day, he would plant a tree. I don't think he had environmentalism in mind, but in principle i think we should have the same attitude.

[Nicholas]

Darn.

It appears that the Sun is getting hotter. (And who is complaining about the Sun god Helios?)

The ice caps are melting on Mars! Argh.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...rming-on-mars/

So, where is Al Gore when the little space people of Mars need him?

Back on track:

Oh yes, our Climate is complex and sadly, our records of climate before 1600 are dubious at best. Quote: "Global Warming is happening".

Sure, that is one perspective on Climatic Change!

In any case:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/envi...aterworld.html

"What If All the Ice Melts?" Myths and Realities

by Wm. Robert Johnston

(Debunking the hysteria and refuting manufactured "crisis" of Al Gore.)

Greenland's Ice Cap getting Thicker?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1485573.htm

(Uh-huh crack pots goin' crazy for crack pot "science".)

Next, we could discuss how the South Pole Ice Cap is growing thicker.

I responded to you when you made references to these exact same claims, but you have yet to even post a response to my post. Perhaps you missed it?

Here was my response to each of your claims:

A satillite went up recently to start studying the role of clouds in climate and climate change and this fact alone reveals Al Gore as an amateur rushing to make sweeping judgments from few or incomplete facts.

Or maybe the launch of this satellite simply shows that people are still doing research on the climate.

He makes alarming statements claiming that we are in "crisis".

There does seem to be quite a bit of evidence pointing in that direction.

The fact is, we don't know squat about the Sun's total role, clouds, our orbit, etc... (Note, ice caps are melting on Mars! Holy Helios Moonbats! The Sun god is Hot!)

Here are some great links regarding solar/global warming:


According to one of your links:
Caplinger and Malin caution that a year's worth of data does not reveal when this erosion began or how long it will continue. Yet they speculate that the features could have been created in a Mars' decade and may erode away completely within one to two decades.

"We know that the pits we see at the surface today are not very old, and that they will not last very long," Malin said.

Source and more: http://www.space.com/scienceastrono...w_011206-2.html



Now,the article states that these structures may not be very old, and if that turns out to be the case, it would not be an accurate analogy to compare this to the melting of ice-caps which are far older.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

The foundation of the Christian worldview is that one chooses ones beliefs (and is infinitely rewarded or punished for choosing to believe the "right" or "wrong" thing). So, I see this statement, and I see the little golden cross avatar, and I think, "maybe this person simply chooses to believe the above, and will continue to choose to believe it, no matter what". AN - do you also believe our planet is ~6,000 years old, give or take?

Nope. I'm OEC all the way. Unless a belief is properly basic, I prefer some evidence for it. I have yet to see a compelling case for global warming. I'd say I'm agnostic on it, but the environmentalist movement does tend to have a history of overblowing things that we later find out aren't really the threats they're made out to be.

[Nicholas]

Greenland's Ice Cap getting Thicker?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1485573.htm

(Uh-huh crack pots goin' crazy for crack pot "science".)

Next, we could discuss how the South Pole Ice Cap is growing thicker.

I did some quick research on this claim myself, and according to the article you cited:

But, they say, the thickening seems consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can carry more moisture. That extra moisture falls as snow below 0°C.

And the scientists say that the thickening of the icecap might be offset by a melting of glaciers around the fringes of Greenland. Satellite data is not good enough to measure the melt nearer sea level.

And I also researched other similar claims, which can be read about in more detail here: http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html

[sylas]

i do agree that the earth is warming. it seems to have a lot to do with natural causes, though we have contributed to it to an extent.

Finding all the causes is really difficult. It's made worse by the fact that so many are inter-related to each other. Global warming may well have some parts of the Earth become colder, thanks to climate shifts. And there certainly are natural causes for climate change that have brought about large changes in the past, and causes at work in the present which are not well quantified.

However, the rate of change over the last century has been exceptional, and the only serious attempts to model the causes put this squarely at a massive increase in the so-called greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.

When you say it "seems" to have a lot to do with natural causes, are you suggesting some line of actual evidence and some plainly identified natural cause? Or should I read this as simply saying that you consider the attribution to human causes is weak?

My own view is that the association with human-induced change is by now pretty solid. I'm not aware of any significant natural cause that has been identified as likely to have a comparable impact in recent times, and attempts to model the effects of changes in the atmosphere tend to lend support to the view that it's primarily about human induced atmospheric changes. There may be other effects that contributing one way or the other, but the smoking gun is the atmopshere.

I'm also highly cynical about the pressures against attempts to reduce emissions. I don't think any credible case has been made at all that this would lead to crashing the economy.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Jme]

I get confused and somewhat annoyed about Global Warming. Does it exist?

Yes it does - looking backand we can see a cycle of warm periods and ice ages. The actual question is whether or not humans are tipping the balance in some way - there is a case to be made that we are,although from this thread you wouldn't know it. I;m confused as to why we are talking liberals and the like when we should be talking science (and what they experts are saying.

Personally I'm not sure. I get annoyed when people tell me of my
responsibility to quote "save the planet". Problem being that no one has
convinced me completely that it is a problem nor that the actions that they
ask me to take will even do anything.

Well look at it this way being more efficient and less wasteful is a good thing, we humans are having a huge impact on the evironment - wherever we go we destroy the natural evironment - look at coral reefs beautiful diverse habitats that seem to be at risk with rising temperatures. The rain forests are disappearing and with them thousands of species. I see this as a very bad thing - how do you see it? Should we just disregard all other species in making our lives easier?

So what should I do if after I look at the arguments on both sides and find the whole thing inconclusive should I just take the global warming believers at their word? Or should I just take my own position and live my life that way?

Safety first I always say - well I don't actually it's more like "what's this do!" - wasting less and becoming more efficient are good things - even if it costs us a bit more right now, because the price that we could be paying in the future is a lot higher. Think pascals wager with nature and the future of our children at stake.

But I do always wonder at the non-Christian view of things like global warming. As a Christian I believe my actions have consequences both in my eternal life and in God's kingdom as a whole. But I wonder of the atheistic motivation for global warming. Let's say the horrors of global warming will not occur for let us say 200 years. All of us on Theologyweb right now are dead long before then. So what is the motivation to prevent global warming?

So because we don't believe as you do we have no reason to care for the future? To value life and the health of those that will come in the future? So of us do - I admit that I don't see humans as anything special but I generally want the best for us - that we make things interesting. I would like nothing more than to know that humans and what comes after us will continue for as long as we can.

Not to mention as someone already did the sun is gonna burn out anyway so we are in a losing battle no matter what we do. So what's the point? Our children's children? Big deal we won't be around much longer to see them anyway. I just don't see how without God the future of our planet even means anything.

Maybe it doesn't mean anything in the end - maybe there is no ultimate purpose but life is fun why shouldn't I want the best for the next generation? I help little old ladies when I see they need it.

[jordanriver]

i do agree that the earth is warming. it seems to have a lot to do with natural causes, though we have contributed to it to an extent.

unfortunately, there isn't much to do about it. we can cut back green house gas production, but only to a marginal extent without crashing the economy. the poor are always the first to lose jobs, so you have an environment vs. the poor dilemma, and i'm no convinced a significant change in our activity will change the trend anyways.

it does make me sick what some Christians have said in this thread. while it may or may not be true we can't screw up the world too much totally before God puts an end to it, it is also true that we can make things really uncomfortable for ourselves and others. having been working in the LA area for the last couple of months, i've come to a different perspective on the environment... it greatly discourages me that out here, it's bad for your health to stay outside for too long. (the smog is really a serious problem).

just remember, dispensational or otherwise "Jesus' coming is imminent" Christians. the immenency doctrine also means that he could not be coming back for another 2000 years. Luther said that if he knew the end was coming the next day, he would plant a tree. I don't think he had environmentalism in mind, but in principle i think we should have the same attitude.

i just had a vision of Jesus coming back and captain planet was with him,i recognized the captain because i remembered the green mullet.

JR