Why conservatives deny global warming

[onthebottom]

Here you have the problem in a nutshell.

According to BOT's philosophy, this is all a problem of personal responsibility and government has no role in helping to create a solution. That is exactly the point of the starting post of this thread.

Conservatives expect people alone to solve the problem, when it is more than just individuals that are creating the problem -- business has a role to play in the creating the problem and in finding a solution, and yet we do not hear anything from BOT about that.

Governments must get business to cooperate on a solution, but THAT would be against all conservative principles -- that governments can be the solution, rather than the problem (as Saint Ronnie would claim).

Again, not what I said (you didn't score very well in those reading comprehension tests when you were a kid did you?). I never said there is no role for government. I said that you can't lecture the world about global warming and live a lifestyle that is in conflict with that issue and expect anyone to take you seriously.

If global warming is anything more than a green stick to beat an imaginary conservative with lifestyles will have to change. People will have to live a less wasteful lifestyle. I don't see a rush to change that behavior, what I see is a bunch of people living in large houses, driving big cars, flying in private jets telling us that if we just pass some regulations the issue will go away. As Canada's Kyoto performance has shown us, even the most well intentioned population, having committed to change, isn't changing.

OTB

 

[slowpoke]

Are you really flying private jets.... I doubt it.

OTB

No. Very few of us fly our own jets - which is why I asked a question that would apply to a broader audience. ie: commercial flights vs driving. BTW, your parameters are out of whack anyway. A guy flying his own jet is not going to have a home anywhere near 1500 sq ft. More likely he'd own a minimum of 5000 sq ft and he'd probably have a couple of them. Same with the 4 cyl car. The fly your own jet types usually go for gas guzzling exotics or big pretentious land yachts.

 

[TOVisitor]

Again, not what I said (you didn't score very well in those reading comprehension tests when you were a kid did you?). I never said there is no role for government. I said that you can't lecture the world about global warming and live a lifestyle that is in conflict with that issue and expect anyone to take you seriously.

If global warming is anything more than a green stick to beat an imaginary conservative with lifestyles will have to change. People will have to live a less wasteful lifestyle. I don't see a rush to change that behavior, what I see is a bunch of people living in large houses, driving big cars, flying in private jets telling us that if we just pass some regulations the issue will go away. As Canada's Kyoto performance has shown us, even the most well intentioned population, having committed to change, isn't changing.

OTB

Don't lecture me about what I do or do not understand.

It's telling that your knee-jerk reaction was to ask individuals to clean things up instead of focusing on the broader picture, which is the role of government or of business.

You mentioned neither of these -- and it is not surprising that you did not mention them. If government has a positive role to play, it invalidates your philosophies of "every man for himself" and "government is the problem, not the solution."

But apparently you can say "you can't lecture the world about global warming and live a lifestyle that is in conflict with that issue and expect anyone to take you seriously" and yet you can lecture the world about how great things are in Iraq and how well Bush is doing and how we should be "fighting them over there so we do not have to fight them here," and yet not put your ass on the line.

 

[slowpoke]

I was flipping through the channels last night and came accross a show on HGTV called "Living with Ed". The program has been around for a while but it was the first time I've seen it. If you haven't seen it, it's worth a watch.

http://www.livingwithed.net/

I gained a lot of respect for Ed Beggly Jr. He's certainly more deserving of praise than Al Gore.

The program is very well done and quite funny. His wife Rachelle is very hot too.

Thanks for the reco. I'll keep an eye out for Begley's show, even if only to check out his wife. BTW, I don't have such a large problem with the wealthy or famous preaching one thing but not following their own advice. Gore isn't running for public office so he doesn't owe us a shining example the way he would if he was a candidate. He was well positioned and he used his celebrity to warn us about the threat of global warming. He's made lots of money out of his film and I'm sure he's gradually cleaning up his own lifestyle too but those are both inconsequential. His advocacy has greatly increased worldwide awareness of climate change so he's contributed to thousands of times more GHG reductions than almost anyone you could name. Lots of people are taking small steps and lots of governments are rethinking their approach to global warming - partly because of his wide appeal. If he'd made a film about some less controversial topic, nobody would give a rat's ass what he was doing behind the scenes. I don't see why this is really so different.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Thanks for the reco. I'll keep an eye out for Begley's show, even if only to check out his wife. BTW, I don't have such a large problem with the wealthy or famous preaching one thing but not following their own advice. Gore isn't running for public office so he doesn't owe us a shining example the way he would if he was a candidate. He was well positioned and he used his celebrity to warn us about the threat of global warming. He's made lots of money out of his film and I'm sure he's gradually cleaning up his own lifestyle too but those are both inconsequential. His advocacy has greatly increased worldwide awareness of climate change so he's contributed to thousands of times more GHG reductions than almost anyone you could name. Lots of people are taking small steps and lots of governments are rethinking their approach to global warming - partly because of his wide appeal. If he'd made a film about some less controversial topic, nobody would give a rat's ass what he was doing behind the scenes. I don't see why this is really so different.

Obviously we have a different perspective. I have a problem with anyone who preaches about making lifestyle changes while refusing to do the same.

Anyway, check out "Living with Ed", you will enjoy the program. I got a few laughs out of it and plan to stay tuned.

 

[TOVisitor]

Obviously we have a different perspective. I have a problem with anyone who preaches about making lifestyle changes while refusing to do the same.

How do you feel about people who say we should be fighting the Islamofascists and yet they refuse to send their own kids or to volunteer themselves?

 

[slowpoke]

Obviously we have a different perspective. I have a problem with anyone who preaches about making lifestyle changes while refusing to do the same.

Anyway, check out "Living with Ed", you will enjoy the program. I got a few laughs out of it and plan to stay tuned.

I don't spend too much time thinking about the guy delivering the message, his chosen mode of transport or his hydro bill etc. He could be travelling in the most extravagant way possible and I wouldn't even notice. He's just another schmuck with a high enough profile to deliver an important message. People forget that Gore is only the messenger. The real product is the collection of scientific evidence and the facts about global warming. Those facts were uncovered by many scientists and have withstood scrutiny by the scientific community in general. So Gore is not really inside this story at all. He's not inside any of the data, the .ppt charts or the projections. He didn't do the math himself. So he's just a glorified delivery boy. And I could care less what he does on his own time or how many cylinders are under his hood. I don't care because the messenger doesn't matter. The facts matter.

The problem with all this hand-wringing about Gore's lifestyle is that far too many people are using this as a smokescreen to disparage the message itself - ie the science behind global warming, the whole notion of people changing their behaviour to reduce emissions or of governments gradually requiring greater accountability from all GHG sources. The content of Gore's movie originated within the scientific community. The scientific community has endorsed his movie's interpretation of this science with almost no exceptions. So the only thing left to attack is the messenger. When you really think about it, this emphasis on Gore's hydro bills is a pretty strong endorsement of the film and its message. Why does everyone want to shoot the messenger? Because there's nothing else to shoot at. Hmmmm.

 

[TOVisitor]

Why does everyone want to shoot the messenger? Because there's nothing else to shoot at. Hmmmm.

Ding, ding, ding.

Give that man a cigar!

 

[nervous]

Why does everyone want to shoot the messenger? Because there's nothing else to shoot at. Hmmmm.

Simple...Because like ALL liberals, when he had the power to effect change he did nothing, and now that he is a civilian he pretends to be the environmental champion and points at someone else as the bad guy.

Sounds like the local do nothings. The Fed McSquint was spouting today how the liberals worked so hard to negotiate the Kyoto accord. Too bad they didn't work half as hard to meet the obligations they signed up for!

I say that leadership means to lead, not to make a truck full of money peddling a message that you don't believe in yourself. That is called an endorsement...hardly Nobel Price material.

And before you tell me that conservatives don't do their part, I have 'conserved for years', simply because it is the right thing to do (2200 SQ for 6 people, fuel efficient cars, reduced thermostat, fluorescent lighting, back yard compost, reduce consumption, recycle everything possible, high efficiency appliances).

And lets not forget that the Governator is a republican...like it or not!

In Ontario, we should be giving Mr McSquint some credit though...since by letting the manufacturing sector die a fast death, he is reducing our carbon footprint on a daily basis.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

How do you feel about people who say we should be fighting the Islamofascists and yet they refuse to send their own kids or to volunteer themselves?

The same.

 

[TOVisitor]

Simple...Because like ALL liberals, when he had the power to effect change he did nothing, and now that he is a civilian he pretends to be the environmental champion and points at someone else as the bad guy.

Sounds like the local do nothings. The Fed McSquint was spouting today how the liberals worked so hard to negotiate the Kyoto accord. Too bad they didn't work half as hard to meet the obligations they signed up for!

I say that leadership means to lead, not to make a truck full of money peddling a message that you don't believe in yourself. That is called an endorsement...hardly Nobel Price material.

And before you tell me that conservatives don't do their part, I have 'conserved for years', simply because it is the right thing to do (2200 SQ for 6 people, fuel efficient cars, reduced thermostat, fluorescent lighting, back yard compost, reduce consumption, recycle everything possible, high efficiency appliances).

And lets not forget that the Governator is a republican...like it or not!

In Ontario, we should be giving Mr McSquint some credit though...since by letting the manufacturing sector die a fast death, he is reducing our carbon footprint on a daily basis.

Your anti-Gore screed is a load of crap.

If we were to believe you, then FDR should never have done anything to alleviate poverty, because he was the scion of a patrician family.

How do you know that Gore is "peddling a message he does not believe in"? Do you have his number on your Rolodex and you talk to him a lot?

Or are you just spouting more BS, where we shoot the messenger instead of heeding the message?

 

[TOVisitor]

The same.

Good to know.

 

[slowpoke]

Simple...Because like ALL liberals, when he had the power to effect change he did nothing, and now that he is a civilian he pretends to be the environmental champion and points at someone else as the bad guy.

Sounds like the local do nothings. The Fed McSquint was spouting today how the liberals worked so hard to negotiate the Kyoto accord. Too bad they didn't work half as hard to meet the obligations they signed up for!

I say that leadership means to lead, not to make a truck full of money peddling a message that you don't believe in yourself. That is called an endorsement...hardly Nobel Price material.

And before you tell me that conservatives don't do their part, I have 'conserved for years', simply because it is the right thing to do (2200 SQ for 6 people, fuel efficient cars, reduced thermostat, fluorescent lighting, back yard compost, reduce consumption, recycle everything possible, high efficiency appliances).

And lets not forget that the Governator is a republican...like it or not!

In Ontario, we should be giving Mr McSquint some credit though...since by letting the manufacturing sector die a fast death, he is reducing our carbon footprint on a daily basis.

I think you've missed at least half of the point. You're still carping away about the messenger, even though you are trying to behave responsibly. You, me and a great many other people are treading as lightly as possible and a large part of that is because the warning delivered by Gore and others is slowly getting through. I think it is getting through to civilians from all political stripes so I don't know why you see this in such black & white partisan terms ie: Gore and McGuinty are just soooo bad, corrupt, stupid, wasteful, hypocritical etc. Or: Liberals ask the world to cut emissions but they don't do anything themselves etc. Give it a rest already!

Why even bother with Gore? He was a Vice President so I doubt that he had as much real power as you claim but I don't care anyway because it has nothing to do with Gore's warning in the film or global warming. I was talking about how far too many people are incapable of discussing global warming in general or Gore's film in particular without going off on a raving tangent about Gore's hydro bills or McGuinty's 5000 shortcomings or how the Liberals should never have signed Kyoto. A few syllables of criticism about these (apparently) subhuman monsters would be appropriate but you've just demonstrated exactly what I was talking about. You've tossed out a few observations about how environmentally responsible you are but your main focus was a "same old" attack on every Liberal in sight. Thanks for discussing Gore's film so eloquently.

 

[nervous]

The message is good...but the messager is a money grubbing jurk!

I think you've missed at least half of the point. You're still carping away about the messenger, even though you are trying to behave responsibly. You, me and a great many other people are treading as lightly as possible and a large part of that is because the warning delivered by Gore and others is slowly getting through. I think it is getting through to civilians from all political stripes so I don't know why you see this in such black & white partisan terms ie: Gore and McGuinty are just soooo bad, corrupt, stupid, wasteful, hypocritical etc. Or: Liberals ask the world to cut emissions but they don't do anything themselves etc. Give it a rest already!

Why even bother with Gore? He was a Vice President so I doubt that he had as much real power as you claim but I don't care anyway because it has nothing to do with Gore's warning in the film or global warming. I was talking about how far too many people are incapable of discussing global warming in general or Gore's film in particular without going off on a raving tangent about Gore's hydro bills or McGuinty's 5000 shortcomings or how the Liberals should never have signed Kyoto. A few syllables of criticism about these (apparently) subhuman monsters would be appropriate but you've just demonstrated exactly what I was talking about. You've tossed out a few observations about how environmentally responsible you are but your main focus was a "same old" attack on every Liberal in sight. Thanks for discussing Gore's film so eloquently.

You missed my point entirely. Remember the Label for the thread, "Why conservatives deny global warming", my point was, and still is, that 'real people' conservative or liberal are fools not to act in a socially, morally (well at least most of the time and environmentally conscientious way.

Harper, whether he believes in the science or not has done more, as little as it is, to curb green house gasses in Canada as the liberals did when they were in power and signed the Kyoto accord.

Admitting that we can't meet our original commitments to Kyoto is reality, alone that was created by the Liberals, and continued by the conservatives.

If you believe in the message, then act that was, use your buying power to reward companies that act green and p8nish those that don't. The wrong answer is to throw your hands up and say, I can't do anything because Big Brother is not telling me to do something.

The point about Al Gore is that he is a hypocrite and is IMHO only in this for the money. And he is fair game, since he has set himself up as the poster chi8ld for the cause. No different than you would criticize televangelists for taking the money, even if they preach a good story!

 

[nervous]

Nice reach...too bad you missed Analogy Class

Your anti-Gore screed is a load of crap.

If we were to believe you, then FDR should never have done anything to alleviate poverty, because he was the scion of a patrician family.

How do you know that Gore is "peddling a message he does not believe in"? Do you have his number on your Rolodex and you talk to him a lot?

Or are you just spouting more BS, where we shoot the messenger instead of heeding the message?

Because he doesnt live the message...moron.

FDR, like may rich Americans are first rate philanthropists and therefore do live the message. Al Gore is in it for the money, while he burns more carbon equivalent than a typical subdivision in the burbs....

 

[papasmerf]

Facts is the world has warmed........Consider the ICE AGE and its demise. Of course there was no SUV's then. Now if you would like to talk the virtues of reducing the cost and consumption of oil, you might be on to something.

In the mean time remind chicken-little he is just a woodpecker.

 

[Robio]

Is Global warming so bad? It is late November and I do not need a Jacket or coat .I see pleasure craft in Lake Ontario. Didn't it snow in November back in the 70's? This is great soon Toronto will be a tropical destination

 

[TOVisitor]

Because he doesnt live the message...moron.

FDR, like may rich Americans are first rate philanthropists and therefore do live the message. Al Gore is in it for the money, while he burns more carbon equivalent than a typical subdivision in the burbs....

He doesn't live the message and he's only in it for the money and he burns more carbon than a typical subdivision?

C'mon, smart guy, show us what you've got.

What's your evidence for these assertions, other than your half-assed opinion or some rant by Rush?

The point about Al Gore is that he is a hypocrite and is IMHO only in this for the money. And he is fair game, since he has set himself up as the poster chi8ld for the cause.

IMHO?

In my humble opinion? Like they say, opinions are like assholes. Guess you are one, as well as have one.

 

[slowpoke]

You missed my point entirely. Remember the Label for the thread, "Why conservatives deny global warming", my point was, and still is, that 'real people' conservative or liberal are fools not to act in a socially, morally (well at least most of the time and environmentally conscientious way.....

You were responding to my comments about how too many people are incapable of discussing Gore's film, its message about global warming or its scientific evidence without going off on a tangent about Gore's hydro bills or his lifestyle. This is what you said:

Simple...Because like ALL liberals, when he had the power to effect change he did nothing, and now that he is a civilian he pretends to be the environmental champion and points at someone else as the bad guy.

Sounds like the local do nothings. The Fed McSquint was spouting today how the liberals worked so hard to negotiate the Kyoto accord. Too bad they didn't work half as hard to meet the obligations they signed up for!

I say that leadership means to lead, not to make a truck full of money peddling a message that you don't believe in yourself. That is called an endorsement...hardly Nobel Price material.

And before you tell me that conservatives don't do their part, I have 'conserved for years', simply because it is the right thing to do (2200 SQ for 6 people, fuel efficient cars, reduced thermostat, fluorescent lighting, back yard compost, reduce consumption, recycle everything possible, high efficiency appliances).

And lets not forget that the Governator is a republican...like it or not!

In Ontario, we should be giving Mr McSquint some credit though...since by letting the manufacturing sector die a fast death, he is reducing our carbon footprint on a daily basis.

Now you're saying I missed your point in the above post which was, in your own words:

"my point was, and still is, that 'real people' conservative or liberal are fools not to act in a socially, morally (well at least most of the time and environmentally conscientious way....."

I've dissected that post and you've made no such point. You've touted yourself as a good conservative who is doing his part to save the environment but that's all. The rest of your post was a rant against Gore, McGuinty and Liberals in general etc - exactly the kind of response I was talking about.

Harper, whether he believes in the science or not has done more, as little as it is, to curb green house gasses in Canada as the liberals did when they were in power and signed the Kyoto accord.

Here are just a couple of examples of what the Liberals did about GHG emissions "when they were in power". Granted they didn't stay around long enough to reduce emissions as much as they'd hoped but they did accomplish significantly more than Harper has. The 2005 Liberal agreement with the car makers has already resulted in a significant reduction in emissions. Harper hasn't reduced emissions to anywhere near that extent and has promised to keep doing almost nothing for many more years to come. At least the Liberals accepted the rationale for GHG reductions and wanted to cut emissions. Harper couldn't even manage that much and did everything in his power to undermine what the Liberals were trying to do.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/timeline.html

March 23 [2005]: The federal government and Canada's car makers reach an agreement on emissions standards. Automakers agree that its new vehicles will cut emissions by 5.3 megatonnes by 2010 as part of Ottawa's Kyoto plan.

April 6 [2005]: The minority Liberal government offers to pull a controversial provision dealing with the Kyoto accord from its budget bill. The opposition Conservatives, NDP and Bloc Québécois have all said they would vote against the budget because of the provision, which would make greenhouse gas emissions a controlled substance so Ottawa could regulate them. In order to appease the opposition, Liberal House leader Tony Valeri offers a deal to Conservative House leader Jay Hill that will allow the finance committee to reject the proposal.

 

[nervous]

You were responding to my comments about how too many people are incapable of discussing Gore's film, its message about global warming or its scientific evidence without going off on a tangent about Gore's hydro bills or his lifestyle. This is what you said:



Now you're saying I missed your point in the above post which was, in your own words:

"my point was, and still is, that 'real people' conservative or liberal are fools not to act in a socially, morally (well at least most of the time and environmentally conscientious way....."

I've dissected that post and you've made no such point. You've touted yourself as a good conservative who is doing his part to save the environment but that's all. The rest of your post was a rant against Gore, McGuinty and Liberals in general etc - exactly the kind of response I was talking about.



Here are just a couple of examples of what the Liberals did about GHG emissions "when they were in power". Granted they didn't stay around long enough to reduce emissions as much as they'd hoped but they did accomplish significantly more than Harper has. The 2005 Liberal agreement with the car makers has already resulted in a significant reduction in emissions. Harper hasn't reduced emissions to anywhere near that extent and has promised to keep doing almost nothing for many more years to come. At least the Liberals accepted the rationale for GHG reductions and wanted to cut emissions. Harper couldn't even manage that much and did everything in his power to undermine what the Liberals were trying to do.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/timeline.html

March 23 [2005]: The federal government and Canada's car makers reach an agreement on emissions standards. Automakers agree that its new vehicles will cut emissions by 5.3 megatonnes by 2010 as part of Ottawa's Kyoto plan.

April 6 [2005]: The minority Liberal government offers to pull a controversial provision dealing with the Kyoto accord from its budget bill. The opposition Conservatives, NDP and Bloc Québécois have all said they would vote against the budget because of the provision, which would make greenhouse gas emissions a controlled substance so Ottawa could regulate them. In order to appease the opposition, Liberal House leader Tony Valeri offers a deal to Conservative House leader Jay Hill that will allow the finance committee to reject the proposal.

2005 ....R U Kidding 2005, what about 1995 or 1997 or 1999 or 2001 or 2003...give me a break.