Skip to main content

Great observations by John Cole Tim F. over at John Cole's place:

At least for Iraq and creationism this movementarian absolutism has an element of self interest to it. Contrariwise the farther you step back from the climate “debate” the less sense it makes. In fact it looks almost exactly like the tobacco “debate” that was really settled some time in the 50’s, but stayed alive for decades after because of a brilliant and blindingly cynical PR campaign by the tobacco lobby. The entire gamut of false front astroturf groups, slanted studies and bogus experts forcing the appearance of a debate comes straight from the tobacco playbook. The only question is why the right wing felt such a compelling need to get behind it this time. Is there something inherently liberal about avoiding catastrophe?

It seems to me that the sad saga of warming denial illustrates a major weakness of conservative monementarianism. Climate science isn’t really partisan in any meaningful way, yet as long as the movementarians think that attacking the science will score a vctory against liberalism they will go on attacking just the same. All the petro lobby needed to do was polarize a scientific matter along political lines and the rightwing movement willingly became what amounts to the private army for a cause almost completely tangential to their individual interests. Retired tobacco execs look on with a mix of humor and deep jealousy.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:58 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They Deny Global Warming (38+ / 0-)

    Then have to beg God for Rain

    Be careful what you shoot at, most things in here don't react well to bullets-Sean Connery .... Captain Marko Ramius -Hunt For Red October

    by JML9999 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:58:00 AM PST

  •  The movementarians? (7+ / 0-)

    The Leader is good, the Leader is great. We surrender our wills, as of this date.

    Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na, Leader!

    I don't want Fop, goddammit. I'm a Dapper Dan man!

    by droogie6655321 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:58:28 AM PST

    •  "Momentarians" - I kind of like this meme. (4+ / 0-)

      As in, "Living for the moment, only" (with no thought for a liveable future) ...

      Sums up the neocons fairly well, I'd say.

      •  Sums up the fundies, too... (7+ / 0-)

        ... who ignore the parts of the Bible that say that creation is something we should be good stewards of, and focus on the parts that say Jesus is coming back tomorrow, so there's no need in cleaning up after yourself.

        I don't want Fop, goddammit. I'm a Dapper Dan man!

        by droogie6655321 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:04:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not all contrary voices on this are Momentarians (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:

        I think there are smart people on the left who are quite rationally urging restraint in dealing with global warming.

        I'm not sure why they're so underrepresented here. The truth is, dramatic steps to curb global warming are going to hurt and kill many innocent people, disproportionately the poor. Biofuels will destroy rainforests and instead of feeding the hungry, farms will be feeding our cars. A forced retooling will cost trillions.

        Anyway, I think we should be open to the idea that if what we're after is social justice, we should relieve real suffering as our first priority, and tackle global warming as a second priority. No sane person denies that it's happening and that we're contributing to it, but we can't just suddenly decide to screw the poor in order to save the polar bear. Like Bjorn Lomborg says: Let's begin with a ban on hunting polar bears! If the sea level is rising, we should be building proper dykes and levies.

        My general point is this: Not all people who urge calmness and a cool head about global warming are religious deniers. Some really care about the plight of the underprivilidged people of the world. And they bring a perspective to this debate that I think we need.

        •  get lost, troll (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dotcommodity, spots

          But all contrary voices on this belong to either idiots, whackos, or people who are directly or indirectly on ExxonMobil's payroll.

          Which group do YOU belong to? Other than the troll community, I mean.

          Your cite of Bjorn Lomborg, who has no qualifications in any environmental science persuaded me that you are a troll and your only intent here is to disrupt the discussion.

          Real scientists say that we've got a decade to get a handle on this.

          The bad news here is that their "worst case" projections have been consistently wrong. . . because things are getting worse faster than the models have predicted.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 04:30:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Inaccurate assessment (0+ / 0-)

          Biofuels will destroy rainforests and instead of feeding the hungry, farms will be feeding our cars.

          Yes, but wind and solar power will do neither.  And more efficient biodeisel engines (using fry waste) are possible.

          People don't have to suffer to save the earth.  People will be SAVED if we assist the earth back to balance.

          •  I don't believe the transition to renewable (0+ / 0-)

            will be painless. It might have been if it had started 20 years ago, but the public wasn't ready to understand what Carter had to say.

            But if we all put our fair share (including the Richistani) into it, it'll probably be survivable. A society-wide replacement of coal plants and automobiles and automobiles is going to be expensive no matter what we replace them with.

            As for biodiesel, there are several VC funded startups researching sewage > algae biomass right now. The supply of used fry oil is limited and often has competing uses that pay better. The supply of sewage is something I'm not concerned about. That can keep our trucks and trains and even jets running if the problems can be worked out.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:49:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  you are apostate (0+ / 0-)

          you have violated an article of faith. your kind of lump will be just that- blackened and unrecognizable on the ashes of a pyre. you have committed a sin. you are a doubter, you are a skeptic, you are shit out of luck on this thread.

          mr troll, in this world of science there can be only the lockstep of conscensus.

          •  no, the guy is simply not welcome (0+ / 0-)

            in a reality-based community.

            If he can't tell the difference between the consensus of real scientists and that PR spokesdroids for Big Coal and Big Oil, he has no business in a discussion of global warming in an environment with people who prefer facts and don't regard balancing fact with fantasy as necessary.

            If you and your friend want to discuss warmed over "The Truth" from ExxonMobil-subsidized PR firms, Red State is waiting for you. I'm sure they'll appreciate you.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:42:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  what nonsense (0+ / 0-)

          this whole GOP talking point: "cost trillions".

          Making energy in new ways will create new jobs, and enrich new investors and provide good shareprices to new mutual funds. Life will go on.

          3 industries (oil, gas guzzlers and coal) will go the way of the whale oil industry. The other 30 trillion industries will not. Cost is nonsense. Big whoop.

  •  Maybe It Has Something to Do (17+ / 0-)

    with the current administration having very close ties to the oil industry?

    This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

    by Mr X on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:58:37 AM PST

    •  Indeed (13+ / 0-)

      Or, to put it another way, well duhh.  The reason the conservative movement is into global warming denial is because it is financed by big corporations, including oil companies. The con-artist preachers go along because the industry-financed conservative movement is also their ticket to power.

      This isn't difficult to understand.

      •  Or even simpler... (8+ / 0-)

        They like their SUVs.

        They see liberalism as a conspiracy to prevent them from living their lives as they see fit, including driving their SUVs.

        Therefore, global warming is, like the rest of liberalism, just a lie dreamed up by a bunch of pointy-headed people on the coasts trying to tell the good folks of the heartland how to live their lives.

        Besides, climate scientists all thought the world was cooling twenty years ago.*

        (* Not actually "true," but a typical "fact" that helps the bullshit go down easier.)

        This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)

        by GreenSooner on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:10:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If they acknowledge that there is global warming (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          they are afraid they will have to pay
          for their sins so to speak,
          and they won't be able to conduct
          their business as usual.

          "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" --James Bovard -6.5 -6.75

          by Statusquomustgo on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:17:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think the "followers" of denial feel this... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          I Push Pixels

          but the source comes from the ones who will lose profits...

          Whenever I hear "the science isn't in on it"  I simply ask if they know how many pounds of CO2 are released by one gallon of gas (19.5). Then I ask them to consider the trillions of gallons burned on US roads, and the pounds of CO2 released.

          Then I ask if they're willing to sit in a large, closed garage and idle through one gallon of gas to understand CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

          What about NO F!#%ING TORTURE do you NOT UNDERSTAND?

          by netguyct on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:03:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  follow the money (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            As it turns out, Mother  Jones Magazine has already done this for us.

            I remember several years back when one of the major gasoline vendors had M."Scott" Carpenter (one of the original astronauts) standing next to a large, clear balloon filling with auto exhaust and talking about how good their gasoline is on air pollution. I would have been far more impressed if he'd been inside the balloon.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 04:34:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Perhaps there's something liberal about (30+ / 0-)

    threatening the energy industry's profits.  Or was it Mark Twain who said, it is difficult to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding it?

    •  An Inconvenient Truth nt (8+ / 0-)

      Be careful what you shoot at, most things in here don't react well to bullets-Sean Connery .... Captain Marko Ramius -Hunt For Red October

      by JML9999 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:00:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ha! (7+ / 0-)

      Great quote, my sail-backed dinosaurid friend.

      It's like how you can't get a conservative to understand how abortions and preventative birth controls are actually quite good at reducing human misery.

      I don't want Fop, goddammit. I'm a Dapper Dan man!

      by droogie6655321 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:00:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ahh but the whole point of the anti-abortion (6+ / 0-)

        movement isn't to reduce suffering it's too make sure women do suffer the consequences of having sex.  Can't let the sluts get away with it.  One of the most common lines I've heard from them is the offensive "If she only kept her legs shut".  That line sums up the philosophy behind the anti-abortion movement.  Misogyny.

        ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

        by Rebecca on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:24:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's why they oppose birth control (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I read a column the other day where the columnist was almost giddy with glee that a 20-year-old college student wouldn't be able to go overseas because she got pregnant because she stopped her birth control prescription after prices at the student health center skyrocketed.

          The columnist thought it was a great idea that this young woman and others like her should pay twice as much for their birth control. (It should be noted that male birth control, i.e. condoms, are still free.) Furthermore, his entire attitude was that if she can't afford the higher prices, she should keep her legs shut.

          The comments are even better than the article.

          You can read more here:

          "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers

          by wayward on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:57:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes a very condescending post (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            from Human Events

            Sure. And what is the cost of the cell phone she was shown holding in the newspaper photo? Maybe if she can’t afford to protect herself, she should -- perish the thought -- abstain from sex.

            The thought that maybe, just maybe her parents pay for her phone didn't ever cross this assholes brain.  Most parents today consider a cell phone a necessary item for their children.  Helps them keep in touch with them.  

            Their one and only solution regarding sex is that women should abstain or keep their legs shut.  Just like the modesty movement they are pushing now.  

            Scratch the surface, and what's supposed to be good for girls reveals itself to be all about the boys: dressing in a way that doesn't over-excite them, demurring so that their manhood remains intact and holding tight to our sexuality until we find a husband who is worthy of that ultimate "prize."

            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

            by Rebecca on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 01:14:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Getting a bit OT, but... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rebecca, Dimetrodon

              It is a shame that so may people bash modesty movement pioneer Wendy Shalit without reading her, when it is so much more effective to criticize her after reading her.

              Wendy Shalit is right about some things.  Young women are terribly over sexualized. This is very unhealthy for various reasons.

              However, Shalit is terribly naive about human sexuality.  (At least she was in 1999, I admit I have not read Girls Gone Mild.) She is the daughter of an economist and treats female sexuality in very economic terms.  Her argument in Return to Modesty is, quite simply, "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" According to Shalit, it is in women's best interest to withhold the "milk" until she can get the best "price" for it.

              What she does not address is why women should be compared to cows, or any other property, or why women's sexuality should be considered a commodity in the first place.

              Other parts of the book show a juvenile, immature view of sexuality. She cannot comprehend of a world without sexual tension. She is baffled about how a co-ed wrestling team can come into such close physical contact on the mats without seeing that as sexual. Her attraction to Orthodox Judaism is, in part, because the repression was so high that it kept the sexual tension equally high.

              The particularly frightening part is that Shalit and the modesty movement do not make the world safer for women, but more dangerous.  A long skirt has never stopped a rapist, but if "modest" women are wearing long skirts, then society is more likely to think that a woman who is raped while wearing a short skirt is "asking for it." I do not need to explain why this is not good for women.

              Furthermore, with their emphasis on how women's behavior affects the boys, Shalit and the modesty movement make the same mistake as those who commercialize female sexuality in that the purpose of a woman and of a woman's sexuality can only be seen through the eyes of a man.  Either a woman is to be a modest virginal bride or a sex object.  Both agree that a woman should strive for male attention, the only difference is the type of attention for which they should strive. Neither message is healthy and neither is the positive message that young women deserve to hear.

              "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers

              by wayward on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 03:16:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Most of the problems the right latches onto (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                hit a cord with people because there is a real problem there.  They take these issues and run them through their ideology.  So many of the right's solutions for sexual issues are rife with misogyny.  We see it so clearly in the modesty movement.

                Yes, girls are growing up in an environment that is at one and the same time expecting hyper-sexuality from them and hyper-purity from them.  Both are unhealthy for women.  However, the modesty movement is not about working to help girls and women.

                The people pushing the modesty movement are the same type of people pushing the anti-abortion/anti-birth control movement.  It is at it's basis a patriarchal anti-woman movement.  These people are not naive.  They are selling their ideology/dogma/beliefs and using peoples discomfort about sexuality and worry over their children to push laws and policies that most people would never accept without the emotional undertones.  It's a form of emotional blackmail and it's not naive at all.  They play on peoples ignorance and their valid concerns.  

                While I haven't read any books on the modesty movement.  I won't waste my money.  I have read on the internet.  Shalit may have psychological problems about sex.  Too many on the right do.  That doesn't change the fact that this is a political/religious movement more concerned with enforcing it's ideology on everyone else than looking at the real world and seeing what girls and young women need.  It's like creationism.  They already know the answer they just need to find the "facts" to back it up.  

                ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                by Rebecca on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 04:19:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Who is naive (0+ / 0-)

                  I was only referring to Shalit being naive.  She was in her early twenties when she wrote the book, and she appeared to be a very sheltered early twenty-something at that.

                  The people who aren't naive are the people who give well-written twenty-something "sages" book deals for saying what they want to hear.

                  And no, I did not spend a dime on the book.

                  "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers

                  by wayward on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 05:27:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Shalit isn't important (0+ / 0-)

                    I am talking about the movement not about a young woman who as you say is being used.  Just as Diana was used by the Royal family.  Diana was also a young naive woman who was caught up in a fairy tale.  The fairy tales these women live their lives by are destructive and not related to reality.  Both fairy tales make virginity more important than the well being of the people and their lives.  

                    We have two world views (to be very general).  In one world view we look at the people and try to make the world better for people.  People, their well being and their feelings are important in this world view.  In the other beliefs/ideology/dogma is the important thing.  It is more important that people conform themselves to these beliefs and the consequences to the people is unimportant.  

                    So Prince Charles who would have been much happier with an older more sophisticated woman had to marry a young naive woman.  So gay people are free to marry just as anyone else is as long as they marry the opposite sex.  Prince Charles ccould carry on his affair with the woman he prefered.  The fact that his young naive wife was devastated to find that her marriage was merely for show and not for real wasn't important in this world view.  Diana was a problem because she had believed in the fairy tale.   Her very real hurt wasn't important.  Keeping up appearances was.  

                    We see this again and again on the right.  Larry Craig and his wide stance.  All those Republicans who say one thing and live another.  People brought up in this world view either learn to accommodate themselves to it by living double lives or they suffer in silence or they leave it.  Hypocrisy is part and parcel of their world view.  Shalit will learn, if she hasn't already, that as long as she touts the beliefs and publicly lives that life she will be respected.  Any pain that causes her is unimportant.  Any accommodations she makes to be able to have a little relief is unimportant unless like Larry Craig she is caught out.  Then she will be expected to take the consequences.

                    One world view is about people being more important while the other is about beliefs being more important.  

                    ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                    by Rebecca on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 08:11:28 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  meanwhile, in the world of real science (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rebecca, Calamity Jean, Dimetrodon

                we have Yet Another Study whose results say that "abstinence only education does not reduce sexual activity or the incidence of pregnancies among teens."

                We need fact-based sex ed and I advocate martial arts education for young women to help them enforce the idea that "no means NO" to guys not clear on the concept.

                Wingnut concepts on sexuality are for bashing.  

                Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                by alizard on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 04:44:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  You're closer to it than Kos (7+ / 0-)

      IMO, the opposition is based on the anti-regulation bent of the GOP that opposes any policy that cuts into corporate profits costs American jobs.

      It's the basis of making fun of the anyone who cares about the environment by calling them "tree-huggers."  Once they've mocked the movement, nothing the movement says is going to be taken seriously.

      Kos is partly right in that the country has become wildly and reflexively hyper-partisan.  The Democratic Party could announce that it was opposed to violent crime and tomorrow the GOP would announce that they were against it.  And vice versa.

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

      by gsbadj on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:09:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Science is non-partisan. (11+ / 0-)

    That's the beauty of it.

    I guess they still haven't figured that out.

  •  Denial of global warming appeals directly to the (17+ / 0-)

    conservative/Rethuglican doctrine of having no responsibility to society, other than to bilk everyone at every turn.  I believe those who actually have all the facts about the coming climate crisis understand that it will soon be every man for himself and the richest ones will survive the longest, so keeping everyone else in the dark gives them an edge.

    Selfish and short-sighted... remind you of anyone?

    •  It's a utilitarian view of nature. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rebecca, Little Lulu, Magnifico

      A scenic vista of a mountainside is great and all, but unless it can be used for something -- say, if we mined those mountaintops for coal -- then it's not doing anybody any good.

      I don't want Fop, goddammit. I'm a Dapper Dan man!

      by droogie6655321 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:01:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's something to that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Little Lulu, I Push Pixels

      They believe they will be the "fittest" in the coming survival test. They also think the US will be the only country that can afford to protect its coastal cities from hurricanes and its forests from fires and its plains from becoming a desert and...

      Oh, sorry. Though we may have the dough to protect every American, we've already seen that we don't have the will.

      And it is mostly because of the corporations and their wingnut followers.

  •  I point deniers to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, BokenTerp

    The Royal Society (Isaac Newton was a member, to give you an idea of the Society's credibility) document giving scientific refutation of "misleading" arguments against human-caused global climate change.

    It hasn't swayed anyone convinced by the scientific credentials of Fox News, but at least I feel better.

  •  Climate science is not partisan. (7+ / 0-)

    However- the policy changes to deal with the data that flows from that science is highly partisan.  The very nature of climate change requires one of two things (or perhaps a little of both): regulation or market-based solutions.  The market, in almost every sector, is saturated in petrol and petrol technologies.  How can renewables come to pass if Exxon will not change its massive structure away from petroleum to accommodate newer forms of energy?

    So the conservative solution is a bust: which means the only way for the government to meaningfully curtail global warming is to start with regulation.  Conservatives refuse to believe that the government has to intercede where the Great Free Market Deity fails to act.

    It's a partisan struggle and, in some respects, a religious one.  Conservatives have taken as their god the merciless market.  It has failed us and them in this instance and so they refuse to countenance the very possibility that something exists that markets refuse to fix.

    "[We] cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."-Edward R. Murrow

    by electricgrendel on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:01:20 PM PST

    •  One would think that Exxon would wake up (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arbiter, ReadyForChange

      Understood that Exxon has a deeply imbedded need for more oil extraction. But companies used to have an eye on the long view as well. Where is the vision and leadership that will keep that company running after oil is gone? Where is its skunkworks? Why has it not re-branded itself as a 'propulsion technology' company and not simply an 'oil' company?

      Perhaps Exxon won't be around in ten years if they don't wake up.

      •  Dick Cheney and 2000 of his closest fiends (0+ / 0-)

        will do just fine in their climate controlled enclaves serviced by the best looking slaves. Exxon don't need no stinkin' g-men.

        Of course that doesn't explain why the winger pleebs deny global warming. Maybe they are gullible?

        The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- Julius Caesar, I.ii.

        by semiot on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:51:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  it won't matter to the fat CEO (0+ / 0-)

        he'll be dead by then.  This is their mentality.

        They're calling our bluff and all we're holding is a Pelosi and a Hoyer.

        by arbiter on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:52:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Corporations (0+ / 0-)

        People criticize politicians for not being able to look past the next election cycle, but CEOs often look only to the next quarterly report. The oil companies are going to milk all the money they can while they can, and then when global warming has had its effects, the rich will take over what prime real estate is left. There will be a few "garden spots", the rich will have them, and whoever lives there now will be shoved aside.

        It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.

        by A Citizen on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 09:25:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It is the essence of Conservatism (0+ / 0-)

      Conservatives by their definition are cautious and do not believe in abrupt change of any kind. There are many in the GOP who do believe in climate change and are actively engaged in making improvements ( i.e. Bloomberg, Schwartznegger).

      I think the heart of the problem is how its been presented, the absolute nature of the evidence, and, most importantly the Armageddon warning.

      I would have preferred a more open dialogue of issues, not closing discussion with the excuse "the science is in," and not tying in every little weather event into this that tend to discredit the larger picture (i.e. hurricanes predictions).

      Concerning market based solutions, petrol companies are not stupid and are heavily invested in alternative energies for the future. I believe the biggest problem is not Exxon, but it is our government's own lack of commitment to overcoming the obstacle of commercialization cost of new forms of renewable energy to better compete with the cost of our current form of energy.

      •  National Geographic was covering it for decades (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        so when you say

        I would have preferred a more open dialogue of issues, not closing discussion with the excuse "the science is in,"

        there really had been an

        open dialogue of issues

        and by the time the science penetrated the thick walls of obfuscation that exxon spent a decade and $16 million to put up in front of "the science that was in" by that time, well, frankly, the science was in, and was well known in  most of the world: in this country it just was prevented from an airing in the media till Gore kind of battered his way past that wall by bypassing our complicit media with a movie.

        There are oil companies that see whats ahead and change, ie Shell, and then there are oil companies like Exxon that truly are culpable in suppressing this knowledge till it burst the damn.

        No wonder it looked like the science was decided by the time the average citizen heard about it. It was.

        •  Urban Legands vs. Answers (0+ / 0-)

          Greenpeace has a specific agenda and like any other political organization will portary things to their advantage. If a traditional news organization was able to connect these dots then it would go from an urban legend to fact.

          Science is never in. If it were we would have had two consecutive years of record breaking major hurricanes in the U.S. because of global warming as predicted and we of course have had just the opposite.

          If the believers in global warming cannot adequately address the questions beginning to arise from other scientists who have legitimate questions, and not just call them names, then they will eventually lose the argument they have been building up and lose the confidence of people.

          You don't win arguments by threatening to hold your breath until the other side says "uncle."

          •  so many news organisations were (0+ / 0-)

            influenced by organised obfuscators like this one who confessed to being paid to confuse here at dailykos.
            Like the tobacco industry which saved themselves 50 years before they had to limit sales by obfuscation, the oil industry really stands to lose trillions, and they paid our media to get confused...

            Remember, reporters are trained to think one the one hand/on the other hand...and so it could look like a pretty easy story to a reporter that all these organizations are coming out on "the other hand" and so they would not realise that scientists have the IPPC (which is itself stymied to some degree by each government, some of whom are even more directly funded by oil than our current one) and they publish for eachother in Science and Nature, but most science is not attacked the way climate science was so scientists have not evolved effective counterattack outlets: they just kepttalking to themselves in their nerdy way.

            Greenpeace does not stand to lose trillions of dollars if the public really believes the opposing view. Exxon does. So, it invested in prevention.

            If you're a reporter and you try to read on the one hand: Science and then on the other hand you happen apon the writing in one of these sources, that were funded by exxon, it was easy to convince reporters hmm...this looks like a good source: hm...better check what they say:

            Accuracy in Academia
            Accuracy in Media
            Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
            Air Quality Standards Coalition
            Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
            Alliance for Climate Strategies
            American Conservative Union Foundation
            American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
            American Council on Science and Health
            American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
            American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
            American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs
            American Legislative Exchange Council
            American Petroleum Institute
            American Policy Center
            American Recreation Coalition
            American Spectator Foundation
            Americans for Tax Reform
            Arizona State University Office of Climatology
            Aspen Institute
            Association of Concerned Taxpayers
            Atlantic Legal Foundation
            Atlas Economic Research Foundation
            Blue Ribbon Coalition
            Capital Legal Foundation
            Capital Research Center and Greenwatch
            Cato Institute
            Center for American and International Law
            Center for Environmental Education Research
            Center for Security Policy
            Center for Strategic and International Studies
            Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
            Center for the New West
            Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
            Centre for the New Europe
            Chemical Education Foundation
            Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation
            Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund
            Clean Water Industry Coalition
            Climate Research Journal
            Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
            Communications Institute
            Competitive Enterprise Institute
            Congress of Racial Equality
            Consumer Alert
            Cooler Heads Coalition
            Council for Solid Waste Solutions
            DCI Group
            Defenders of Property Rights
            Earthwatch Institute
            ECO or Environmental Conservation Organization
            European Enterprise Institute
            ExxonMobil Corporation
            Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
            Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
            Fraser Institute
            Free Enterprise Action Institute
            Free Enterprise Education Institute
            Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation
            George C. Marshall Institute
            George Mason University, Law and Economics Center
            Global Climate Coalition
            Great Plains Legal Foundation
            Greening Earth Society
            Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
            Heartland Institute
            Heritage Foundation
            Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
            Hudson Institute
            Illinois Policy Institute
            Independent Commission on Environmental Education
            Independent Institute
            Institute for Biospheric Research
            Institute for Energy Research
            Institute for Regulatory Science
            Institute for Senior Studies
            Institute for the Study of Earth and Man
            Institute of Humane Studies, George Mason University
            Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
            International Council for Capital Formation
            International Policy Network - North America
            International Republican Institute
            James Madison Institute
            Landmark Legal Foundation
            Lexington Institute
            Lindenwood University
            Mackinac Center
            Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
            Media Institute
            Media Research Center
            Mercatus Center, George Mason University
            Mountain States Legal Foundation
            National Association of Neighborhoods
            National Black Chamber of Commerce
            National Center for Policy Analysis
            National Center for Public Policy Research
            National Council for Environmental Balance
            National Environmental Policy Institute
            National Legal Center for the Public Interest
            National Mining Association
            National Policy Forum
            National Wetlands Coalition
            National Wilderness Institute
            New England Legal Foundation
            Pacific Legal Foundation
            Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
            Peabody Energy
            Property and Environment Research Center, formerly Political Economy Research Center
            Public Interest Watch
            Reason Foundation
            Reason Public Policy Institute
            Science and Environmental Policy Project
            Seniors Coalition
            Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP
            Small Business Survival Committee
            Southeastern Legal Foundation
            Stanford University GCEP
            Statistical Assessment Service (STATS)
            Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
            Texas Public Policy Foundation
            The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc.
            The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
            The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
            The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation)
            The Locke Institute
            United for Jobs
            University of Oklahoma Foundation, Inc.
            US Russia Business Council
            Virginia Institute for Public Policy
            Washington Legal Foundation
            Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy
            Western Fuels
            World Affairs Councils of America
            World Climate Report

            If you want to read a science reporter with a science background in a major paper try Andrew Revkin at the New York Times
            and their Science Tuesday where Andrew Revkin broke the shrinking of the Arctic Ice story and going back through their archives you can see that, even by 1985 it was accepted science at the NYT:

            By JAMES GLEICK
            Published: April 30, 1985

            TINY quantities of more than 30 rare gases threaten to warm the earth's atmosphere even more rapidly over the next 50 years than carbon dioxide will, according to a study by a team of atmospheric scientists.

  •  They deny global warming because (6+ / 0-)

    They haven't figured out how to profit from it yet

    "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    by atlliberal on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:01:31 PM PST

  •  No, it's simpler than that (14+ / 0-)

    Republicans believe they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want, whenever they fuck want, to whomever the fuck they want. Global warming is a greater threat to their world philosophy than the communists and terrorists combined.

    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

    by Zackpunk on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:02:16 PM PST

  •  Just one problem with this theory ... (15+ / 0-)

    ...the denial - just like the denial on "peak oil" - has been going on for decades already. It dates back to the time in 1981 when Ronald Reagan cut renewable energy research by 90% because conservation- and efficiency-minded folks just wanted everybody to "freeze to death in the dark."

    Now, with the ice caps VISIBLY melting, and the possibility of a runaway greenhouse warming affecting not our kids or grandkids, but us, the latest approach of the deniers (and some non-deniers like Michael Shellenberger) is to figure out how to make a profit out of what could easily be the worst disaster on the planet for humans since our ancestors first strolled out of Africa.

    "When shifting paradigms, it is important to put in the clutch." -- Patricia Limerick

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:02:17 PM PST

  •  Because in the long term, we'll all be dead (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, lineatus

    The petro executives and their friends will be long gone when the consequences of global warming hit the planet. It's someone else's problem, not theirs.

    "I'll rant as well as thou."--Hamlet, Act V, Scene 1.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:02:32 PM PST

  •  libertarianism (0+ / 0-)

    At some point, fundies profess libertarian values--except where abortion is concerned, thus, tree hugging laws are infringements of freedom.

  •  Just a slight correction on the author (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, RichM, Temmoku

    Although I love reading Cole, Tim F. at balloon juice seems to have authored that most excellent post. Credit where credit is due.

  •  3 possible explanations: #1 they're stupid; (8+ / 0-)

    #2 they're greedy; and
    #3 they're stupid and greedy.

    Well, the best defense is a good OF-fense. You know who said that? Mel, the cook on "Alice."

    by Cartoon Peril on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:04:04 PM PST

  •  corporate profits! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, XOVER, gsbadj, Fredly

    fighting global warming in a meaningful way at an effective level would require so much loss of profit, across the landscape of corporate activity, that a large number of industries are in on the denial.  

    Humans have tremendous capacity for self-delusion.  Remember the dot-bomb?  How about the housing bust and credit crunch?  My belief is that the rich think they can buy their way out of anything, climate change included.  We've got houses stationed strategically across the globe.  We'll be fine.

    (-8.00,-7.85) "Jesus Christ was the first nonviolent revolutionary." --S. Stills

    by bubbanomics on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:04:30 PM PST

  •  "There's nothing liberal about avoiding . . . (6+ / 0-)

    . . . catastrophe, but to give up wealth merely to avoid extinction?, -- well . . . that's downright wicked!  Stupid liberals." -- George W. Bush

  •  Movementarians ? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, Zaq

    The twisted logic of these clowns makes me need to take a "movementarian." Then some nice soft TP to police my rush limbaugh.

  •  monementarianism (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, Anne Hawley

    definition? - thanks,

    Why can't we vote online?

    by reasonanyone on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:06:47 PM PST

    •  Simpsons reference (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The Movementarians were loosely based on Scientology, the Moonies, and a few other cults thrown in for laughs.

    •  I'm pretty sure that was a typo (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and that "monumentarianism" was intended. That's where they blast off mountaintops and carve the face of the Chimp into what's left.

    •  Neologism (0+ / 0-)

      This is the author of the post above.  Movementarianism is a word that I came up with to describe the people that followed the GOP away from conservatism towards the brave new world of neo-trotskyite surveillance state imperialism, and would basically follow the party wherever it led as long as it meant political power.  Hugh Hewitt is the purest example in existence today.  

      As others have pointed out Democrats have those as well.  The GOP kind just stand out more because the Dems lately haven't had any power to abuse, and because the nearly bottomless pit down which they have had to follow their party makes them stand out in such high contrast.  

      Tom DeLay's GOP: cheating America in a time of war.

      by Tom Frank on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:25:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  is anyone watching C-SPAN -- the House ? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    right now? Wow, lot's of fun!...

    Anyway, read below what my neighbor just sent me...evidently, the founder of the Weather Channel doesn't believe in climate change.....if what I read is true, although I should have checked out, but it is too good not to post.


    "It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the ‘research’ to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus... I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you ‘believe in.’ It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it... There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril... In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling." —John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel

    •  Yeah, former tv weathermen are genius scientists. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rebecca, Bernie68

      He probably doesn't have the first clue how to set up an experiment.

      •  Hell, they can't even predict tomorrow's weather (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wayward, Bernie68

        I remember one time, all the schools closed the night before 'cos the weather people said there was going to be a horrible blizzard tomorrow.. batten down the hatches!  

        Next day, not a flake of snow...

        They live to terrorize people, and I think that their accuracy was better when I was a wee lad... before doppler radar and all that crap....



        •  Given the Weather Channel's track record (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LordMike, Zaq

          If the founder of the Weather Channel says global warming isn't happening, we're screwed.

          "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers

          by wayward on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 01:01:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Nuclear Vinter (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          During 'Glastnos' years ago, I attended a concert by Russian musicians at, of all places Pippa Passes, Kentuck.  There was wine and conversation with the performers afterwards during which I asked the superb pianist what he thought about nuclear induced nuclear winter.  His response: "Nuclear vinter, nuclear vinter!  Weatherman can't even predict it will rain tomorrow!"

          Denial must be universal.

  •  Not all of them deny the truth. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, Anne Hawley, dotcommodity

    My Weekly Standard reading brother-in-law is disgusted by the global warming deniers in his party. When it comes to environmental issues, he thinks that it is conservative to protect the environment. He once called his fellow Republicans lemmings for ignoring the scientific evidence.

    The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason. -Benjamin Franklin

    by HairyTrueMan on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:07:14 PM PST

    •  National Review (0+ / 0-)

      A few months ago, National Review's cover featured cracked, dry earth under a red sky and a blazing sun.  "Global Warming:  It's Real"  

      A segment of the right is convinced that global warming is real, convinced enough to propose market-based solutions and prizes to bring about green technology.  Their reasoning is:  if we don't encourage the markets to solve the problem, then the Left will author more taxes and regulations.  

      At times, I wonder what part of "10%-15% annual ROI" Republicans do not understand.  My old employer, infinitely Republican, installed EnergyStar devices before 1995.  Indiana has a pool of money that it loans out to public universities for plans to save energy that offer 10% ROI -- this pool of money has been around for a decade, continually drawn from and replenished.  

      Dems in 2008: An embarassment of riches. Repubs in 2008: Embarassments.

      by Yamaneko2 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 09:40:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mass extinctions undermines Noah's Ark (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neon Mama

    If the world of people cannot save 25% of the Earth's animals from becoming extinct from climate change, then how did Noah save all the world's animals in the ark?

  •  I see John Cole still has a Pajamas Media icon (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I wonder if that's John's sense of humor, or nobody at Jammy's HQ, if it still exists, gets that a heresy has taken place in BalloonJuice Land and purged him.

    Only the Alan Colmes types were supposed to get in who were opposed to Bushbot-ia, and Balloon Juice ain't no Alan Colmes type of place.

    •  Simple oversight (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I would think... the heresy can't be lost on them.

    •  I also think we as liberals (0+ / 0-)

      are missing one of the key conservative principles driving their denial:

      Selfishness and Immediate Self Interest as an absolutist and key value.

      In 100 years, they will be dead anyway. Global Warming or no. So... why should they care if it doesn't effect them personally if they are going to die anyway?

      I want you to think about the rightwing, and imagine Earth is threatened by an collision with a huge slowly tumbling asteroid... in 200 years.

      And only if we start planning today could we guarantee its path could be changed or the object destroyed.

      Does anybody doubt that the hard right would be saying 'do nothing... in a hundred years they will probably have something to fix it anyway. How do we know it won't tumble away at the last minute?"

  •  GOP your pants (5+ / 0-)

    It surprises me that this real, global, enormous threat isn't scaring these guys.  But teenagers with backpacks make them cry.

    I think that's a pretty good assessment from Cole.

    Imprisonment without trial, and even examination under torture, were common practice. A Man for All Seasons

    by mem from somerville on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:07:56 PM PST

  •  On How We Designed the Climate Denial Program (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tom Frank, Smallbottle, dotcommodity

    All the petro lobby needed to do was polarize a scientific matter along political lines and the rightwing movement willingly became what amounts to the private army for a cause almost completely tangential to their individual interests

    FYI, I was a part of the original climate skeptic's campaign to derail Kyoto.  Feel free to yell at me.

    This sums up how we did it.  We very carefully identified the kinds of thinkers that would carry the message the furthest. We IDed "future thinkers" who tend to be mechanical an nonemotional but forward thinking, and communicators, types who keep repeating things to their politically uninterested friends.

    Be humble and respectable, but above all just be flexible. -- Gumby

    by SteamPunkX on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:07:59 PM PST

  •  I think the reason (8+ / 0-)

    conservatives deny climate change is actually ideologically straight forward. Capitalism has its roots in the transformation of the land into private property. Hence any effort to restrict the capitalistic ability to appropriate the land is inevitably registered as part of a socialist agenda. You'll notice that conservatives will often label environmentalists socialists. That is not a coincidence. The point is that the real debate over global warming has become completely obscured by merit of its relationship to the deeply ingrained ideological connection between industrial access to the land and capitalism. Conservatives don't realize that they are actually engaging in a totally different political debate when they criticize the idea of global warming.    

  •  anti-intellectualism (5+ / 0-)

    It's just part of the right wing playbook to fight against anything on the side of logic and real critical thinking: those are the real threats to their power, which is based in a small group of people maintaining control over the rest for their own greed.

    -8.38, -8.00 Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. --Thomas Paine

    by hyperstation on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:08:38 PM PST

    •  I posted something else downthread (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gogol, hyperstation, LordMike

      I think this also has merit.  

      It really is just another in a long line of anti-intellectual decisions.  

      This science is hard stuff.  They start to panic when they can't understand it, so they look to someone else to tell them what it means.

      How many syllables Mario?

      by otto on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:11:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I was just about to say the same thing. And they sell it to the masses by encouraging them to feel that the intellectuals look down on them, and are therefore their enemies.

    •  Anti-intellectualism (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gogol, hyperstation, spots

      My dear and only older brother, a really smart guy but intellectually lazy, didn't attend college.  A Foxnews junkie, he bristles at anything I say that I may have learned after our common upbringing.  He tells everyone in the family that my mind was corrupted by someone I met in college, (he is actually correct except that my corruption consisted of one-way conversations with Thomas Jefferson, Charles Darwin and many others).  He is rabidly anti-intellectual and I see this same jealousy in most other conservatives and reality-deniers that I meet.  We're pointy-headed academics and liberals and their hatred for us is viscerial.

  •  It's just easier being a contrarian. nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Naomi Wolf would probably say (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anne Hawley

    That Global LCimate Change offers up opportunities for them to initiate more Shock Capitalism, and make horrible policy into law in the wake of whatever disasters arise out of the mess Global Climate Change will cause.

  •  There Are No Conceivable Incentives For Them (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to support science, and every incentive for them to contest and contain it.

    All factions of the Republicans are working to terminate governance by and for the people in all forms in all ways that it can interfere with private power.

    Given that there is no lethal enemy empire that could destroy or confiscate their assets if internal infighting weakened our national psyche or preparedness, it's worth virtually any price, any amount of damage to the United States if it brings an end to governmental power over private power.

    They'd be crazy to cave on global warming up to the point where this issue specifically becomes certain to throw specific Republicans out of office.

    And we're decades from that point.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:09:05 PM PST

  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

    I think that these movement conservatives have hitched themselves completely and fully to big business.  They haven't really hitched themselves to the free market, just big business.  

    If we consider them to be authoritarians seeking to be ruled, then we can understand that now the ruler is not the government, it's big businesses.  And they love it.  They love to be told what to think and do.

    How many syllables Mario?

    by otto on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:09:25 PM PST

  •  Blame specific interests, not "conservatives" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, Anne Hawley

    I think the secret here is that in Europe, plenty of capitalists who hate taxes are convinced that global warming is real.

    Wingnuts here in the United States have no particular inborn reason to think one way or the other about this issue. This isn't, for example, an issue like abortion in which the Bible frames how people see the issue.

    I think the secret here is that the tobacco industry single-handed, cleverly, scarily paid PR/lobbying/grassroots lobbying firms to turn wingnuts against SCHIP, and coal companies or gasoline companies paid the same people to mobilize wingnuts against the effort to control global warming.

    The way to restore honesty to the debate is to get former employees of the right-wing Viguerie/Rovie PR machine to give us videotapes that show us exactly how those folks are manipulating public opinion.

    Note: I'm not even necessarily saying here that I think any specific arguments against global warming are wrong. I think we ought to respect scientists who present arguments or data contradicting the conventional wisdom. The problem is that the current PR manipulation completely ruins the ability of any honest pollution-triggered climate change experts to make their case, because the base assumption is that those experts either are crazy or bought off.

    If the manipulators would stop manipulating, maybe any scientists who are actually on their side for genuine scientific reasons would get a chance to make their case in a reasonable way.

  •  The Republican Party used to be (0+ / 0-)

    the conservation party.  Presidents Lincoln and T. Roosevelt set aside thousands of acres for parkland.  Nixon created the EPA.

    The Federalist (now Republican) Party is doing it again--migrating so far from core messaging that the opposing party takes over their main platform (such as conservation, fiscal sense, etc.) and the Party disintegrates.  It took years for the Federalists to reinvent themselves into the Republican Party.

    Wonder what new name they'll come up with next time?

    "If I could have one wish, I would have people accept the importance of our common humanity." --Pres. Bill Clinton, The Today Show, 09/21/06

    by desordre remplir on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:09:35 PM PST

  •  Climate Change vs Conservatism (8+ / 0-)

    There are reasons why this issue eats at the conservative soul.

    1. Individual responsibility to the "group."  Climate change suggests that our individual actions have results that spill over the boundaries of our 1/3 acre kingdoms.  Not only that, those actions take place even if I'm not purposely dumping garbage on my neighbor's lawn.
    1. The failure of the last commons.  Much conservative economic theory scorns the utility of commons, but depends on the existence of essentially unlimited resources.  Climate change shows that even the atmosphere isn't without limits.
    1. Failure of the marketplace.  There is no mechanism, none whatsoever, by which the economic marketplace, acting on its own, can be expected to solve this issue.  In fact, the marketplace is so designed that it will continue along, like the world's largest lemming, until it drives off the cliff of this issue.  

    The combination of these three makes opposing climate change essential to conservatives.  In fact, it's hard to see how you could believe in climate change, and still believe in conservatisms -- but then, conservatives have always shown that rationality is not required.

    •  Don't blame the marketplace for everything. (0+ / 0-)

      You assume that a laissez-faire economy is a free market.  It is not.  Free markets depend on supplies of undifferentiated products from a great number of competing producers and a consumer's ability to perfectly assess the value of what he would buy.  

      Instead, people with five-figure incomes have fewer than ten auto companies to choose from on this planet.  The capital costs of entering the mass auto market are so huge that new entrants are unlikely unless they pay their people slave wages.  

      The last free market probably took place the first day that a hunter-gatherer family was visited by three different humans offering to trade grain for meat.  

      Perhaps, having monetized land, we should now monetize the atmosphere, placing a price on every ppmv of carbon dioxide or every gigaton of GHG-equivalent (1 ton methane = 23 tons carbon dioxide), assess people for their share (as a carbon tax) and split the money collected 6.7 billion ways.  If a ton of carbon emission is taxed at $10 and only Canada and China agreed, Canada (18 tons per capita) would owe about US$6.5 billion, China (1 ton per capita) would owe US$10 billion.)  Each Canadian and Chinese would receive 16.5 billion / 1.4 billion people or about US$12 on New Year's Day.  A side effect would be a transfer of cash to the Third World that bypasses governments.

      Dems in 2008: An embarassment of riches. Repubs in 2008: Embarassments.

      by Yamaneko2 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 10:09:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  not sure I can trust... (0+ / 0-)

    ...anyone who uses the phrase "movementarian absolutism".

    Each time we make a choice, we pay / with courage to behold the restless day / and count it fair -Amelia Earhart

    by pakaal on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:10:38 PM PST

  •  This just seems naive (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The policy implications of recognizing global warming are seriously detrimental to the economic interests of the oil industry, which is the vital organ of the Republican party, the political vehicle of the conservative movement.

  •  The ones I know (0+ / 0-)

    will continue to deny it, even as they tread water while dying of tropical diseases north of the Mason Dixon line.

    They also point to EVERY cold day as "proof" that global warming is a hoax.

    Recently, John Coleman (founder of the weather channel and a real a-hole) also came out screaming that it's a hoax, and they fell at his feet to worship.

  •  John Cole is a good Democrat.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pb, givemhellHarryR


  •  Useful idiots (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Bob, 8000 Meters Up

    I think the term useful idiots fairly describes these fools.

    In the United States, the term is sometimes used as a pejorative against political liberals, radicals, and others among left-wing politics. The tone implies that the speaker thinks the "useful idiot" is ignorant of the facts to the extent that they end up unwittingly advancing an adverse cause that they might not otherwise support.

    I also like the term Ed Brayton thought up of virulent ignorance

    In contemplating these case studies, Ed drew a distinction between "mundane ignorance" (everyday not-knowing-something, of which we're all repeatedly guilty) and what he called "virulent ignorance": the willful disregard for contrary knowledge and opinion in favor of a set of dubious "facts" that are the result of ideology and indoctrination.


    ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

    by Rebecca on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:12:15 PM PST

  •  So we should have no debate then.....????? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terrypinder, Kepler

    this isn't even close to being "settled science" - don't kid yourself. Also, ask yourself two basic questions:

    1. what if new technology all-but-eliminates our need for fossil fuels in the next 50 years - as thousands of leading researchers and business-people are betting? The trillions of dollars we spend trying to influence the oceans by 2 feet or the temperature by 1 degree will have been squandered unforgivably.
    1. If you had trillions to invest over the next 25 years - would it be better spent on the prevention of disease? The alleviation of poverty? Access to water for the millions who don't have it now? Education for the hundreds of millions who don't have it now?

    Global warming isn't a scientific debate anymore - it hasn't been for ages. Its 100% political. Its about priorities folks!

    •  Who says? (11+ / 0-)

      It's going to cost "trillions of dollars" trying to fix the problem?  We're paying out trillions of dollars to the oil industry right now.  Two trillion more dollars, this year alone.  Did anyone subtract that value from the "costs?"

      Addressing climate change is addressing the spread of disease and the alleviation of poverty.  Changing climate is going to bring tropical diseases into new areas, ruin millions of acres of farmland, and turn tens of millions of people into refugees.

      I'm swallowing no argument on "sit back and let the planet sink or swim, because there might be a better bet come along if we just wait."

      •  That's where I draw a distinction (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kepler, trashablanca, Phil N DeBlanc

        Addressing climate change is not addressing the spread of disease - disease won't disappear if we reduce the CO2 concentration to pre-industrial levels. It won't reduce proverty, make forests magically healthy, and depending on our solutions, may not even end our dependence on foreign energy sources.

        Climate change aggravates a lot of problems that already exist, but it is not their cause.

        Just cuz you've got a hammer doesn't mean every problem is a nail, and increasingly people advocate climate change solutions to the exclusion of all else. We don't have unlimited resources and there are things beyond climate that we need to address - in fact if we don't address some things soon, we won't even have the resources to direct towards fixing climate.

        It is not possible to be alive without having an impact on the environment - William Cronon

        by badger on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 01:37:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

          Just cuz you've got a hammer doesn't mean every problem is a nail, and increasingly people advocate climate change solutions to the exclusion of all else.

          Yeah, that's our problem, too many resources and too much government attention to climate change.

    •  You give false choices (5+ / 0-)

      trillions to invest over the next 25 years - would it be better spent on the prevention of disease? The alleviation of poverty? Access to water for the millions who don't have it now? Education for the hundreds of millions who don't have it now?

      It would be good but the Republicans would demand even more tax cuts before they spent a nickel on those programs.

      all-but-eliminates our need for fossil fuels in the next 50 years - as thousands of leading researchers and business-people are betting

      The climate change issue is one of the driving forces behind the search for alternative energy.
      Don't click on Ko's Chevron link anymore, you're getting confused.

    •  What a surprise! (4+ / 0-)

      A completely new handle, which makes two comments a) global warming is a hoax and b) that the Mark Cuban movie portraying the rape and slaughter of an Iraqi family by some member of our Armed Forces is "offensive" to the troops (I guess assuming that all our troops are of the "same kind").

      And with a handle like "Hey, Who?" I think we can guess the recurring pattern!

    •  I ventured rhe Pascal's Wager gambit (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      badger, Ahianne

      with an otherwise-intelligent coworker whose views on climate change are of the denier category.

      Essentially, I said that maybe climate change is real and maybe it ain't, but if there's the slightest possibility that it's real, and you can do something very simple to help prevent it (like, say, driving less), then doesn't it just make sense to do that thing?

      She actually admitted that I might be right. It's a surprisingly effective strategy in one-on-one conversation.

      •  Kinda how I look at it. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Anne Hawley, citizenx

        Every little bit helps.  I can't save the world, but I can walk everywhere inside a mile or so (no bike).  It takes 20 minutes maybe instead of 2, but I still get there.  Makes you notice how 'pedestrian-hostile' some major highway intersections and interstate overpasses are.

    •  Classic argument (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It is false, but is is classic. Here chew on this for a while, exxon recoreded record profits around 10 billion in 3 months. Kinda puts a perspective on your whole "market will solve all my problems" attitude.

      Are you sure you could not have used a number larger than trillion? Maybe something like gazillion or mega-illion. I mean if we are going to throw numbers out there, why not hit the home run for the team?

      "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." --Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002-GWB

      by meatwad420 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:12:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Which part isn't "settled"? (5+ / 0-)
      1.  That the atmosphere is warming was settled science 10 years ago if not 20.
      1.  That anthropogenic carbon dioxide is contributing to this warming is now settled science.
      1. Exactly how bad many of the negative consequences will be is much less "settled" of course.  How "really bad" does it need to be to get you to care?

      Your "question 1" is self-contradictory. The "new technology" to eliminate the need for fossil fuels is exactly what we ARE going to be spending all this money on. So you are saying that the money spent on the solution will have been squandered if the solution actually works?

      Do you have any idea how many trillions it will COST if the sea level rose 2 feet?  When one hurricane costs billions in damage right now, imagine adding 2 feet to every future storm surge.  And how much will it cost to raise all of the seawalls along the entire U.S. coastline 2 feet, and maintain them?

      "I beseech you,... think it possible you may be mistaken." -- Cromwell/Bronowski

      by jockyoung on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:32:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, citizenx

      it is as close to settled as science gets. You may not like that, but it is. It isn't us that is kidding themselves about this, but you.

      Let's go over your second point. Do you know how many diseases will spread north? How those in poverty will be effected by the need to migrate? The water issues that will be caused by droughts in food producing areas? Floods in others? Issues with raising food in new areas when some are under water and others are in drought?

      The solution to these issues is interrelated to the others and solving each of these will be complex and multifaceted. These issues will all be worsened if the conservative estimates of climate scientists come to pass. We will need to know how to deal with these to save money. Having a plan is called "a good idea." Not thinking about how to deal with this is lunacy. Plain and simple.

      Funny how you folks claim to care about science, but then when the overwhelming majority of scientists trained in the field that understand an issue say something you don't like--you do what science does not--place your faith in a few that deny it--the majority having little training in the involved field and dismiss everything that doesn't fit in your world views.

      You turn to people that have obvious conflicts of interest and call the peer reviewed studies, the data collected by government agencies all around the world "junk science" and try to use the tactics employed by "Creation science" to poke imaginary holes in that which you desire to ignore or deny. This is what makes for bad science.

      You have no idea what that 1-2 degrees actually represents, do you? You may not want to believe this isn't a scientific debate, but that doesn't make it so. Whether there is human influenced climate changes occurring actually isn't a debate--it is which models will be the most accurate.

      How about all those jobs created when we develop technologies to produce energy? In the end we could have a more sustainable economy and the money spent on research will more than pay for itself and reduce dependency on oil produced in unstable countries.

      Education of our population will also be important. Obviously your education in the sciences was lacking. Sorry about that. Perhaps if we would have funded our schools better you would not be at such a disadvantage.

      Evidence does not mean--that which supports my desires. History will relegate you to those that could not adapt to the Earth being spherically shaped and older than 6000 years, not at the center of the Universe, where bodies of differing mass fall at different rates, and disease was caused by demonic possession. Enjoy that status.

      Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you.

      by SeattleLiberal on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 05:00:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The more I thought about this... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, SecondComing

      You want a debate? Fine. Let's do it.

      Making the claim "it isn't settled" is not a debate.

      Some ground rules:

      1. If you make a claim, you have to back it up with a link that I can evaluate.

      1. Sources have to be as close to primary as you can get. If you pull something off of a blog to make a point, try to obtain the original. I know this isn't always possible.

      1. I promise to read what you give me and not reject it out of hand. If you can't do the forfeit.

      1. Keep it to one subject and don't throw out red herrings.

      1. If you do not understand a question I ask, then ask for clarity. I don't want to spend time on an argument that is not about the point.

      Some info:
      I am not a climatologist, but I am a biologist. I've worked in wildlife research. I also have a pretty strong chemistry background, some geology, meteorology and ecology. I went on to medicine and have a good background in microbiology, physiology and disease processes.

      Are you a scientist? It doesn't matter if you are not. I would just like to know.

      I also do not work for any company that will benefit from funding for this issue. Do you work for someone that will benefit from this issue being false? This one is a bit more "need to know" for honesty's sake.

      Your claim:
      The increase in average global temperature documented by climatologists. They determined this to be strongly influenced by anthropogenic activity. This is not settled.

      You start.

      Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you.

      by SeattleLiberal on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 06:48:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Okay, I'll take the bait....... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Okay Seattle Liberal, notwithstanding your blatant condescension towards me, I'll respond.

        First, I should clarify something for anyone following this thread: my comment that man-made global warming and (more importantly) its effects on the planet are not "settled science" does not make me a "global warming denier". It may here at Kos but it doesn't anywhere else. What I am is someone who is inherently scared when he hears the words "everyone agrees" and "government solution" - regardless of the underlying topic.

        I do NOT have a financial stake in this issue ultimately being settled one way or the other. In fact, I sold my business 3 years ago and now run a childrens charity full time. I'm not a scientist / climatologist.

        I have read over 50 books, dozens of scientific journal reports, and countless articles on global warming. I find the discussion so interesting I traveled on a National Geographic research ship and spent 7 days in Antartica last January where I had the great fortune of being able to learn first-hand from some of the most intelligent scientists on earth - people who are surprisingly non-partisan / apolitical.

        After digesting views from all sides and a lot of reseach, I'll say that I DO believe the world is warming. I DO believe that we are contributing to that warming. I despise big-oil and don't believe one word of their newfound "environmental compassion". I hate what our reliance on fossil-fuels exposes us to politically.

        The issue I have with you (and a number of the responders to my comment) is your blind faith in (what you beleiev to be) a scientific conclusion. You disregard the fact that only 25 years ago many "scientists" were warning of cooling and ice-ages. You say there are only a few people left - all "deniers" - who disagree with the (your) conclusion, and that they must all be either insane, financially motivated, or both.

        Fact is, I don't know and nor do you where the world will be climate-wise in 25, 50 or 100 years. My point is that you should quit wasting your time trying to scare and shock people into signing utterly insane agreements like Kyoto and re-allocate your energy and resources towards finding real solutions to known problems.


        •  You say (0+ / 0-)

          "I'll say that I DO believe the world is warming. I DO believe that we are contributing to that warming."

          Our influence--THAT is the settled part. What that means is not and I do not make any claim that it is.

          We don't know what the long term effects will be because there are too many variables. We don't know which models to use because there may be changes we can not foresee (i.e. an increase in positive feedback mechanisms, what effect the methane being released from melting permafrost will be, reduction of albedo from melting ice, if we reduce our carbon output or learn to extract it from the atmosphere--will that alter the course?). BUT there is consensus that something will happen.

          You also said this issue was completely political. This is not true. There are climatologists working hard on figuring out what it all means. They are not partisan. You can't say "this is all political" in one sentence and then "the science isn't settled" in the next. This appears as complete disconnect and it can't be both. Sure, it is politicized but there is science taking place as well.

          This issue shouldn't BE political because it could effect all of us. The technologies needed are the exact same ones we need to wean ourselves off of foreign and domestic oil--which is a finite resource and will just plain run out someday. Why not take care of both issues at the same time?

          What has always been great about this country is that we have risen to challenges before and it has made us better. The resistance to develop technologies that, even if climate change wasn't an issue, would be a good thing to do is actively resisted. Why? There could be many jobs created in the technological sector that will get us moving in science again. What drawback can there be to be creative?

          You claim I want this to be focused on Kyoto. I don't. It is unenforceable, too many loopholes other countries are able to bypass. It isn't the cure, but it is better than doing nothing. No one I know expects much from Kyoto. It was a weak start--but it is a start. A start we need to make now IF the consequences move in the expected direction.  

          But something is happening and it is a "real" issue. I'm not trying to "scare" anyone. If I noticed smoke coming from your house and called to tell you your house may be on fire--would that be scaring you, or would it be giving you information to get you to act. If there was not a fire it didn't hurt to check. If there was a fire and you ignored me or said I was just trying to "scare" you that could lead to some very serious consequences for you. A warning is not necessarily "scare tactics."

          We are seeing the effects of this increase having real consequences right now. This may get much worse.

          So far all of the models have been conservative. Issues models predicted taking place at the end of this century are happening NOW. The breakup of ice shelves in Antarctica, standing water at the poles, the melting of sea ice and the sheets over Greenland occurring at a MUCH faster rate than any model predicted, the heat wave in France that killed hundreds in 2005--studies show there is a very strong chance this was due to our influence, the increase in category 5 hurricanes, a hurricane taking place in the southern hemisphere (an event that had never been recorded). These events are happening now. We see them, we have data.

          Is there something wrong with trying to figure out that IF this happens--what are we going to do about it? Floods could displace many, drought would make food production a nightmare if we had to figure out after they took place what to do. Reacting instead of having a plan in place is always more difficult and expensive. There is nothing wrong with making a plan.

          You seemed to be unable to differentiate that we know (we are influencing the system) and what that increases in carbon will do in the long run. The physics of the effects of greenhouse gases are well understood but I will readily admit we don't know what will happen in 50 or 100 years.

          So, yes, the models have been wrong. Many times. But predominantly they have been conservative.

          And, by the way, the consensus on the "Global Cooling and possible ice age" was published in consumer magazines and did not EVER reach consensus. It is unfortunate that this became a public debate because it really never was that popular in scientific circles. It just made a confusing issue more confusing.

          It is important to test all hypothesis. It was necessary to see if there was an increase in solar radiation that was the cause of the warming--it was looked at and determined that it wasn't enough of an influence to cause what was being observed.

          Since Gore won the Nobel we have had many, many new users that are outright deniers. Their only purpose has been to say nothing is happening. The fact that your only argument was "nothing is settled" with no links--in spite of many asking you to provide them, no explanation what you meant with instant defensiveness and assumptions about what "we" believe, made me think you were one of "them." If I was wrong I apologize.

          Sorry if I seemed a bit testy. But the part I have no idea how people can outright deny--that we are observing an increase in average temperature. You agreed with me on this, but yesterday I was not sure what you were saying was not settled.

          Your assumptions that I am having "blind faith" in what you say I am, is false. You don't know what someone is thinking and you made assumptions about "us" as well. Your argumentative style didn't help either--so let's just both admit we could have been more civil an move on.

          Next time realize that the nature of this format does not allow for nuance and tone which necessitates careful wording for clarity.

          Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you.

          by SeattleLiberal on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 05:08:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Uprated (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SecondComing, citizenx

      As much as I reflexively disagree with the general tone of this post I think the questions are interesting (if disingenuous) and the ensuing discussion informative.

      How to parse this:

      ...this isn't even close to being "settled science"...

      in light of this:

      Global warming isn't a scientific debate anymore...

      causes me to think: cognative dissowhat?

      If civilization is to survive we must cultivate the science of human relationships : FDR

      by Kepler on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 07:25:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Honest to God I think they're little kids (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, citizenx

    They deny global warming as a hoax.
    They refuse to see the win-win with Universal Health care.
    Anything that we know is good and proper and will benefit all Americans - they hate...

    Unless they thought of it first.

    With conservatives it's all political; it's all ownership of the media cycle.  It always will be, and the media will always dance with them in the name of "it's news".  

    They do not wish to share power, they won't give an inch and they want to own the football and run home with it.

    They're spoiled little kids and we Americans gave them access to the nuclear codes and buttons.  

    God help us all, when will we ever learn?

    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the Flag carrying a cross"...Sinclair Lewis

    by WSComn on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:12:32 PM PST

  •  Simple enough (0+ / 0-)

    While the catastrophe is still distant, people expect those causing it (oil companies, Hummer drivers, etc.), to bear a larger share of the cost of prventing it.

    Once the catastrophe is immanent, there is no time to apportion blame and cost.  Instead, everyone must rally and everyone must sacrifice.  What that means, naturally, is that programs for the poor will be cut (there's the national sacrifice) and the rich will receive tax breaks (to make up for the increased regulatory burden).  

    It's pretty much the same thing to did for the Iraq War.  Distant catastrophes are only good for wise policy.  But immanent catastrophes are a handy excuse to force whatever you want down the throat of the nation.  So the tendency is to wait until absolutely the last minute on everything.

  •  Shorter Cole... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, Magnifico

    Why do 'conservatives' rail against Global Warming?  Because they were told to by their corporate masters.  QED

    "Frankly, you epitomize weak. Your every pore exudes feebleness. You *are* surrender monkeys." - Meteor Blades to Capitulation Dems

    by RichM on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:14:39 PM PST

  •  Voting against their self-interest (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I suppose that Republicans oppose the notion of global warming because big corporations, such as oil companies and automobile manufacturers, benefit from such denial.  If there is no global warming problem, the oil companies don't have to change their polluting practices, and they won't be subjected to increased competition (especially with government assistance) by renewable energy providers.  The auto manufacturers will have less pressure to raise their fuel economy standards.

    The irony is that, for a Republican capitalist, there are huge fortunes to made in providing solutions to global warming, on par with the 1990s dot-com boom.  And this boom could last for a very long time.  If the Republicans want to sit it out, that's fine with me.

  •  Right on. But there's a lot of movementarianism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It afflicts both sides. We need to tranform the discourse and the politics, so we can work for common puroises again.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

    by FischFry on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:18:27 PM PST

  •  Money plus Right Wing Authoritarian Syndrome (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The Rethuglican politicians are deniers because the are paid handsomely for denying.  

    The average red state stooge has checked his or her brain at the door and suffers from right wing authoritarian syndrome.  They need to have an authority figure tell them what to hate and how to hate it...

  •  Clarification [ in my understanding] (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Currently the conservatives aren't denying global warming.
    But they argue that it is occurring as part of a natural cycle, and that such cycles have previously occurred. For example some centuries ago there was a warming trend.

    From a scientific point of view, it is not easy to refute their argument. Most scientists believe that it is most likely that CO2 is leading to global warming. And pollution is undesirable. So most scientists are quite concerned.

    But it is not a scientifically proven fact that fossil fuels are leading to global warming. So the conservatives are taking advantage of this.

  •  It's people doing the bidding of The Corporation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Bob

    It's corporations and their short-term profits that gain from denying Global Warming. They have a deeply vested interest in the status quo - that's where next quarter's and next year's profits come from.

    This issue more than any other demonstrates to me that conservatism itself is based in preservation and maximization of Corporate Profits. The people who do their bidding do so out of short-term self-interest as well.

    When the impacts of global warming begin to appear on a close enough timeline to impact corporate profits in the short term, we'll see conservatives being mustered against it. But not until then.

  •  Because They're Stupid (0+ / 0-)

    movementarian absolutism has an element of self interest to it. Contrariwise

    Because Global Warming comes with all kinds of long words. People who recognize Global Warming are the kind of people who say things like "movement absolutism" and "contrariwise". And who think about analytical reasons their opponents might act the way they do.

    Conservatives don't want to act smart. They want to act tough. Like they can handle anything that Nature throws at us. Like we can do no wrong when all we want is to make some money. Like god will bless America, no matter how much we screw up. Stupid.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:22:52 PM PST

  •  This is great diary. What we should be focussed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    on. It is amazing isn't it. What does the right stand to gain from this politically. I can understand some fronts dependant on big coal or big oil handouts but this is death in the long term for the Republicans. One can understand some of their smoke and mirror fictions like supply side economics because it has a goal of shifting wealth to the richest. But this. In fact smoke and mirrors is the main feature of much of Republican policy and I do get the sense that maybe there is the first glimmerings that there may be a con agt work here.      

  •  this topic has always fascinated me... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    i have republican/conservative friends and relatives who mock organic food despite the evidence of its greater health benefits, fewer environmental side effects, etc. anything to drive a wedge i suppose. it's sad, really.

    "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man."

    by ghettoMuppet on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:25:00 PM PST

  •  Trust Me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anne Hawley, ghettoMuppet, meatwad420

    If Al Gore said that 2 + 2 = 4, then they'd be against that concept as well.

    Their opposition to this is almost purely political. Liberals believe in science. So they must oppose it.

    They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -- Brian Fantana

    by IndyScott on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:27:07 PM PST

  •  Because Rush Limbaugh tells them to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  They deny it (0+ / 0-)

    (if they dont believe in the end of the world)-because if they admit it, the stock market would crash. Admitting global warming means who whole model of our consumer society is majorly flawed. Carbon taxes need to replace payroll, taxes, etc. They are positioning into the markets that will be in the new paradigm before the rush. Then they will control the new industries. Admit there is a problem after you have bought up where we must go. That is the nature of the market. Always looking  for the new opportunity to make a buck.

  •  Yes, smoking may harm the unborn baby but, (0+ / 0-)

    how many men and teens actually get pregnant? I know, the number is is the same with climate many people actually spend any time outside anymore to notice weather changes? I see a lot of "illegals driving around taking care of those landscaped yards but I sure see a lot of people inside the Shopping Malls.

    All I want from Congress is...IMPEACHMENT!

    by Temmoku on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:32:30 PM PST

    •  Really? That is breaking news. (0+ / 0-)

      "how many men and teens actually get pregnant? I know, the number is rising"

      "Sir, you are giving a reason for it; but that will not make it right." Samuel Johnson

      by Catte Nappe on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:10:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It was snark.... (0+ / 0-)

        It refers to the fact that the surgeon Gen warning has changed from causing cancer to pregnant women should not smoke because it may be harmful....the others obviously don't read it because they aren't pregnant.

        All I want from Congress is...IMPEACHMENT!

        by Temmoku on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 07:30:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Adam Smith's invisible hand (0+ / 0-)

    has brought us climate change so those who believe that Smith's hand always brings a desirable result have to argue that climate change is not real, or has natural causes, or will somehow be good for us.  They cannot face the truth without losing their faith in the invisible hand.

  •  Privatization is the tribal religion of Neo-cons (0+ / 0-)

    I think it's partly because privatization is the tribal religion of industry and the  Neo-cons.

    Anything that has do with the environment that involves even the slightest whiff of government regulation must be destroyed.

    The science behind it is ignored, obfuscated and ridiculed, because it can hardly be discredited.

    GWB has done more to harm America's freedoms and liberties than a million Osama Bin Laden's ever could.

    by IncuriousGeorge on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:40:03 PM PST

  •  Polarization. That's it, exactly. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, IncuriousGeorge

    Politicians oversimplify complex ideas for marketing purposes.
    black | white
    abortion | choice
    torturer | terrorist
    good | evil
    democrat | republican
    with us | against us
    god | devil
    right | wrong
    red | blue
    death | life
    accept | deny
    If something can be made partisan, it will be. These distinctions remind us that we are (not) all the same. We remain neatly divided.

  •  it's not just conservatives (0+ / 0-)

    it's the "infowars/Ron Paul is our savior" people too.
    They think it's some great conspiratorial hoax desinged to keep us all in fear for whatever reasons.
    Nice Re"Love"ution morons..

    "who do you want with you in the foxhole? The guy who stands up when it's right, or the guy who stands up when it's popular?"

    -Howard Dean

    by astronautagogo on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:43:41 PM PST

  •  They deny global warming because (0+ / 0-)

    we haven't actually gotten warmer than it was a thousand years ago, or a thousand years before that, and so on and so forth.

    Quite a few of the propaganda documentaries that have come out in recent years have much bullshit in them, and that tends to nullify the actual scientific data within.

    Leo DiCaprio's 11th Hour, for example mentiones deforistation in Upstate New York, where there are more trees now then when the "Indians" ran the place. This is easilly proven.

    It was hotter in the first half of the Holocene [from the ice age to the reign of Narmer, first king of Egypt] than it was in the latter half, and the eight hundred years between the Vikings and Napolean were abnormally low: The little Ice Age.

    Also, do you want to live in dire poverty like RICH people did two centuries ago? They had slaves for a reason, y'know.

    •  Ahem... (0+ / 0-)

      there are more trees now then when the "Indians" ran the place. This is easilly proven.

      Me thinks not. There are in fact more trees now than 100-200 years ago, when lumbering and farming ruled the land.  But in early Colonial times, it is well documented that the Northeast was blanketed in heavy forests.  

      The vast majority of fields you see when driving down the road are artifacts of our agricultural age in New York. To imply otherwise is revisionist.

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

      by bigtimecynic on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:57:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except (0+ / 0-)

        that heavy forests followed European settlement as disease and force removed Indians from an area. Disease - spread by slave traders - preceded the first colonists. The Plymouth colony was extablished in an area decimated by disease prior to their arrival.

        There's considerable research (both archaelogical and from early writings - as far back as John Smith). The general consensus is that Indians, prior to European settlement, burned widely and frequently, and maintained open forest, savannah or prairie, except in places like wetlands which weren't burned easily.

        You're right - it's revisionist based on a better understanding of forest ecosystems and a less ethnocentric reading of the historical record.

        It is not possible to be alive without having an impact on the environment - William Cronon

        by badger on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 01:49:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  whether or not it's "revisionist" (Which is isn't (0+ / 0-)

          The fact remains is that there isn't any real "deforestation" in northeastern North America, and DiCaprio's saying it is, is total bullshit, and total bullshit tends to ruin the varacity of the rest of the film.

  •  For several reasons, IMHO: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1.  Knee jerk reaction to all things Al Gore and UN.  If Gore and the UN said it, it must be wrong.
    1.  Knee jerk reaction to being told that they are "global warming deniers", as if being skeptical about the science is akin to being a Holocaust denier.   To be fair, I don't think that any conservative wants to reduce the world to a desert or make it uninhabitable, they are just inherently suspicious of progressive thinkers who appear to them to be dead certain that the science of global warming is absolutely irrefutable.  Nothing is absolutely irrefutable or certain.  I am reasonably certain that the scientists have it close to right, maybe just not for the right reason.  I can live with that.  What conservatives are missing is that the real conservative play would be to address the problem, proactively, while the scientist's figure out if they have it right, and for the right reasons.  The conservative attitude of "do nothing that might affect our right to do as we please until we are dead certain we have to" defies all logic.  I know that I am a good driver, but I buy insurance and I buckle my seat belt.  
    1.  A resistance to anything that presents the appearance of limiting their "freedom to consume".  To them, global warming equals high gas taxes, limits on the size of your car, carbon credits for excessive consumerism, etc, all of which are anathema to conservatives.  
    1.  The apparent logic of believing that we are experiencing a "natural cycle of change" in the Earth's climate which may even be part of "God's great plan".  The scary part is that we are experiencing a natural cycle of change, at least in part, which has been exacerbated by human conduct.  What they don't realize is that the Earth has an incredible capacity for self healing, and tends to reach climatological equilibrium by eliminating that which upset the climate's natural balance.  In this case, us.  
    1.  Their willingness to believe that natural market forces will create a demand for green building, alt energy and recycling of energy before the failure to do so results in irreversible harm to the planet.  

    The funny thing is, progressive thinkers are actually addressing this problem more conservatively than those who call themselves conservative.

    That's it for the most part.  While I'm at it though, permit me to address the issue of "carbon credits".  What's up with that?  It's akin to giving fart credits, where you can cut the cheese in public as much as you want, as long pay someone for the privilege, someone who may be counted upon to spray a whiff of some kind of organic deodorizer to counteract your foulness.   What an incredibly bad idea.  No credits.  Limit the emission, in the first instance, to the minimum possible, and eliminate the possibility that someone will scam the carbon credit system, as they are already doing.  

    Because everyone has one. Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

    by SpamNunn on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:46:48 PM PST

    •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      What you write:

      ". . . progressive thinkers are actually addressing this problem more conservatively than those who call themselves conservative."

      Something I wrote back in August '06, for example.


      The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

      by BenGoshi on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:56:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I guess the point is that the current crop of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "conservatives", especially of the theocon stripe, are anything but.   All of the Republicans that voted for Bush found that out the hard way.  They thought they were getting a Reagan and got something very different.  

        Because everyone has one. Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

        by SpamNunn on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 01:37:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  If a climate cateclism is inevitable ... (0+ / 0-)

    Then the most logical reaction is to try to consolidate one's position as much as possible before it arrives to enhance one's chances of survival afterward.

    In other words:

    The liberal, optimistic (or perhaps naive) position is to do everything we can to avoid the cateclism -- conserve, switch to alternative energy, look for that long-shot technology that will remove CO2 from the air.

    The conservative, pessimistic (or perhaps realistic) philosophy is make as much money off fossil fuels as you can before the system crashes, so you'll have reserves to pay for food when the worldwide famine (the result of crop failure, the result of global warming) comes, and weapons to stave off the starving masses.

    Of course, Plan B isn't going to get you much support so you can control society to enhance your personal wealth, so you frame it as "There is no global warming, it's just unusual weather, lets go forward with business as usual (as long as that business enriches me)."

  •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

    Because they don't deny it.
    Not in their heart of hearts.
    Deep down, these people are nihilists.
    They want to see death on a grand scale so they can talk about how God "saved" them.
    These people like to see people die.
    Otherwise, why keep sending more to die?
    Why keep blocking things that save lives?
    Why deny the very disaster that will kill all but the few who can afford to get out of the way?
    Well, that's an opinion any way.

    A pity we don't have the votes to defend the Constitution.-me

    by RElland on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:52:09 PM PST

  •  Local survival (0+ / 0-)

    We should do all we can for the greater good....but ultimately the survivability issue will be determined by how well local communities can address their own needs from power to food.  They can deny will not change the outcome....the way things "work" today is not sustainable.

    Time waits for no one, the treasure is great spend it wisely.

    by mojavefog on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:54:16 PM PST

  •  Warming Denial (0+ / 0-)

    The answer is basic.
    A person always feel guilt resulting in denial, when they feel that they are responsible for the action.
    They were, and are,  responsible for the global warming.
    They burnt ever gram of the carbon that went through their wallets.

  •  Symbiosis (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Bob

    In my opinion the average conservative needs to hang onto simple, comforting narratives because they are terrorized by the complexity of current reality. They are in a state of denial. The politicians and business interests that manipulate and use them do so in a sophisticated and cynical way. It’s a symbiosis of sorts--except that one side is actually parasitic to the other. For psychological reason I can't fully explain, the dupes are willing participants in maintaining their own ignorance.

    It also seems that maintaining a self-imposed state of ignorance is a social sign or an initiation rite that results in social cohesion among conservatives. The bigger the lie becomes the better it works to create and reinforce social cohesion. Paradoxically, if you are able to lie to yourself and others then you can be trusted.

    Membership in this movement comes with a price, however. Through the obvious denial of reality you undermine your personal integrity. The end result is greater anxiety and a desperate need to prop up and maintain the big lie.

    It reminds me of the Nazi movement in the 1930s. Just below the illusions of grandeur and integrity a harsh and brutal reality begins to grow apparently invisible to most the individuals participating in the deception.

  •  Is there anyone here (0+ / 0-)

    who doesn't believe in the climate crisis?  I ask that as a serious question because I would like to hear some opinions that aren't all negative.

    •  Not "believe" in? (0+ / 0-)

      Like not "believing in" Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy?

      My opinion -
      Global warming does not necessarily equate to your term of "climate crisis".
      Global warming is a fact, not a "belief".
      Human activity is contributing to it, to at least some degree.
      Changes in human activity can mitigate the impact.

      "Sir, you are giving a reason for it; but that will not make it right." Samuel Johnson

      by Catte Nappe on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:06:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Liberalism grows out of liberty (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    which is essentially choice and which implies the possibilty of being wrong.  The conservatives give up liberty for obedience because obedience implies a guarantee that they are always "right" and never "wrong."
    For some reason, there's a significant part of our population that fears being wrong more than anything.  So, they are obedient.  Obedience is, of course, also a choice, but it's the only one.  If all others can be avoided, it's worth it.

  •  One reason conservatives... (0+ / 0-)

    ..deny global warming is because they read articles where progressives use phrases such as "conservative monementarianism."

    Give me a fucking break.

    I get tired of reading political-oriented articles where the author feels compelled to inform us of his high intelligence but making up shit like "conservative monementarianism."


    If you are going to write an article meant to reach & educate the ignorant, you sure as well stay away from meaningless bullshit like "conservative monementarianism."  

    "...Virtually all of the most influential [neocons] never leave the safe and protective sides of their moms and dads."-Glenn Greenwald

    by wyvern on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 01:50:12 PM PST

  •  Bad businessmen. (0+ / 0-)

    It's strange how the so-called "right" claims to be so skilled at business.  Yet, so much of profitable business is based on good risk management.  I certainly wouldn't put those who wait for definative proof before taking action on my management team.

  •  why do conservatives have any positions? (0+ / 0-)

    I would start from the role of conservatives as professional advocates of the rich.  A professional advocate of X differs from X with a certain mono-mania.  Many rich would actually balance the budget, refrain from unnecessary expensive wars etc. but professional advocates would insist on low taxes, low regulation and various diversion to messmerize the population (this is my take at the war).

    One of the techniques is to pick any possible position and twist it in a way that

    (a) is extremally annoying to liberals

    (b) may be viewed favorably by average voter


    If the issue is the penal code, pick the penalty you favor sufficiently high to annoy liberals.  The things turned ugly when Democrats discovered that "we can be tough on crime too" and the goalposts shifted until you can get life sentence for stealing a slice of pizza (at has to satisfy some technical condition to qualify as a violent crome and as so-called "third strike").

    I view the torture issue in the same light.  The war was supposed to show who the true patriots are and who a terrorist lover is (the concept inherited from Nigger lovers and criminal coddlers).  So it is necessary to give example of what conservatives would do to defend the country that liberals would not.  If liberals would draw a line and said "ripping off fingernails is OK because they can grow back but cutting of fingers is wrong, wrong, wrong" then the conservative position would be "we must do whatever may be necessary, even if you have to chop off a finger or two.  You can trust U.S.A. to use it only for the worst of the worst.  You trust U.S.A., don't you?  These guys hate America and they want you to be blown up".  Luckily, waterboarding seems sufficient.

    In case of climate change, it probably started with funding from oil and coal companies, but it also became a central part of "defence of the little guys against nasty liberals".    And little guys would suffer terribly from gas tax, from being forced to drive a smaller vehicle etc.  While liberals listen to university professors and furiners -- how low one can get?

    Like with "tough on crime" it got especially ugly because the professional Democrats were reluctant to stake decisive positions.  Now it seems that you should post 15 commandments in each public building, and one of the
    missing five is "Though shall not increase tax on gasoline".

    Some conservatives actually noticed that energy taxes would be good, being regressive, and that bussiness actually has to adapt to inevitable carbon limiting policies.  They think about actual interests of the rich.  But professional advocates of the rich must think how (a) attract funding, and energy companies were generous, and (b) keep showing how "out-of-the-mainsteam" liberals are, so the mainstream must be defined as not recognizing global warming.

  •  Chris Mooney Interview Tomorrow In Second Life (0+ / 0-)

    Our Virtually Speaking program ( will feature Chris Mooney talking about Global Warming issues and his new book: Storm World.

    6pm Pacific.

    Email me for more info:

    The fetus is the property of the entire society-- Nicolae Ceausescu

    by JayAckroyd on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:20:31 PM PST

  •  Not all do. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    I Push Pixels

    Going green, from Today's Christian
    It's a (slowly) growing movement.  Even among very conservative Christians.  

    "The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children." Bonhoeffer

    by LAMaestra on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:58:43 PM PST

  •  Sorry -- this one is easy -- no big insight here (0+ / 0-)

    Conservatives need to deny global warming, because admitting it will be an incentive for government to get involved to counter it, which would probably involve taxing pollution, regulation to control it, etc.  (I.e., all the sensible solutions to global warming).

    Kinda obvious, don't you think?

  •  Why do conservatives deny global warming? (0+ / 0-)

    Conservatives deny global warming simply out of their insatiable greed for more. In Buddhism this is referred to as the

    "hungry ghost," a spirit that has been punished for insatiable greed during life and is now cursed with an insatiable hunger.

    Only global warming is beginning to demonstrate the consequences of this insatiable greed, before the spirit world actually arrives.

    If conservatives continue to be allowed to rule the world thru their ignorance of our earth, we may yet find out what happened millions of years ago>

  •  Big Pollution: ALL Polluters are Conservatives (0+ / 0-)

    Polluters are given safe haven in the Republican Party, and it is Big Pollution who provides the PR which is then copy-pasted into the brains of Small Pollution...and together they gather the Republican Party and Conservatives around themselves as a protective blanket, while the rest of us suffer Nature's karma.

    Well, you asked!

    by anonyMoses on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 04:18:12 PM PST

  •  Economic Growth Theory & Global Warming (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alizard, nellre

    There is very good reason "why the right wing [feels] such a compelling need to get behind" denial of global warming. Paul Samuelson informs us with,

    "Malthus failed to realize how technical innovation could intervene—not to repeal the law of diminishing returns, but to more than offset it." [Paul A. Samuelson, Economics, ninth edition (New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, 1973)  737.]

    Effectively, technology will always compensate for a decline in supply.
    Testing of this assumption occurred in the late 1960s-early 1970s Cambridge capital controversy involving American neo-classicists at Harvard and MIT and British Keynesians at Cambridge. Summarizing the conclusion of the debate, Wikipedia informs,

    However, the damage had been done, and Cambridge, UK, 'declared victory': Levhari was wrong, Samuelson was wrong, Solow was wrong, MIT was wrong and therefore neoclassical economics was wrong. As a result there are some groups of economists who have abandoned neoclassical economics for their own refinements of classical economics. In the United States, on the other hand, mainstream economics goes on as if the controversy had never occurred. Macroeconomics textbooks discuss 'capital' as if it were a well-defined concept - which it is not, except in a very special one-capital-good world (or under other unrealistically restrictive conditions). The problems of heterogeneous capital goods have also been ignored in the 'rational expectations revolution' and in virtually all econometric work." (Burmeister 2000)

    Despite defeat, however, as Wikipedia indicates, "In the United States, on the other hand, mainstream economics goes on as if the controversy had never occurred." Thus it is environmental economists yet are assigned basement venues for their panels at the American Economic Association conferences.

    •  Education as Job Training (0+ / 0-)

      Now that I'm carried away by this discussion, an additionally relevant citation from the Wikipedia article is an arcane discussion of,

      Reswitching [which] refers to a situation in which a technique of production is cost-minimizing at low and high rates of profits, but another technique is cost-minimizing at intermediate rates. Reswitching implies capital reversing, an association between high interest rates (or rates of profit) and more capital-intensive techniques. Thus, reswitching implies the rejection of a simple (monotonic) non-increasing relationship between capital intensity and either the rate of profit or the rate of interest. As rates fall, for example, profit-seeking businesses can switch from using one set of techniques (A) to another (B) and then back to A. This problem arises for either a macroeconomic or a microeconomic production process and so goes beyond the aggregation problems discussed above.

      Effectively, when cost of production increases, producers may return to older technology rather than newer technology.

      Despite this, repeating from my preceding post, "In the United States, on the other hand, mainstream economics goes on as if the controversy had never occurred." This is true "especially in macroeconomics and growth theory," which has spawned the linguistic atrocity whereby we "grow the economy." Dominance of this conception in U.S. economic policy is made manifest by,

      Remarks by Chairman Alan Greenspan
      The critical role of education in the nation's economy
      At the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce 2004 Annual Meeting, Omaha, Nebraska
      February 20, 2004
      "Protectionism will do little to create jobs; and if foreigners retaliate, we will surely lose jobs. We need instead to discover the means to enhance the skills of our workforce and to further open markets here and abroad to allow our workers to compete effectively in the global marketplace."
      —February 20, 2004

  •  It's about displays of masculinity (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Much of "movement" conservatism is really the display of sexually damaged beta-males trying to climb to alpha status.

    Consider: the warmongering, the homophobia, the misogyny, the protestations of strength and virility, the accusations of "sissy", "weakling", and so forth to their opponents.

    Basically, this is a movement insecure in its (mainly masculine) sexual identity, and thus puts on displays of exaggerated masculinity to compensate.

    Caring about the environment involves "caring", considered by these folks a feminine trait. They froth at the mouth against environmentalism for the same reason they revile programs to ensure social justice - because caring is girly, and they're manly men.

    This is why they can't be argued with - their positions are based on emotional needs and perceptions of identity, not rational self-interest or policy concerns.

    •  and the number of "wide stance" Republicans (0+ / 0-)

      outing themselves lately with hysterical "I am not TEH GAY!!!" disclaimers immediately following fits into this narrative perfectly.

      That said,

      This is why they can't be argued with - their positions are based on emotional needs and perceptions of identity, not rational self-interest or policy concerns.

      it doesn't really matter where they're coming from. They need to be marginalized out of public policy debate.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 05:23:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's the money! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Did Kos pose a rhetorical question?!

    Well, even if not, I'll explain it.

    As's the be the expense of the rest of the world and it's everyday people and future generations to come.

    Just follow the money, as always. It's not that difficult to understand. It drives everything in our world...especially government.

    And that goes for both so-called parties...both sides of the aisle.

    It's the money, stupid! And it answers virtually every question that ever gets asked here about our government.

    I can't quite figure out why so many people want to make it into something other than what it obviously is.

    "It's the money!"

    Fresno, CA

  •  Why don't they ask the folks praying for water (0+ / 0-)

    if they now believe in Global Warming.

  •  Why do leftists deny it? (0+ / 0-)

    Exhibit A: Alexander Cockburn. He makes his bias clear: he thinks that the "hoax" is a propaganda campaign on the part of the nuclear power industry, with Gore a presumably witting collaborator.

    I think denial has less to do ideology than with a certain habit of mind that you'll find all along the political spectrum. You see it with the 9-11 conspiracy theorists. You see it with Ahmadinejad on the Holocaust. These people are opposed to something (environmental regulations, nuclear power, the war on terror, Zionism) that gains credibility, according to their theory, from a debatable premise.They become debunkers and conspiracy theorists in an attempt to deny legitimacy to the primary target of their opposition. Kos's analysis of conservative motives seems correct to me, but there's nothing peculiarly conservative about the denial mentality in general.

    Smash the two-party system!

    by Samuel Wilson on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 06:54:50 PM PST

    •  Yea, Cockburn is an exhibit all right (0+ / 0-)

      It is not that EVERY position taken by Cockburn is crackpot, but quite a few.

      However, the radicals of the left are not organized as an "international" with Stalin resolving the disputes about the one and only true way.  So sometimes Cockburn is just himself.

      "nothing conservative about the denial mentality..."

      What was it?  "Anger, denial, reconciliation?"  But conservatives, for people who are not branded fringe radicals or cultists, deny quite a lot, and as I claimed above, this is a direct consequence of their MOP.

      They share one thing with Cockburn: they have to prove that it is a disaster to let technocratic liberals govern.  The latter have their blind spots but they tend to argue with reference to reality, so the quickest way to compromise liberals is to deny reality.

  •  Fox News Meteorologist Andre Bernier (0+ / 0-)

    I troll on myfoxcleveland and do Global Warming posts to try to reach those poor rural people who actually are stuck in this alternative reality.

    Occasionally, actual local fox news anchors will respond, becuase I make them look foolish (amazingly I have not been sued or threatened with arrest yet)

    For the last 3 days I have been going back and forth with Fox 8 Cleveland Meteorologist Andre Bernier who is an actual signer of something called the Leipzig Document, and claims to be close friends with both John Coleman (the "crazy" tv weatherman from Chicago) and Joe D'Aleo (the member of SPPI and Frontiers of Freedom (a right wing think tank started by ex Wymoning Senator Malcolm Wallop) both groups are funded by Exxon Mobil).

    He claims that by being a Meteorologist, that he is somehow an authority on the subject, and that we should ignore the Exxon Mobil and Frontiers of Freedom Connection to Joe D'Aleo's SPPI front group.

  •  Global Warming Denier Jules Kalbfeld (0+ / 0-)

    Fox News Meteorologist Andre Bernier cites a study or "research" by some guy named Jules Kalbfeld.

    I have googled Jules Kalbfeld, and all I get is some chemist who worked in a company known for its poor environmental record, but I have no idea what university he is associated with, or whether or not his "study" has ever appeared in a peer reviewed scientific journal

    Does anyone know who Jules Kalbfeld is?

  •  I'll tell you why: HIPPIES (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    there is NOTHING that defines the right better than hating hippies. And environmentalism is closely associated.

    fouls, excesses and immoderate behaviors will not be ignored at Over the line, Smokey!.

    by seesdifferent on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 07:14:51 PM PST

  •  Argument in my Office. (0+ / 0-)

    I had an argument with three right wing people in my office.  I got the three to admit that there is gobal warning with the only argument being whether humans activity was a cause.  Then, two of them left leaving me with one to argue with.  After a lot of arguing, the best I could get out of him was that he didn't want the government telling him that he was going to have to drive a Prius and not his BMW.  It was as simple as that.  I suppose he has never thought that BMW could make hybrids.  


  •  What is worse? Denying or agreeing but doing nada (0+ / 0-)

    I often wonder who future generations will judge more harshly.  The right-wing denialists.  Or the left-wing cowards who shrunk from a challenge when the opportunity to act presented itself.  

    Sadly, I suspect those who believed in global warming but did so very, very little (i.e. most of the Democratic leadership over the past 10 years) will be judged most harshly.

    After all, who would most people judge most harshly? Germans in the 30s and 40s who denied what was going on in the concentration camps.  Or those who understood but didn't lift a finger to stop it?

    Ignorance is usually more forgivable than cowardice.

    •  Denying is worse. (0+ / 0-)

      "Left-wing cowards" are establishment Democrats who tend to be ultimate opportunists with a technocratic bent.

      This means that everything being equal they would go for doing the good thing, as defined by approved experts.  In the case of climate change, the mainstream experts are saying the same thing so they are not the problem.

      However there is a popular opposition to energy saving measures, in no small part build by the denials who gain a politically valuable plank.  Establishment Democrats will wait until "the time is right", which means, there is a change in public opinion.  So they are somewhat useless, but not actively hurtful.

      Can the "grassroots" change the center of public opinion?  I guess this is part of what we do here.  And there should be "risk from the left" for doing nothing, like there is for pro-war policies.

  •  It's simple. They love to be at war... (0+ / 0-)

    Wars give them control over the "masses". The climate crisis isn't to that point in their mind. They don't think they can scare us enough to distract us with this yet.
    So they'll suckle from Mother Earth (getting rich) until she's nearly dry and then, when the time is right, declare a war on climate.
    Of course all the contract $$ for this war will go to their buddies. And all the sacrifices will be born by the "masses".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site