I have been mystified by the resistance of many conservatives to the scientific consensus on global warming. The data is overwhelming that the overall temperature of the earth is rising and the climate scientists are nearly unanimous in concluding that humans' putting so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the primary cause of it. I've been at a loss to understand why intelligent people who do not argue with the idea that they need to cut down on cholesterol to reduce their chances of heart disease become apoplectic to the point of hostility when the atmospheric facts of life are presented to them.
You see, liberals do not regard this as a political issue but a scientific one. You either accept science and reason or you don't. If you don't that puts you in the same category as witch doctors and astrologists, that is, without any credibility. Yet the numbers indicate something else is at work here. 90% of Democrats believe in human-caused temperature rise but only 30% of Republicans do. Why the difference by ideology?
I suspect the Republican reluctance to accept the findings is indeed based in ideology, and the ideology of limited government. In the cholesterol example I gave earlier, the individual can do something decisive about the problem. But the planetary climate change problem would take massive international action and include requirements and mandates on all kinds of products, processes and activities. And that is precisely the kind of approach modern American conservatives hate. I feel that lies at the heart of conservative resistance to science on this one.
2 comments:
It's not that people don't 'accept' global warming. It's that they don't 'accept' it as a overarching concern. There is scientific evidence that global warming has happened in the past, and it's just a natural phenomenon.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html?q=globalwarming.html
Watch that youtube video. ABC explores Al Gore's claims.
Do I think we need to responsibly take care of the earth? Yes I do. Do I think we need to drastically change our lifestyles to accommodate a theorized problem in a thousand years? No I do not. Do I think we can take steps in the right direction, as it's appropriate? Yes I do.
That's my two cents!
Thanks for the comment. I agree that some people accept it but not as a serious concern. There are others, though, who refuse to countenance it at all.
Your characterization of climate change as a "theorized problem in a thousand years" is the nub. If that's all it is then we can continue on as we are without any undue worry or change in behavior.
But that is not what science says. It is what wishful thinking says. See the National Geographic video at this address. http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/environment/global-warming-environment/way-forward-climate.html
I caution you, National Geographic reports, as the actual scientists say, "Climate change is a clear and present danger that threatens every species on Earth." And, "human activities are the primary cause."
If we have an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer in a decade or two and the sea level rises several yards, inundating enough land to require 700 million people to move, if the Himalayan glaciers melt, leaving much of South and East Asia without adequate water supplies, and a number of other similar consequences begin happening then we need to begin serious action right away.
Really, who could be lackadaisacal enough to suppose that putting 9.1 trillion tons of poison into the air every year would not have major adverse effects? Are you really willing to bank on that idea?
Post a Comment