Why does simply accepting the science of global warming make someone left wing?

Question

Why can't people come up with conservative solutions. Dumb regulations for nuclear power and diesel cars are actually hindering the fight against global warming.

Answer 1

Good question. The global warming issue has a scientific aspect and a political aspect. It is important to keep them separate. One can accept the premise of AGW and simply let the private sector adapt. That is a perfectly reasonable position for a scientifically literate right-winger to take. Not all of us march to the beat of evangelical Christians. Some of us even believe the earth is more than 6,000 years old.



The discussion only becomes right wing/left wing when it moves to government's role. One can argue that AGW is a serious problem AND government has to intervene in a big way, that's a left wing position. Accepting or rejecting the science is one thing. Advocating radical government makes it left wing.

Answer 2

Because the science is made by leftwingers who are letting their politics interfere with the science. Mann is shown in ClimateGate e-mails not wanting to 'give fodder to the skeptics'. James Annan said one scientist told him he likes to exaggerate the damage of global warming at conferences, to push the public toward political action.

It is confirmation bias, with left-wingers more likely to accept the science. If science was calling for your proposals of more nuclear power and diesel, then the 'realists' would become skeptics, and most of the conservative skeptics would stop being skeptics.

Instead, we have left-wing policies being pushed as the solutions. Bill McKibben said his supporters would abandon his group if he endorsed nuclear power.

Answer 3

If you accepted all the science on global warming then I don't think there would be a problem. The issue is that much of the science most people have heard about is cherry-picked for them. The main stream media (MSM) do this for you.



I once had a certain view of Donald Trump, for instance. Then I realised that everything I knew about Trump came from the MSM. Could the MSM be biased in any way? Well, I knew that the Washington Post owner, Jeff Bezos, had just had one of his other companies, Amazon, make a $multi-billion deal with the CIA. Could WaPo be biased towards the views of the CIA, I wondered?



Then I discovered Operation Mockingbird. It seems that the CIA have infiltrated all the MSM. Now we have a mechanism for the coordinated media attacks we sometimes see and how they can all say the same thing. Even exactly the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH8dejYGa5A The CIA is also involved at Google and Facebook etc. Who is it that wants to filter out "fake news". Who decides what is fake? The CIA?



You need to look beyond the MSM and the blogs patrolled by propagandist bots. In my, albeit limited, experience, leftists are happy to accept whatever big government says. They like to be part of a group and not stand out by having a different view to their colleagues. This is why they like the "consensus" word.



As for "conservative solutions", you have begged the question: Is there actually a problem that needs to be solved? Or should we just let CO2 increase back to its natural level?

Answer 4

Accepting the science requires "accepting" all research, and not just the science that points towards immediate prosecution and abolition of anthropogenic CO2.



If CO2 is considered an atmospheric pollutant, then that would require the restriction (death) of all people, all mammals, and all other living things that emit (produce) CO2. In order to revert back to the atmospheric CO2 levels of the pre-fossil fuel era, would take a massive undoing of every society in order to drop atmospheric temperature by less than 1/2 of 1 degree C.



CO2 emittance (The CO2 Cycle) is part of the natural processes on this planet. Regardless of whether or not current excess of CO2 emittance raises atmospheric temperature, it is the science. That is the consensus science.



Your extremist scientific side of the issue makes extremist claims that is only verified by a consensus from your own side of the argument. This is something that should promote much skepticism with simple-minded people.



"Left-wing" refers to the ways and means of reverting back to those days of 280ppm. "Utopia" is an environmentalist's pipe dream.



Anthropogenic global warming is very minimal at best. Deal with the real science or quit arguing as if CO2 is a poison, asphyxiate, or a dangerous greenhouse gas. It's neither of the 3. REAL SCIENCE is telling us this is true.

Answer 5

You can't cherry pick your facts and call it the science of global warming. The process of selection of your "facts" is generally what exposes who is left wing or not, not that all left wingers are alarmists.

Answer 6

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."



Wealth redistribution is a left wing tenet.



Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”



Justice and Equality are code words for Communism or the left wing.



Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."



Global Climate Treaties are promoted by left wing activists. And the GW science is admittedly phoney.

Answer 7

"Why can't people come up with conservative solutions?"



They can and have.



One needs, however, to focus on the dwindling examples of ACTUAL conservatives, lately drowned out by the neo-con, tea party, Putin-Trump FAKE conservatives. Needless to say, the stupidest examples of the latter are spreading their dumb-as-dirt prefab anti-science nonsense over this moribund website.



Here however are some good examples of bonafide conservatives re climate change and energy:

https://www.partnershipforresponsiblegrowth.org/about/

https://www.clcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Climate_Leadership_Council_WSJ_Ad.pdf

https://www.carbontax.org/conservatives/

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108237

https://www.amazon.com/Moving-Minds-Conservatives-Public-Transportation/dp/0982527306



For a simple example juxtaposing the fake conservative with the genuine article (re climate change) see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJsbCblesCk

Answer 8

It the excessive way republicans react to global warming from evangelicals, the idiots think any science that predicts is not in agreement with the Bible or some other weird fake religious notion. Those so called dumb regulations are by engineers who no more than quack civilians who no nothing about nuclear power or the NRC.

Answer 9

greed is devouring the world and corruption aids in it.

Answer 10

it doesnt

Answer 11

it does not

Answer 12

Only an idiot ( translated , liberal) accepts words from Algores mouth with no scientific evidence ( but many proven lies) .

.

Answer 13

Hi so the issues are not left wing or right wing it is about the facts of life. up to this point we have taken fuels such as oil and coal from the earth and burn't them. this was considered simply technology. however when you have to spend money some see this as left wing making solar panels means you need to change direction some see this as going against just continuing with using the same old fuels. the fact that this resource oil and coal is becoming less so alternatives such as wind and sunshine could be a lot less harmful but does require spending money on equipment so they have a negative attitude towards such ideas. so they call it left wing.

Answer 14

I really wish more conservatives were interested in discussing the topic and contributing their ideas to the solution. Instead, many of them (like W.T. Door) have chosen to resort to unbelievably ALARMIST conspiracy theories, leaving their voices inaudible to the adults in the room. By wearing their tin foil hats and failing to be mature enough to sit at the table and listen, they're hurting their own case, really, as that conservative perspective will be absent from the decision making.

Answer 15

It doesn't make some one left wing.



The conspiracy theory they try to peddle requires that thousands of scientist all over the world are secretly working together and publishing papers in order to persuade governments to increase taxes on every one, including the scientists and bring about a tyrannical one world government.



People like cyclops, who actually claimed that he is living in his mother's basement, keeps pushing this ridiculous narrative.



Accepting responsibility for cleaning up your own mess is part of being a responsible human being. Lazy people simply deny there is a mess and leave it to every one else to clean up. That has nothing to do with being left or right wing.

Answer 16

because the hoax of global warming was made to grow the power of government and what side wants big powerful government ? the left



search east anglia and see what that is

Answer 17

It’s clear global warming/climate change is real. It’s equally clear the > current < warming cycle has been going on since the last ice age and that’s why the Sahara was grassland 10,000 years ago but is desert today + has been turning into desert for millennia. The fact the current warming trend started long before there was any industry and when there were hardly any people is good evidence humans are not the cause. It also means humans are not the solution.



The Earth goes through constant climate change cycles and has done so throughout its history. The exact mechanism is not completely understood but appears to be related to solar activity and the axial tilt of the Earth as it orbits the sun - not human activity. Note that the Earth is apparently at the end of the current warming cycle and should begin cooling soon (“soon” in geological terms).



All of the carbon tax/carbon offset BS is just robbery or extortion disguised as science.



Countries like China and India LOVE the idea of carbon taxes/carbon offsets – but only when they can pretend to be “undeveloped”. They do pretend, despite both being horrific polluters of > every < type. They, the global Left, and countries like North Korea & Zimbabwe all love the idea of carbon taxes/carbon offsets.



The Left loves the idea because they are dedicated to destroying the West in general and the USA in particular. Getting the developed world to wreck its own industrial base is something they want. Having the West simultaneously give free guilt-money to countries like China, India, North Korea, and Zimbabwe would just make it better.



Unfortunately, scientific research has been compromised by the politics of the subject. The academic community leans far to the Left, so researchers who “prove” human-caused global warming (AGW) are rewarded with more grants, but researchers who “don’t prove” AGW find they are cut off from research funding (= censorship by the Left).



The politics of the issue are a problem because we really do need to understand how the Earth works so we can anticipate, predict, and adjust. our environment, and countries like China & India should not get a free ride (like they get under the Paris Accord).