http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/
Krauthammer, Part 2: The real reason conservatives don't believe in climate science
Part 1 discussed the odd anti-science part of Krauthammer's screed, " Carbon Chastity: The First Commandment of the Church of the Environment." I ended by asking, Why does he break faith with so many conservatives and worship at the altar of evolution science, but stick with them on climate denial? My book discusses this general question at length, and offers the answer:- The answer is that ideology trumps rationality. Most conservatives
cannot abide the solution to global warming-strong government regulations
and a government-led effort to accelerate clean energy technologies into
the market. According to the late Jude Wanniski, Elizabeth Kolbert's New
Yorker articles [on global warming], did nothing more
"than
write a
long editorial on behalf of government intervention to stamp out carbon
dioxide." His villain is not global warming, but is the threat to
Americans from government itself.
- George Will's review of Michael Crichton's State of Fear says: " Crichton's subject is today's fear that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change, a belief now so conventional that it seems to require no supporting data.... Various factions have interests-monetary, political, even emotional-in cultivating fears. The fears invariably seem to require more government subservience to environmentalists and more government supervision of our lives."
- George Will's review of Michael Crichton's State of Fear says: " Crichton's subject is today's fear that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change, a belief now so conventional that it seems to require no supporting data.... Various factions have interests-monetary, political, even emotional-in cultivating fears. The fears invariably seem to require more government subservience to environmentalists and more government supervision of our lives."
As the NYT's Andy Revkin explained about the recent [skeptic denier] delayer conference in New York, " The one thing all the attendees seem to share is a deep dislike for mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gases." What unites these people is their desire to delay or stop action to cut GHGs, not any one particular view on the climate.
It is nearly impossible to win an argument with a conservative or libertarian who hates government-led action. Yes, you can try to point out all the great things the government has done (the Internet, anyone?) and try to point out that they invariably support government-led action for military security, and, of course, government subsidies and regulations to promote energy security, at least as it applies to oil industry and nuclear energy pork.
I have a different argument - if you hate government intrusion into people's lives, you'd better stop catastrophic global warming, because nothing drives a country more towards activist government than scarcity and depravation. Interestingly, Krauthammer understand this point abstractly, but since he has no understanding of climate science, indeed he has no interest in learning about the subject at all, he gets the argument exactly backwards.
<snip - see website for the complete thought-provoking article
and comments>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
