You have got it wrong. Conservatives (modern US consevatives at least) and libetarians are arbitrary and contradictory in their views on government intervention. They profess to love private property with its deeds, wills, laws, courts, police, patents, copyrights, a huge govenment system in interventions to hold the whole thing up.
But they don't want the carbon holding capacity of the atmosphere to become private property as with carbon caps. Suddenly, deeds, laws, courts, police, are considered bad ole govenment intevention. These self-professed anti-communist make a complete flip-flop on that giant commune that is the Earth's atmosphere. In reality, their only consistent guiding principle is the economic status quo. They will defend anything in the name of the economic status quo. On Jun 1, 6:28 pm, Jim Torson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Posted at Joe Romm's Climate Progress > blog...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 sciencePart > 1discussed 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 “thanwrite 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.”[Note: Will also believes in evolution - he actually called it “a > fact.” For a debunking (with links) of Crichton's laughable collection of > disinformation, see “Global Warming, Tsunamis, and Michael Crichton’s Big > Blunder.”] > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
