There are a mix of noble and ignoble reasons why conservatives oppose the global warming initiatives. Of course, the ignoble one is that many are more concerned for short term economic prosperity and holding on to power and the status quo than long term environmental safety. However, there are the more ‘noble’ reasons why conservatives oppose the modern panic over global warming:
1. Unsubstantiated Claims of Certainty:
Conservatives [believe they] can smell pseudoscience and unsubstantiated claims built on faulty assumptions a mile away. The same overreaching overconfidence that we see in the evolutionist camp plagues the environmentalists. No matter how much they protest that their science is definitive, it is clearly incomplete. They just haven’t made their case well enough even if they are right. They appear to be jumping the gun for ideological, rather than scientific reasons.
2. Panic, Hype, and a History of Extremism:
Environmentalists have a [perceived] history of crying wolf, overstating their case, and being dead wrong. How is it that global warming has replaced global cooling? Why must it always be a looming crisis? Why is your science mixed with dire, fear-based doomsday scenarios that you haven’t really proved will happen?
3. Failure to adequately address contra-indications:
If their theory is right, how do they account for extreme warmth and temperature fluctuations before the industrial age? If they came up with a good answer (like maybe lots of volcanic action?), we might be more inclined to believe. Maybe they’ve already answered this question, but I haven’t seen it.
4. Worship nature, kill people:
Unfortunately, due to a [perceived] undercurrent of hating mankind, viewing him as a parasite on the earth, or at best, just another animal, they are not only opposing the Judeo-Christian view that man is here as a steward and caretaker OVER creation, not merely another animal, they have unwittingly proposed initiatives that have harmed people.
One such example is the ban on DDT, which led to the death of MILLIONS of people due to malaria. In fact, in countries where the ban was observed, malaria cases increased by 1000% in the decade of the 90’s. and as it turns out, DDT just needed more controlled use (and is now re-approved for use by WHO).
In part, this is just a problem with using the wrong language to win over conservatives, but in part, it is also a failure to address the immediate human cost of implementing such policies.
5. Integration with liberal and anti-west policies:
Unfortunately, such policies as the Kyoto protocol do not credit forward-thinking nations like the US for already making plenty of headway in this area. Instead, they favor ‘developing’ nations for their lack of forethought, giving them slack so that their ‘developing economies’ can grow, while our mature economy (which is denigrated as built solely on colonialism and imperialism rather than those unfortunate things AND ingenuity) is forced to suffer for their speculative pending environmental catastrophe. It just seems unjust, unbalanced, and unfair.
6. Disregard for the economy and the poor:
Most regulations proposed by environmentalists seem to disregard all other considerations, including how harming the economy of nations will affect the poor and middle class that they say they care about. Rather than offering incentive-based, gradual, and balanced plans for reducing pollutants, they [appear to] fling out their scary doomsday slide show, and demand that we implement a draconian and heavy-handed program that ends up hurting people while having questionable affect on the environment. They just lack caution, balance, and consideration, not to mention moderation.
I’m not saying that all or any of these positions are defensible, though I am swayed by them. But these are my stab at why conservatives resist the global warming movement. You may also want to check for the audio for the Global Warming debate on NPR. You could also check out the PIG to Global Warming.
