I have never understood why this is such a fiercely political issue, for both sides.
Merits of the issue itself aside, why are so many conservatives in the "do not believe" category, and so many liberals are in the "holy shit this has to be stopped" category?
Is it as simple an explanation of "liberals are smart, and conservatives are anti-science retards" or is there something else going on here?
The fact that it (seems) to split right down party lines, leads me to believe there is something else going on in regards to motives for both sides of the debate.
Thoughts?
I think it stems from the end result of what the liberals want to do as a result of 'man made global warming' or climate change (aka everything that happens) or whatever all encompassing title they want to put on it.
It is a question of how do we address the problems.
Liberals (especially on the extreme) tend to be in favor of the cap and trade scheme as some sort of solution. (even though they know it is not)
Some uninformed conservatives take the stance primarily on their not wanting the cap and trade scheme.
Bottom line is this... we need to address pollution, we need to reduce our dependency on foreign energy and we need to invest in more R&D in clean/alt energy technologies.
My position is that the 'man made' global warming scheme is a hoax. I think they are taking normal shifts in the climate and proclaiming man is the primary cause so that they can once again shift wealth. The cap and trade scheme does this. Not to mention the fact that by proclaiming 'the sky is falling' the so-called scientists keep getting funding and the governments leading the charge have a new way to gain more power over the people.
When 'scientists' hide their data... .there is a problem.
When governments publish data as scientific and it turns out it is not... there is a problem.
When opposing views are shouted down due to 'consensus'.... there is a problem... ESPECIALLY when talking about SCIENCE.
Back to your question, I think the governments level of involvement is a large component of why the topic gets split on party lines.
My opinion is this....
1) We control our environmental standards on oil and nat gas produced here. Thus we can enact greater protections for the environment if we drill here.
2) We keep our money and the jobs HERE rather than sending them overseas.
3) We then tax the production (or revenue share) and use that money for infrastructure buildout and investments in clean/alt energy R&D.
4) We continue to improve fuel efficiency, reduce pollution (air, land, water) etc... until we have eliminated as much fossil fuel use as we can.
5) All of the money being spent on global warming fear mongering can instead be directed into alt energy research and development.
We do the above five, we can resolve (as much as possible) the issues facing us... this will also reduce the effect man is having on the change in climate (if any does indeed exist).
