Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?
Posted: Mon 14 Nov 2016, 10:56:10
As most of you know, I mostly stay on these Environment threads. I of course do get some idea of some posters' political views, but mostly we hone pretty close to the science and consequences here (except for the denialists, of course).
But my wanderings into the more political threads has made me realize more just how many of the people who regularly contribute solid science and great insights into the workings of CC and GW here are politically quite 'conservative,' even more so than I had suspected in a number of cases. (I put that in quotes here, since the term doesn't have much relationship these days to its meaning in say the Eisenhower Administration.)
I want to say first that, however vehemently I challenge their political positions when that is the topic, I am seriously very impressed and frankly heartened that there are so many conservatives on this site who can look past WSJ oped positions and US Republican leaders snowball tossing to understand and accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for GW. So, thank you folks for that.
But I wonder if those insightful and scientifically acute posters could help me understand why exactly it is that so many of their colleagues remain so steadfastly opposed to even considering the possibility that the consensus of climate scientists (and even more so for published papers on the subject) has any validity.
How come you guys 'get it' when the vast majority of self-described conservatives don't seem to be able to come even close to getting it.
Any insights or light anyone can throw on the subject would be welcome. (And I honesty don't want this to devolve into mere political mud slinging. That means I don't really want to hear anything about Obama--yes, I'm talking to you, Plant! The Great O has nothing to do with my question. I want to know what is it about you few that allows you to see and understand and accept the science, and even come here and help the rest of us understand it, when so few outside these threads from your side of the political spectrum can't. Thanks ahead of time for sticking to this point and for avoiding getting side tracked.)
But my wanderings into the more political threads has made me realize more just how many of the people who regularly contribute solid science and great insights into the workings of CC and GW here are politically quite 'conservative,' even more so than I had suspected in a number of cases. (I put that in quotes here, since the term doesn't have much relationship these days to its meaning in say the Eisenhower Administration.)
I want to say first that, however vehemently I challenge their political positions when that is the topic, I am seriously very impressed and frankly heartened that there are so many conservatives on this site who can look past WSJ oped positions and US Republican leaders snowball tossing to understand and accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for GW. So, thank you folks for that.
But I wonder if those insightful and scientifically acute posters could help me understand why exactly it is that so many of their colleagues remain so steadfastly opposed to even considering the possibility that the consensus of climate scientists (and even more so for published papers on the subject) has any validity.
How come you guys 'get it' when the vast majority of self-described conservatives don't seem to be able to come even close to getting it.
Any insights or light anyone can throw on the subject would be welcome. (And I honesty don't want this to devolve into mere political mud slinging. That means I don't really want to hear anything about Obama--yes, I'm talking to you, Plant! The Great O has nothing to do with my question. I want to know what is it about you few that allows you to see and understand and accept the science, and even come here and help the rest of us understand it, when so few outside these threads from your side of the political spectrum can't. Thanks ahead of time for sticking to this point and for avoiding getting side tracked.)