Do you know of any liberal anthropogenic global warming skeptics?

[dana1981]

Personally I don't know of any liberal AGW skeptics. I'm sure they exist, but I've never met one. There are certainly a lot of conservatives who agree with the AGW theory (famous ones like Bush and Gingrich and Huckabee, even some who frequent Y!A), so I wonder why this isn't the case for the opposing viewpoint.

So I'm curious if anyone here knows a liberal who is skeptical of the AGW theory. If not, why do you think the theory is so universally accepted among liberals while there's so much of a divide on the issue among conservatives?

[Kelly L]

Very good question Dana.

[Kelly L]

Very good question Dana.

[mt_zion_crusader]

If liberals had any brains they would be conservatives, therefore it is not surprising that a class of brainless people can be lead over a cliff.

[grizzbr1]

I know Liberals who do not believe in AGW and I know Conservatives who do. Guess your premise is flawed.

[crabby_blindguy]

Offhand, I don't. But the reason why you see only some right-wing conservatives as "skeptics" is simple: the so-called skepticism isn't based on science, its based on their political ideology.

The reality, of course, is that scientific resrearch and findings have nothing to do with politics--they simply describe the way the world is and, once the data is in and a hypothesis is shown to be correct, there's nothing left to debate--you just take the knowledge as a steppingstone to go on to the next question.

The problem comes from the fact that this particular segment of the conservative part of America -- the "neocons"--are poorly educated in science on average. Most of them do not realize that scientific results can't be resolved--or influenced--or changed--by political arguement.

President Bush himself is an excellant example. Under the pressure of lobbying from special interests, he put in place a system of "editing"--censoring--scientific documents (originally in the person of an oil company lawyer).

NOw--quite aside from the unethical nature of such a practice (which, much as I dislike Bush, Ireally don't think he understads wy this is not ethical)--it simply won't work. The administration chose to treat scientific reports as they would other things--reccomendations on policy, position papers, etc.--as documents they could rework to reflect or advance the administration agenda.

But what the people doing this don't comprehend is tha tscience isn't about opinion, or personal agendas. Sure, scientists have those--we all do--but once the facts are established, that's it: the facts are the facts. and--ultimately, you cannot get sceintific facts to conform to anyone's agenda. We humans--anyone--has to adapt our opinions and agendas to the facts, not the other way around.

To your original point: liberals are NOT immune to trying to manipulate facts to serve a poolitical agenda. But in the whole "global warming/climate change" issue, there is simply no reason todo so. There's nothing in the scientific findings that presents a conflict with their ideology.

Ideally, neither side should try to politicize science--its about facts, not opinions and values. But we do--and up to a point that's probably just human nature. But--in this case, conservatives have taken it a step further by attempting to alter the science itself to conform to their ideology. And that simply is an effort foredoomed to complete failure.