i'm not so sure about that. I think that Al Gore's book

I watched an old clip with Bob Inglis (anybody remember him?) from back-in-the-day and he interestingly pointed out that the Koch Brothers did not begin their misinformation campaign against climate change until mid-2008. Republicans have certainly never always been in denial about climate change; it wasn't until their donors told them to that they started this.

This was an interesting little time capsule:
https://www.politico.com/video/2011/05/wecansolveitorg-ad-gingrich-pelosi-018436

WeCanSolveIt.org Ad - Gingrich & Pelosi

WeCanSolveIt.org Ad on solving the climate change issue with former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

And then by 2012, stuff seems to have changed...why? Well, our man Newt Gingrich, the original MAGA, who was MAGA before MAGA was a thing, says it about fifty times: cap and trade. Which would be freaking horrible for the industries the Kochs own. Especially oil, but they've got massive heavy-carbon industries across the spectrum, especially polymers and materials. (And ranching!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdsMfOmAlTw

deleted

Rock Defender [53]

TigerPulse: 90%

Posts: 35

Joined: 11/30/98

I have to disagree. I seem to remember this little gambit,

Dec 8, 2021, 10:40 PM

but it had no influence on my position on global warming/climate change. In fact, I don't think much of anything from either side of the debate really has much of a mind-changing quality; it mainly reinforces established positions.

First and foremost, I think it has been a great disservice to the climate change movement (assuming they are indeed actually committed to making a change, something I'll cover in a second) to assume conservatives/Repbulicans are "the enemy." Getting past the sophomoric "debate" among our political leaders, you'll find grassroots conservatives have a deep appreciation for conservation through the strong sportsman element on the Right. You won't find a fisherman who does not care about the ocean, or a hunter who does not care about the forest.

Thus, I think there wouldn't be nearly as much friction if the global warming debate were originally framed as, "Hey guys. We need to do more to take care of the planet." Instead "do you believe in global warming" has become a proxy for the subtext of, "do you believe we need to make radical social and economic changes to stop climate change?"

A big reason for this is climate change -- at the activist level -- is little more than a shell for a larger anti-capitalist movement. I know the grassroots movement for climate change is mostly people with genuine concerns, but the people you see blocking the streets and burning car lots are more Marxist than environmentalists, but have hijacked the movement as a vehicle to deconstruct capitalism.

So, combine these two together, and when you ask a conservative if he believes in climate change, the answer he gives is not so much a rejection of environmentalism, but of the Marxist solutions that are being pushed as a response to it. Add to this the willful ignorance on both sides (I consider "I don't believe in global warming" to have as much intellectual rigor as "we can save the planet with wind/solar."), and it is no wonder you can't have an honest debate on it.

This is why I use support for nuclear as a litmus test for who is really an environmentalist, and who is just a performative hack stanning for Marxism. Nuclear is the only option for safe, clean, and cheap renewable energy that can fully replace America's energy needs. If your global warming plans do not include nuclear, you are not a serious person about environmental advocacy because either you have not done nearly enough research on nuclear as a renewable energy option, or you are delusional enough to believe that wind/solar/thermal can make even a dent in replacing traditional energy sources. End of story.

Ergo, if we were to reframe the debate to be support reasonable conservation efforts of natural resources, coupled with research and development into nuclear technology with a commitment to build more nuclear facilities to offset the need for coal and natural gas, I think you would have a much larger buy-in from conservatives.

Until then, conservatives will watch a guy like Musk come along, who single-handedly mainstreamed electric vehicles and talks about the need for climate change action in the context of nuclear, get slammed by the Left because he's "rich," and nope the eff out of the movement because they don't want to be associated even in spirit with crypto-Marxists.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Thought this deserved a mention

Re: i'm not so sure about that. I think that Al Gore's book

Re: i'm not so sure about that. I think that Al Gore's book

Hey, you....

Re: Hey, you....

I mean, point for meeting my request so quickly,

....out there in the cold, getting lonely, getting old,

Anthropogenic climate change is a hoax.***

Oh, totally. 8 billion people burning 92 million barrels

Re: Oh, totally. 8 billion people burning 92 million barrels

Re: Thought this deserved a mention

Re: Thought this deserved a mention

Re: Thought this deserved a mention

I have to disagree. I seem to remember this little gambit,

Re: I have to disagree. I seem to remember this little gambit,

I get it but I don't get it with the Left and nuclear.

TigerBoard POTD