Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentOther - Politics & Government · 1 decade ago

Why is the future so clear for liberals to see with issues like Global Warming?

But when it comes to seeing the dangers of governments who swear they will destroy us, they can't grasp it?



Well, aside from the libs avoiding the meaning of the question, by ignoring the future dangers of governments are growing while also swearing to destroy western civilization;

I guess those "reputable scientists" don't work for the UN where they have stated that methane from livestock is responsible for more gasses that effect the greenhouse effect, than ALL of transpertation emmissions.

14 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Perhaps "liberals" can see the dangers of global warming because they read what almost all reputable scientists have said - see just a few of the many possible links below.

    As for "the dangers of governments who swear they will destroy us", well, you can't be talking about Iraq - that country had no connection whatsoever to 9/11 or to Islamic extremism. In fact, Saddam and Osama are deadly enemies. So, just which countries do you mean?

    Wow, a "conservative" citing the UN as a source. Will wonders never cease?

    And if the UN report is right, what difference does THAT make, pray tell? It doesn't matter WHERE the emissions that cause global warning are coming from.

    The important thing is to cut down on them by all practical means (including not driving a Hummer.)

    "What can be done, short of consuming less meat and milk? More than one thinks:

    - A third of the greenhouse gas emissions are the result of deforestation, much of it in Central and South America for the cultivation of soybeans. Costa Rica is trying to do something about that with a new program that pays farmers when they plant trees and take other measures to conserve soil. . .

    - Thirty percent of the livestock sector's emissions come from manure, the methane that rises from open storage pits - which are already out of favor in the United States - or when manure is spread on fields for fertilizer. That methane can be captured to fuel on-farm generators or to burn for heat to dry grain and warm buildings. Some dairy farms have eliminated their odor and their electric bills through the use of biogas.

    - One-quarter of the livestock industry's emissions come from the guts of the animals. That's the methane that comes from belching cattle. Those emissions can be reduced through improvements in feed."

    Man, I love all the simplistic "definitions" of "liberals" in so many of these answers - probably about as much as "conservatives" love the simplistic "definitions" that get pinned on them.

    Here I am, 63 years old, an ex-Marine, Vietnam vet who's spent over 20 years in the Middle East and now I discover that I'm "naive" and "detached from the realities of the world." Well, having been in two wars and one revolution, having seen a lot more of "the world" than most, if not all, of the posters using those descriptions, I don't know whether to laugh or cry about such people. In my opinion, they're the ones who are totally unacquainted with "the realities of the world"

  • Anonymous
    6 years ago

    With every day pass, our country is getting into more and more trouble. The inflation, unemployment and falling value of dollar are the main concern for our Government but authorities are just sleeping, they don’t want to face the fact. Media is also involve in it, they are force to stop showing the real economic situation to the people. I start getting more concern about my future as well as my family after watching the response of our Government for the people that affected by hurricane Katrina.

    According to recent studies made by World Bank, the coming crisis will be far worse than initially predicted. So if you're already preparing for the crisis (or haven't started yet) make sure you watch this video at and discover the 4 BIG issues you'll have to deal with when the crisis hits, and how to solve them fast (before the disaster strikes your town!) without spending $1,000s on overrated items and useless survival books.

  • Bryan
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    In my experience with dealing with liberals they have a globalist world view, which is interesting because they are also the same people who are always screaming about the dangers of a one world government while at the same time espousing the idea that the UN should be the ultimate authority, but I digress. They are misguided because they believe that we create all the problems in the world and that despots and dictators are just misunderstood souls who would leave us alone if we left them alone. This idea is not based in reality, it is just another leftover from the peace/love generation who wanted to believe that everyone is good and decent. The fact that they are proved wrong on this position time and again is of little consequence. In order to be a good liberal the agenda must trump everything else, and anyone who disagrees must be shouted down as uninformed or intolerant. The simple fact is they will go on believing this until they are planted permanently and no amount of reason or practical evidence is going to change this fact.

    johnslat: From your additional posts regarding the opinions expressed regarding liberals in general I can only draw a couple of conclusions. The first is that while you do indeed seem informed that you also believe that every other liberal is similarly informed, which by the way is not true., but then again not all conservatives are informed either. Second is that you have spent a great deal of time out there in the world and think that we have absolutely nothing to fear from anyone. Was Iraq a great threat to the US? Not particularly in my opinion, but it does not mean that there are no threats whatsoever. Third you suffer from a common liberal affliction which allows liberals to believe that they are the smartest and most informed people in the room and no matter what counter opinions are presented they are dismissed without due consideration. If you have a counter opinion of liberals then you should present this opinion, but I defy you to read any signifigant numebr of liberal positions and state that they properly address the threats which exist in the world because if you read critically and honestly you will surely arrive at the alternate conclusion the majority of the time. Lastly, you seems passionate about global warming. Would it surprise you to know that many conservatives do not dismiss global warming out of hand, but rather choose to state the fact that the rhetoric does not fit the established scientific reality and while global warming may be occurring there are as yet many unanswered questions, not the least of which is the fact that global warming may be a natural phenomenon wholly out of the control of man. We should be concerned about our environment, but we should not embrace every fanatical theory that is presented without proper examination.

  • 4 years ago

    I asked a similar question a little earlier and got some interesting answers. I approached it from a somewhat different angle, but the responses might still be of interest to you. See the link below. Personally, I think the main benefit of skepticism is to maintain the status quo and keep the oil companies raking in huge profits. I think that's pretty obvious, which is why I asked what the benefit could be to being on the other side.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Hello, sometimes people call me a liberal, but other liberals would freak on my stance at other issues (like I think abortion is wrong, etc.). As for myself, I just think the environment is an important issue. I think we live on this planet and there is a lot to take care of, and we should gear our economy in a way that will make our planet healthy for future generations. I really can't understand how Global Warning became a bi-partisan issue. It seems like universal issue, such as crime and poverty. It's there, it's happening.

    Now, as for the War in Iraq (which is what I assume you are referring to) I did completely disagree with our President for going there. But, now that we are there, I am not liking all of this rhetoric I am hearing from the Democrats about pulling out since the Mid-Term Elections. I think it would be the worst thing to do to pull out. Even though I didn't agree with how we got there, I think we have a responsibility to finish the job. I think we owe it to the Iraqi people and to our own international integrity. Now, hopefully our leaders came to a reasonable consensus with the Iraq Study Report, and have at least found a plan to complete the job, not just a plan for pulling out.

    I wouldn't bash on liberals so much. Just as I would say to a liberal to not bash on conservatives too much. We are all just people that want the best for our country and world, but just have different opinions about how to get there. I think if we can just integrate and consolidate our opinions, we could all find mutually satisfying ways of going in the right direction.

  • 1 decade ago

    It's because they all want to buy the world a Coke and a smile. They are detached from the realities of this world, and nothing will change their perception save a jackboot on their throats.

    Furthermore, they love the global warming idea because it aligns well with their beliefs; many of them still hate authority figures, successful industrialists and the like. Therefore, it's rather easy for them to lash out at the dastardly environment destroyers. Never mind the Husseins, Hitlers, Pol Pots, etc. They are simply misunderstood individuals - nothing a Coke and a smile couldn't fix.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Because the cons want to blow the sh!t out everything. That's their solution to terrorism. There is a middle ground where we use a combination of intelligence work, diplomacy, police work and targeted military action to fight the extremists. Invading countries that pose a minimal threat does nothing to protect this country. Why can's cons see that?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    liberalism is a mental disorder

    their thought processes are anti-darwinian. every survival instinct has been neutralized for the cause of the red revolution. many of them hope that islamo-fascism can be their vehicle for revolution, seeing the inherent socialism in the middle east, they hope to convert it into islamo-socialism, since the jihaids wish to spread their death worldwide, commies hope to use is as a vehicle to bring about their worldwide desire for a classless communist utopia. and of course, like all other communist ventures in history, millions will die.

    map- for someone strapping bomb vests to their 14 year olds, and strapping bomb vests on themselves, or flying planes into buildings, there is no middle ground. they would rather die in a fire, than find that elusive middle ground with the infidel. you cannot reason with them. israel has tried that, for many many years, every peace offer, every major concession, everything they wanted on a platter and they refused. because the only "middle ground" for them, is the annhilation of their infidel enemies. anything less is dishonorable and a defeat.

  • Enigma
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Because they are the hippys of the 60's revolution man!

    They love mother earth!!!!

    Can you dig it!!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Must be simple basic science from junior school in planet of apes.

    Source(s): decoded from the missing x-files.
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.