They will prevent voters from voting, voter fraud, but as for mother nature, they turn the other cheek?

Why are the only alarmists starry-eyed liberals who think government can save the world?

Let's not forget ignorant.

If you look beyond the borders of the U.S., you will find much of the world doesn't buy into the notion of AGW. The four largest polluters are China, U.S., India, and Russia. How many of them have pledged to reduce their emissions? Think...

None of them! Three of the four don't believe AGW is a problem worth addressing. The fourth (U.S.) is split. Third world countries are on the bandwagon because there might be "climate reparations" in it for them.

It is difficult for me to answer because I don't know of any "climate warming deniers". Everyone I speak to thinks that the climate has warmed in the last 130 years or so. Practically everyone agrees that greenhouse gases can cause atmospheric warming.

The differences appear when you try to find out exactly how much warming a certain CO2 increase will cause or when you try to get an explanation as to how CO2 can be increasing faster than ever while temperatures remain flat.

@Mr Variable: If you want to affect oil and fossil fuel profits just stop buying them. That is one of the advantages of capitalism, you can vote with your wallet. The power is already in your own hands. If sufficient numbers of you all agreed to stop buying the fuel then the evil companies would just go out of business.

You could also argue that oil has made slavery redundant. Why use lots of forced labourers when you can buy a tractor?

I am a Deist Libertarian and have been called a denier here many times. AS for your voter fraud, I have no idea what you are talking about.

As for preventing people from voting. If you are talking about voter IDs, then:

To purchase a gun and vote require evidence that you are 18 or older, a legal citizen and not a convicted felon.

You come up with whatever measure you want to find out if the qualifications have been met and we can apply them equally to both constitutionally-protected rights.

What? You don't like that plan? Oh, so you are not really talking about protecting rights, you are talking about your political stance. ARNCHA?

Anything that potentially threatens oil and fossil fuel profits is suspect to conservatives, remember that capitalism is a highly exploitative economic system, exploiting people, or earth-centric resources, all one need do is throw out a few facts born out by rudimentary observation and conservatives lose their collective minds, not because they're afraid of climate extremes, but because capitalism is the best thing that ever happened since slavery for conservatives.

Under capitalism, human capital is highly devalued just enough that those hoarding stolen human capital have zero incentive to pay a living wage or share unequally distributed profits with the creators of labor-centric derived profits.

This is the recipe for slavery 2.0, couple that with bait & switch work ethics and the people who perform production labor are given work titles such as: "lazy, undeserving social leeches", meanwhile the actual lazy, social leeches, (upper management, CEO and shareholders) are reaping a majority of profits that they did not produce, earn or deserve to have.

Conservatives do not care about any damage to the environment as long as profits, dividends and investment returns remain above prediction percentages.

Why else did BP not care how long the deep-water horizon gusher hemorrhaged oil while BP gave themselves the green-light to dump as much "corexit" to keep the surface free of oil slicks even though the majority of oil settled on the ocean floor along with corexit a dispersant so toxic, it's banned in the UK.

"The two types of dispersant's BP is spraying in the Gulf are banned for use [1] on oil spills in the U.K. As EPA-approved products [2], BP has been using them in greater quantities than dispersants have ever been used [3] in the history of US oil spills."

Anything that benefits non-profit centric humans is deemed a liberal conspiracy by conservatives of today's ilk, there used to be moderate republicans and to a lesser extent, there remains moderate democrats with the occasional blue-dog conservative democrats who are easily swayed by NRA scare tactics into blocking a qualified Surgeon General candidate, not because the NRA is capable of making a fact-based argument, but because money speaks louder than "we the, (non-corporate interest) people" these days.

For those who discount the discriminatory affect of voter ID, consider this appeal to ignorance thought experiment, do voter ID's stop criminals from voting illegally, of course not, most felons are banned from voting even if they're already served their sentences.

Voter ID is designed to deliberately make it harder for poor people, minorities and thinking people from voting, it's Jim Crow 2.0.

It's pointless to highlight the false equivalency arguments made by climate change deniers, just pointing out the fact that the countries doing less than America to address climate change have the same weak justifications to avoid addressing a looming issue, profits, anything that harms profits will directly affect the priority given to pollution problems regardless of the sovereign territory this pollution is emanating from.

Just saying these countries don't consider it a problem deliberately ignores the 800 lb. profit gorilla in the room.

There are liberals that are AGW deniers, and there are conservatives that believe in AGW.

Unfortunately in the U.S. conservatism is now the party of anti-science, anti-intellectualism. It has become fashion in the Republican Party to label anyone that doesn't accept certain tenets as "Republicans in Name Only" (RINOs). One of those tests for true "Republicanness" is whether or not you believe in the science of AGW. This has been very difficult for conservative scientists, because they find themselves ostracized by their own party. It is a real shame that the Republicans have become so stupid, because many of these problems might be best solved with a free market approach. The Libertarians are no better, they have gone from being a party of intellectuals to a party of anarchist paranoids.

There is some hope for both of these parties, though. The last Libertarian presidential candidate did not dispute AGW, and neither did a couple of the Republican primary candidates---but they got very few votes.

The question requires reformulation, first because there ARE now more than a few climate change science deniers outside the USA, and second because, although most leading practitioners of such denial are Americans and CALL themselves conservatives, it would be more accurate to describe them as FAKE conservatives: with huge emphasis on the "Fake."

It is probably true that if Ronald Reagan were running for president in 2012 or 2016, he would be rejected by top Republican party officials as being "RINO" (Republican in name only), not because he was an actor pretending to be leader, e.g. an effective politician in name only, but because he was NOT a phony conservative. Reagan was no intellectual genius, but he did not worship willful ignorance or make it the be-all and end-all of his policies. He made reasonable efforts, for example, to appoint intelligent and competent people to his presidential cabinet. His understanding of science was sketchy, but he did not make a never-ending fool of himself by repeatedly calling science a hoax.

Why has America become the world's leading repository of political kooks and nitwit talking heads, compared to which Reagan looks like Einstein? THAT is the real question here. Answering it comprehensively would require much more space than I have already devoted here. It will have to suffice to mention ONE of several important factors (but see the links below for more): There is much more money at stake in America, than anywhere else, for fossil fuel companies to lose, if climate science is taken seriously and made the basis for significant changes in energy policies.

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...

http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/qand...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

Here is the most famous head of the world's most famous Conservative Party (although she was not American) discussing global warming 25 years ago (long before most of today's deniers had ever heard of the subject):