No, but the people who have the most to lose target their propaganda to right-wing fringe types.
Kind of like this website:

that appears to be an honest concerned entity that wants to expose groups that have hidden agendas, when actually all they do is attempt to slam environmental groups in any way they can. Its hidden people with hidden agendas trying to claim concerned groups have them. I wouldn’t call these types conservative, because the conservatives I know have enough intelligence not to be tricked by such garbage.
nor are they against the idea of global warming, just skeptic of the claims. I have many great converstaions with them, unlike the people who think conservatism means being a GOP parrot.
people who believe this trash are the people who deny global warming ,most likely because it is right-wing fringe propaganda machines that introduces them to this trash making it sound credible.

I’m sure a few people refuse to jump on the eco-bandwagon just to spite someone else, but conservatives have as big a stake in “environmental correctness” as liberals. That Tories, Republicans, etc categorically oppose envionmentalist dogma is another deliberately divisive myth meant to support the smokescreen of politics. Some conservatives haven’t yet realised that the Gospel of Al is not inconsistent with the Bible or whatever else they believe in… it’s only inconsistent with reality. Like contemporary creationists, environmentalists ‘cherry pick’ through scientific facts, accepting whatever appears to support their beliefs and simply disregarding the rest. Conservatives are already having a political ‘field day’ with environmentalism as we know it –as Leonardo DiCaprio, PETA and Greenpeace know it– because it’s a religion. The “debate closed, let’s start passing laws!” attitude is familiar territory for all fans of government’s coercive power, regardless of superficial differences like party affiliation or even nationality. If environmentalism has shown us anything, it’s that a compelling enough faith can unite the collectivists of the world.

Global warming is not being caused by human activities.

I just watched the first part of -
…

and its all politospeak, fair few comments by scientists, but no actual scientific evidence is provided to back up their claims. I’m a scientist myself, and know that for a hypothesis you need to provide evidence. I also noticed in that first part there was mostly a lack of high standing scientists. University of jerusalem? (guy probably hasnt even earned tenure, too young) university of ottewa? i’m sure its not that hard to find a low stature assistant professor (who isnt a leader in the climatologist field) to make those claims. All politospeak dressed up as science. Reminds me of the evolution debate….

I am not a liberal either. to be frank at some point the politicians are just going to have to move out of the way and let the people address the issue of and implement the technologies that are available to at least lessen the affects of the present climatic changes and the worsening of what is to come.

A friend of mine made a good point. We all know that it tends to be true that conservative thinkers are often the same as those who have very strong religious beliefs. My friend (who grew up in such a household) says his family believed strongly in being humble to God, and that whatever He created cannot be changed by man. Ergo, it would blasphemous to believe that people could have caused the Earth to change in such a dramatic way.

I often wonder too how people say its pseudoscience…like if they didn’t themselves do the lab experiments then it can’t be trusted. I saw an Inconvenient Truth and it was choc full of references and citings from real labs and universities. If we can all shout ‘pseudoscience’ just because we don’t like something ,we have a dangerous future ahead.

Besides, the movie was trying to make a point that the recent changes are waaaay more dramatic than any natural cycle all the way back as far as they can measure-through several ice ages. Also, people on here act like Al Gore is the scientist ans therefore not credible. He is a presenter who has been researching this for decades. He has a lot more qualifications to talk about this stuff than most people who tell us things on tv.

global warming is just freemongering and the science doesnt support man made global warming Check out this documenty on you tube its is done buy the head climitologist at MIT, and the head of the IPCC and the former co-founder of greenpeace. Its called the The great global warming swindal. It seperates fact from popular held myths of Global warming. its 8 parts or about a hour long

Climate Change and Sustainability have always been a touchy subject for politicians…

This as electricity generation is very polluting from conventional coal fire power stations and access to electricity is what defines the western world and defines us, to 3rd world countries…

Electricity usage is proportinate to economic growth and even now people are fighting global warming and trying to cover it up as it will mean they will lose a lot of their money as it will mean having to make their polluting industry or company a lot more environmentally friendly which is often a costly process especially in industrial applications…

This is why nuclear is being used by governments to cover up the emissions even
I dot not agree with this way of creating energy…. I think renewables will be at a comparable price to nuclear in at least 10 years however.
so called environmentally clean fuel….
(should be called atmospherically clean fuel because the waste goes into the ground which should go under george bushs ranch)

No. It’s denied because it’s not real in the liberal hype-up of it. The truth is that we can’t really do anything to stop or change it. The libs just want to appease the worriers by suggesting there IS something that can help. That’s not true.
You can’t stop, change, or “fix” nature. It’s caused by our increasing proximity to the sun and will go away when we start moving away from the sun in our orbit.
The same junk ‘scientists’ that predicted the ‘new ice age’ in the ’70s were wrong then, and are just as wrong about supposed ‘global warming’ today.
Quit worrying and ignore the undue hype of the Chicken Little Syndrome sufferers.
All we can really do is adapt and adjust.
Cars release carbon monoxide, not CO2!

I think it is opposed for a number of reasons. One being that every opponent must have the opposite stance on any subject. Second, it is cheaper for mass polluting companies to pollute rather then clean up their mess. They fund scientific research that proves their point of no major problems. Neither side has pr oven anything. Only that they are good at arguing. Finally, money. Money dictates everything. When money can be made by being green then we will see a shift in the business and political mind set. Right now there are two extremes. The conservation side wants to end all emission burning problems now, plant trees,and live in hemp clothing. The other side wants to cut, burn, and drill until all natural resources are gone. What is needed is a balanced approach to ease in more earth friendly business practices.