I just don't buy into your premise. Conservatives are not anti-climate change or anti energy conservation. They do want our public policy to be based on hard data and science not on assertions that border on being a religion, i.e, a matter of faith, and truck no opposition. The climate is changing continuously and has for the almost 5 billion years this planet has been around. The question is how much man contributes to it and whether man can control these natural cycles. Before we commit huge resources to such a quixoitic quest, we need better data. We are also not against energy conservation, but that is only part of the answer to our long term energy needs.
Maybe the posters do not even realise what they are saying and as you probably know them better than I do you can discern what they are getting at better but from a first impression and without any background knowledge of either the exact situation or the poster's previous history that is how it reads to me. I fully realise of course that in the cold light of day they probably do not mean what they are actually inferring in their posting.
Again, I have no idea what you are referring to. If you have some specific examples and can demonstrate that this is more than just some anecdotal impression, I would like to see it. We began this discussion with your assertion that, "Does not fit their agenda and also IMHO the Prez has not beaten the drum over it for fear of some of the ultra right wing Republicans/Conservatives going ape over it either. One of these things where he cannot win either way." I just question your assertion that the WH has kept the fact that the President's house in Crawford was constructed with energy efficient features quiet because he did not want to anger the "ultra right wing Republicans/Conservatives." I find that preposterous.
You are missing my point and I think the best thing is for us to beg to differ or else we are going to turn the thread into an arguement over something IMHO we basically agree about.