Global warming why is it that it seems to mix with politics?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Global warming why is it that it seems to mix with politics?

Stan

929 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 183
Inactive user

#226288 30-Dec-2017 06:46

So with the cold weather in the United States right now it seems that the climate change deniers are out in force and it seems to be only from the right wing side. Why is this? Surely this is an apolitical point that revolves around science rather than politics? Or am I wrong? Is there a left wing side that disagrees with the science behind global warming?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1926837 30-Dec-2017 09:18

I don’t know, but I can guess. First, though, the labels need to be clarified. I suspect the ‘right wing’ of today has little to do with the conservatives of old. True conservatives in my opinion are intelligent people who are cautious about change in the sense that they want to carefully examine all aspects before committing to it, but are not opposed purely on the basis of some imagined ideology. I don’t think these kinds of thoughtful old-fashioned conservatives would reject the notion of climate change out of hand, but they would want to see good evidence for it. That evidence appears to be mounting.

The ‘right wing’, on the other hand, is made up of diehard ideology-driven conspiracy-obsessed fanatics determined to impose their paranoid view of the world on everyone else. They see climate change has part of a huge left wing plot to undermine the fantasy way of life they think they remember and so fondly cling to. In America, I think that means the 1950s when men were men and women knew their place and America ruled the world and people didn’t worry about things like fuel-guzzling personal tanks destroying the environment.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1926840 30-Dec-2017 09:28

"Climate change".
(Lest idiots use an example of a cold or hot snap to argue a political position)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1926854 30-Dec-2017 09:34

Fred99: "Climate change".
(Lest idiots use an example of a cold or hot snap to argue a political position)

That too.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1928042 2-Jan-2018 13:10

Simple, because groups of people want the government to do something about climate change. And they want the government to spend lots of money and/or pass new laws to do so. No surprises then that politics gets dragged into it.

And the biggest problem is that there is no drop in replacement for fossil fuels in lots of applications. (jet fuel being a good example) So for most people, they can't maintain their existing lifestyle. While also not causing any emissions. Which is another reason why people want to deny that there is a problem.

For a comparison, look at CFCs and the ozone layer. A problem was identified, the world got together, CFC production and release was outlawed. And now the ozone hole is shrinking. Especially important for NZ considering the problems with skin cancer and other issues caused by high UV levels.

Why the difference in identifying and solving those problems - because drop in replacements to CFCs were quickly developed that allowed everyone to keep on enjoying refrigeration and air conditioning, without the ozone layer being damaged by the release of refrigerant gasses.

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#1954126 9-Feb-2018 10:24

I have some objection to the term climate deniers. Climate sceptics would be a better term.

Acceptance of climate change as caused by humans is based on scientific evidence. Scepticism is healthy in science and can be (at times) harsh and rivalrous. If we can no longer tolerate or acknowledge climate sceptics, then it's no longer a science based argument.

Many climate sceptics publish spurious rubbish, but this can be shown to be incorrect by the very strong evidence for humans causing climate change. It's failure of science communication that public scepticism persists

The reason the topics has become so politicised is because it's so important, there is so much a stake. It's one of those things people don't want to be true. There are people and organisations with a lot to lose (property, business, employment etc), people who would like to see them lose it and people with a lot to gain. Where there is a lot a stake there is fertile ground for both politicians and activists of all stripes to ply their trade.

I got a chuckle out of recent video footage of a Greenpeace ship proudly flying "End Oil" and "Climate Justice" banners. The ship was made from steel, oil powered and had all manner of components manufactured with petroleum products were visible.

Mike

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1954374 9-Feb-2018 14:33

MikeAqua:

I have some objection to the term climate deniers. Climate sceptics would be a better term.

Acceptance of climate change as caused by humans is based on scientific evidence. Scepticism is healthy in science and can be (at times) harsh and rivalrous. If we can no longer tolerate or acknowledge climate sceptics, then it's no longer a science based argument.

Many climate sceptics publish spurious rubbish, but this can be shown to be incorrect by the very strong evidence for humans causing climate change. It's failure of science communication that public scepticism persists

The reason the topics has become so politicised is because it's so important, there is so much a stake. It's one of those things people don't want to be true. There are people and organisations with a lot to lose (property, business, employment etc), people who would like to see them lose it and people with a lot to gain. Where there is a lot a stake there is fertile ground for both politicians and activists of all stripes to ply their trade.

I got a chuckle out of recent video footage of a Greenpeace ship proudly flying "End Oil" and "Climate Justice" banners. The ship was made from steel, oil powered and had all manner of components manufactured with petroleum products were visible.

Yes, this new epithet "deniers" (cf "holocaust deniers") is far from helpful.

Additionally, people are free to deny anything they want. I can, if I so wish, deny that the world is a sphere or that the sun is hot or that peanut butter is made of peanuts. My denial makes none of them true or untrue. Facts do that.

One might just as well call proponents of natural child birth "hospital birth deniers".