> To be conservative (in the tribal sense) means holding disbelief in climate change
To be fair it's not disbelief in climate change, it's a healthy skepticism of man made climate change.
To be fair it's not disbelief in climate change, it's a healthy skepticism of man made climate change.
Let's be honest about why conservatives have this "healthy skepticism": because the fossil-fuel industry has successfully linked belief in anthropogenic global warming with liberalism. It's a correct association to some degree in that part of the solution would mean more regulation of business, but the value of such an association is that it becomes an us-versus-them situation. You don't have to understand it to disagree with it. And to be quite frank, that's the case - the majority of people who hold a disbelief in climate change are ignorant of the basic premise. In fairness, the majority of people who hold a belief in climate change are also ignorant of the basic premise. This is because, as mentioned above, it's no longer a scientific issue in the mainstream view, it's a political one.
Anecdotally, every "skeptic" I've ever met has used arguments to justify their disbelief such as:
- "scientists are not always right"
- "the climate changes all the time"
- "the Earth is so big, how could we have any effect"
- "if global warming is happening then how come it's so cold"
- "CO2 rises and falls regularly"
I will treat an informed dissent respectfully, but let's not shit ourselves about how many opinions meet that bar.
- The climate isn't changing in any meaningful way
- The climate is changing, but not because of people
- Sure the climate is changing because of people's actions, but changing our ways is too expensive, we'll just have to adapt
- Of course everyone always believed we should have done something about climate change, but liberals stood in the way of the solutions we suggested (something invented about public vs private solutions)
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
If it's sarcasm, you probably consider my thinking sloppy and I'd like to know why.
If it's just a joke, then hah hah and forget I replied.
Text can be such an ambiguous medium!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_th...
> It's ludicrous to think that I could hold a "healthy skepticism" on the efficacy of heart transplants when I don't know the first thing about human anatomy, biology or medicine, but this is exactly what is happening with an equally complex scientific issue.
I also find it interesting you speak of the complex nature of the study of climate change yet make the blanket statement that anyone who disagrees is an ignorant person. I would be correct in assuming you are a scientist that has studied climate change?
> I will treat an informed dissent respectfully
And therein lies the problem. You assume every person who 1) disagrees with any part of climate change and 2) holds politically conservative views are too ignorant to form their own opinions based on their own self study. You assume they are a bunch of low IQ ignorant hicks that can't think for themselves and must rely on big evil corporations to feed them their climate change arguments.
Yes, that's very respectful :)
What I was trying to say in the previous message is that the majority of people, conservative or liberal, are ignorant of the basic premise. Liberals happen to be largely ignorant of the issue in a way that leads them to vote the way I like, but they hold the same majority ignorance. We aren't having liberal versus conservative fights over the efficacy of various surgical procedures, airplane designs or pharmaceutical drugs because most people are ignorant of these things (myself included) - again, because these are scientific issues and should not be political. Climate change has been politicized, the majority of people hold a strong opinion in spite of being ignorant of the basic premise. Individuals, regardless of political leaning, may do enough research on their own to develop an informed opinion, but the majority (from both sides) do not.
You having done your own research that leads you to the conclusion that AGW is not happening doesn't make you ignorant. I disagree with you, but I am not insulting you. So hopefully I made my point clearer: I am not making the blanket statement that anyone who disagrees is an ignorant, low IQ hick. I _am_ making the claim that, much like the economy, a complex issue which most people don't really understand has been boiled down to simple, tribal arguments by both sides with the unfortunate consequence of stalling urgent, badly needed action.
My point is, from the viewpoint of conservatives, most liberals think conservatives are dumb hicks who don't know anything and are just brainwashed by big oil and the GOP. This viewpoint is perpetuated by statements similar to those you, with no malintent, made. You lament about the politicization of climate change yet you yourself initially related conservatives to those who use ignorant excuses to ignore or reject climate change. For the most part, when someone disagrees with climate change, they are instantly labelled as an ignorant science denier who has done no research on their own. That's not a good way to have a fruitful conversation with someone and it will never help solve any problems related to climate change.
Your point that conservatives can't dissent without being piled on is valid, and it's one of the reasons I apologized and tried to frame my point more tactfully (the other being that I felt bad for being nasty). The inability to have tactful conversations where we really listen to the viewpoints of one another troubles me deeply (I regret contributing), and is no doubt a major contributor to the intense polarization we are currently experiencing.
We are all, myself included, prone to uncritically accepting peer views and refusing to accept facts which contradict our narrative. Science, though imperfect, attempts to temper our irrationality with reproducible results and critical, fact-based consensus. The fossil fuel industry is responsible for dragging the issue of climate change from science into politics. I'm not saying they brainwashed a bunch of idiot rubes, but they did successfully muddy the water on a complex issue and connect it to identity. This is why I reacted so strongly to the phrase "healthy skepticism"; thoughtful individuals may be displaying this, but broadly I see it as the fossil fuel industry having exploited the instinct to draw more closely into one's tribe to guard against outsiders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_th...
What's more, the vast majority of their statements doubting an aspect of climate change are not even part the peer reviewed scientific literature. They are simply opinion statements. And they only found a couple dozen people to put on the list? Not a very strong showing..
All of this is found in the linked Wikipedia article itself.
And that seems to be part of the problem: You just made a statement that is quickly proven false[0], which leads to further skepticism from these people.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_th...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_...
I count eight people who seem to have worked in (broadly) related fields:
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
This is the equivalent of saying "Zoologist X Somebody in University of North Carolina said there's no link between smoking and lung cancer!", and keeping smoking while having a lung cancer while ignoring mountains of research, except that it's not your own lung this time.
I guess you don't know that in the 70's it wasn't global warming that was a serious issue but global cooling? Funny how that works.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU
In short, during the 70s, there were some papers on global cooling. But even then, there was still 6 times more papers on global warming. Science overall has been looking in the correct direction for a long time now. The narrative isn't changing.