Climate change deniers make up nearly a quarter of US Congress
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
US politics and US attitudes towards the rest of the world have changed so much in recent decades the country now seems a strange place to me.
Does that even make sense? This article is trying to drive a wedge between people and foment hate, as is anyone using the term “climate denier”, whether they know it or not. It’s not productive.
The readers of this article could be talking to people, learning their nuanced views, exchanging ideas, and finding common ground with the so-called “climate deniers”, but instead they’re reading a hit piece that makes them think Republicans are going to cause the literal end of the world.
If you think climate change is real, but don’t care, because of the economy—then yes, you’re a climate change denier.
> If you think man-made climate change is real but aren’t sure that natural disasters are increasing in frequency or severity because of that, you’re a climate denier.
If you think climate change is real, but isn’t having deeply unpleasant effects—then yeah, you’re a climate change denier.
There’s plenty of room for nuance and distinctions within climate change beliefs, but these positions ain’t it, chief.
clicks my tongue
That is literally a contradiction. Words, what do they mean?
The truth is, our society is inextricably bound to high energy activities that can only be met with fossil fuels at this time. Being hysterical about some speculative theories about what *might* happen decades from now is not helping. People need to work on steady and responsible development of solutions that make sense and don't involve destroying civilization as we know it. We need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, and only fossil fuels can work for common military operations (notwithstanding some huge technological improvement that we can't even theorize about yet).
This pejorative term does nothing for anyone making any argument. It weakens your position because you're attempting to rely on emotions and psychology to make your case instead of... well, making your case!
It predictably has the reverse effect of your intention. Those who disbelieve you strengthen in their resolve because now not only do they disagree with you on a factual basis, but they also believe themselves to have been unfairly characterised in a pejorative way for their position. Dumb move, you had one obstacle, now you're made yourself have two.
If Christians went around calling Muslim's "Christ-deniers" instead of Muslims, how well do you think that would help tensions and resolution?
To me it's primitive and ineffective behaviour, and I lose respect for those who resort to it.
This is the pattern: group A comes up with a label for their enemy. They make some progress on getting everyone else to hate that group. Then group B comes along and decides to piggyback on that label for their own slightly different enemy. Rinse and repeat until you get this frankenbullshit:
> The report defined climate deniers as those who say that the climate crisis is not real or not primarily caused by humans, or claim that climate science is not settled, that extreme weather is not caused by global warming or that planet-warming pollution is beneficial.
Eventually, the label becomes useless for actually understanding what a person thinks because there are so many OR clauses in it. Despite this, people still use it for making actual judgements. The net result is the social climate today, where everyone righteously hates everyone.
That's what words are for. Nobody is going to stop because you're upset at being correctly labelled.
People are too busy being pious and righteous to be precise enough to actually communicate a point.
They'd probably laugh a bit; Muslims consider Jesus to be a legitimate prophet, just not the last.
That aside, religious stuff like "was Jesus the Messiah?" isn't quite the same as "is climate change happening". Some of the fervor around it may be religious-like, but the core facts are... facts.
If you don't call those people deniers, then you're signaling to third parties it's some sort of unanswered question.
We know the makeup of the atmosphere has changed from having "libraries" of atmospheric samples.
The source of increased CO2 is also known, we humans through industrial activity have mined many many billions of tonnes of fossil fuels (coal, oil) and released an excess of that gas into the atmosphere.
This is a change that is distinctly over and above natural variations in atmospheric makeup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing
We've tried raw science and data for more than 100 years when the oil industry correctly predicted our current levels of CO2, and then kept doing business as usual. We knew something was up around 1821, and had a firm grasp of the situation by 1861 (one eight six one):
https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicte...
If you make money by risking the lives of my family, I'm done being polite.
1. Tone policing is not a pejorative, it's just what they're doing. Saying "please sound nicer" IS tone-policing. If people don't like being told they're tone policing (lol), they should stop tone policing. Problem solved.
2. Association to racism and anti-feminism. Whether you choose to admit it or not, there IS a strong association between all of these. They didn't claim the original commentator was one, but they pointed out their argument is used by them, which is true.
And, the association is real and well understood. That doesn't mean it's a perfect association, like everyone who denies climate change hates women or something, but certainly the odds are higher. Because, generally, those beliefs stem from the same place. Conservative beliefs. Again, not all, but there ARE strings tying those together and they're not made up.
3. Lack of substantive commentary. Sorry, there isn't any to be provided. "Climate denier sounds bad" isn't really an argument, you can't disprove that. They're just noting that bending over backwards is ONLY really awarded to the most privileged. Meaning, nobody asks a climate denier to "sound nicer" when talking about the government. Just like nobody asks a racist to sound nicer in their racism, but if you call out a racist you could very well be told to sound nicer as to not scare them off. As if they're on the cusp of realization (lol).
1. The term “tone policing” was used here as a pejorative, discussion-terminating label. The response tagged the OP with that label and then did nothing to explain why this arbitrary tag mattered. The clear purpose was to discredit via name-calling.
2. Any association you perceive to exist to feminism and antiracism is irrelevant to this discussion. And you’re doing it again, by the way - lumping everyone under a label of “conservative beliefs” which nobody asked for. (I don’t fit that label at all, yet I agree with the criticism in the original post.)
3. “There isn’t any [substantive commentary] to be provided” almost perfectly encapsulates what is so grating and deficient about the rhetorical style and worldview on display in the response. “My position is so obviously right and self-evident that anyone who could dare to disagree with me shall be named and shamed, and not engaged with.” Had you paid some attention to the overall context of this discussion, you might have noticed, e.g., that one criticism of the label is that it’s being used against people who don’t deny climate change. Let that sink in.
Again, not a label, but an action. And it's not up for debate whether this was tone policing or not - it was, by the definition of tone policing. You could argue that it "ended the conversation" but I disagree. If you, or others, crumble and fold at even the slightest hint of critic I don't know what to tell you. I don't have that problem so maybe it's something you're doing, I don't know.
> Any association... is irrelevant
I was explaining the context, because yes that does matter.
> I don't fit that label
As I've said, it's not all inclusive or perfect. I don't even know why I bother writing careful if people are just gonna ignore it and lie about my intentions anyway.
> My position is so obviously right and self-evident
Again, if you actually read what I wrote I never said, implied, or even kind of implied this. What I said is that there's no argument to be had because these are just emotions.
I can't tell someone they aren't sad, or tell someone they aren't happy. That's not an argument, that's nothing. If you say you're some emotion about something then that's that, that's not a position that can be argued for or against.
I would receive this comment much easier if you were more honest. It's frustrating when I go through the effort to plainly explain my position and then someone like you can roll in and just... make things up. If you want to argue with made-up arguments then talk to a chatbot. I'm a person, you can't force an argument I didn't make on me because I don't accept it.
1. I think that labeling and stigmatizing are deficient forms of discourse. I am using these words to refer to the practice of attaching a loaded, in-group buzzword (such as “tone policing” or “privileged”) to a person or their ideas in a disqualifying or self-executing manner. I am also referring to the practice of smearing a person or their ideas by linking them to some other stigmatized group or idea.
The reason I think these techniques are deficient is that they have no chance of persuading people who are not already “in the fold”, and thus are not efforts at dialogue at all. They also tend to inflame, which is unproductive.
2. You (the generic “you”) don’t get to place your own ideas or beliefs beyond question. You don’t get to presume the correctness of your beliefs, and then use the fact that your opponent disagrees with you as proof that they are disqualified or worthy of stigma. You may think this works in your own mind, but others who do not share your beliefs will not accept it. So when you (the individual “you”) say “it's not up for debate whether this was tone policing or not,” you are wrong because you don’t get to decide what is up for debate. (It’s actually kind of ironic that you said this, because I actually don’t think the original post was an example of so-called “tone policing”.)
I think these two rhetorical tactics, and what I perceive as a certain kind of smug arrogance underlying them, have been very damaging to public discourse in recent years. I would go so far as to say that they are largely responsible for the world having to suffer a first Trump administration, and now possibly a second.
Mainstream beliefs should be able to stand up to scrutiny and you're allowed to challenge them. But your challenge should have some basis in reality. If you constantly deny decades of accumulated evidence because it's mainstream orthodoxy, you're going to find yourself aligning with the flat-earthers and holocaust deniers.
We could ask both of them to scientifically prove their faith and we’ll go with the successful one?
That’s facetious, of course, but it illustrates why this isn’t a valid comparison: religious faith is by definition dealing with things which cannot be measured scientifically while human-caused climate change has been the scientific consensus for half a century and has been rigorously tested using a wide variety of independent lines of evidence. Saying someone is denying that is valid because it’s a testable claim which can be rationally examined and independently confirmed, whereas a personal religious statement cannot because the successful religions in the modern era have evolved not to make claims which can be evaluated scientifically.
Do you think that would help or hinder the situation if we did?
I call them "flat-earthers", as that's something that is usefully descriptive of their views and that they themselves seem happy to be called.
That is, it's a name that doesn't also necessarily insult them, which as I see it serves no useful purpose for anyone and simply causes antagonism and less of an ability to successfully communicate.
Which, by the way, is the only working solution to disagreement.
It may make you feel better, but it doesn't work. It's right there at the beginning of cycles of dysfunction, because it is that: dysfunctional.
A narrower definition may be more productive.
They also make it like trying to squeeze clay in your fist. Little bits squirt out everywhere and make a mess.
> Debating climate change proponents or fatalists about the existence of climate change is a waste of everybody's time, since it's something they already agree with.
Only very recently, and immediately moved on to the next incremental level of unscientific bullshit objections they'll espouse for another decade.
Even just this single one is too broad. There've been more than a few extreme weather events where I live this summer. Each time the media uses those to push for more climate action, even though the data shows that there have been many years just like this in the past few decades. Would this year have seen fewer of these weather events if it weren't for climate change? Nobody knows. Does pointing this out make me a climate change denier? To some, I suppose. Certainly to those who put that label on anyone who doesn't believe it's the most pressing issue at this moment, or doesn't believe in the same solutions as they do.
Too many of our representatives have long ago sold themselves (and this country) to outside money and influence. At this point, this is common knowledge.
Vonnegut's novel "Mother Night" (one of my favorites) warns:
> "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be".
I was against term limits, but since around the year 2000, I have turned around. Personally I would now like to see Term Limits plus once you leave Congress you are forbidden to be a lobbyist for 10 years.
Most congress people are now there for the bribes (contributions) and favors along with a cushy job once they leave. Most do not care 1 bit for the people the represent.
Exemplified by Trump: 78, Biden: 81.
Most older folks I have conversational relationships with are deniers of literally anything that may negatively affect the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. Even to the point that they think such changes are actually going to be worse for their grandchildren.
As per the old adage: science advances one funeral at a time.
[EDIT]
> polls show the proportion of Americans who share this view is significantly smaller, by as much as half
So it is supposed to be over-represented but did the congress critters answer the same question? The linked poll of the public says another 11% were "doubtful" which is enough to get you labelled by the eco-commies.
That wasn’t just fossil fuels - tobacco paid for a lot of it, including many of the same erstwhile “science experts” – and other factors played in (Obama’s election really stepped up the pressure not to be bipartisan even on previously innocuous things) but the important thing to remember is that it’s no more natural than a rose garden and requires constant maintenance.
In this case it's more normal since most of those talking about climate change, those most listened by the people are objectively PRs who push and agenda using the climate as an excuse and the others talk about mean values changes people typically do not understand. The average Joe hearing about +1.5℃ imaging a daily maxima +1.5℃, that's is. So switching from 30℃ to 31.5℃ (88.7℉) it's unpleasant but not that dramatic. The average Joe can't think about ANNUAL mean values vs extreme values during the years, for instance.
Anyway: IF we want to share the relevance of climate change it's about time to talk about food crisis and how hard is sourcing food around the world. We should show, locally, area per area, the amplitude and effects of extreme weather events. We should state clearly WE CAN'T AVOID THE CHANGE just reducing the animal flatulence etc, we MUST adapt. Then we mast be realistic stating clear that many currently densely inhabited places have no future fully knowing the real estate storm that will follow, and observing where we can instead go and how, or cease the rhetoric about smart cities, novel Fordlandia equally distopic with equal (no) future and admit we can only implement the New Deal at PERSONAL/FAMILIAR/SME level creating small buildings not wasting gazillion of resources in un-evolvable hyper fragile modern dense cities.
While most people do fear any change, to reject any change, to not understand any change a thing like the 2030 Agenda it's understood enough, the current impoverishment of all, especially of the middle class is very understood. The rest it's not since like every years we witness people die from heat not only working because they need to but also at the beach because "they do not have consider much their body tolerance to heat".
I know it's unpopular among current US Liberals dreaming the friendly, social, connected nice and dice clean, silent and green city, but sorry, I'm between those who have studied and implemented the Green New Deal building a new home, all electric car included with p.v. etc, I know enough to understand what could be done and what not. If you the reader are one of them try to draw yourself a possible or impossible scenario and share your conclusion and process.
Perhaps it's because I grew up near the coast and read tides charts to go fishing but I, and all the average Joes I know with a similar background, understand MSL (Mean Sea Level) how a small rise there is unusual and distinct from the moon related King Lows, and King Highs that flux by tens of metres.
Like holocaust deniers, like nazis, etc.? More and more buzz-words and labels broadly and freely used in order to dilute their respective meanings.
Our parents, grand-parents, etc. did not teach us good virtues "by shaming" (i.e by telling us we're X/Y/Z buzzwords), but either through example(of what not to do) or through rationality (explanations until comprehension). It's no wonder we have rising "X/Y/Z" sentiments when, ironically, the people who seemingly advocate against "these bad boys" resume to just label and categorize individuals instead putting the effort to either educate, explain, reference. Low-effort means low results, and virtuous traits are definitely not gained through complacency.
You solve things with dialogue (not monologue*). And if those people who use these buzzwords don't like dialogue "because some guy proved it" [it's actually irrelevant if the referenced fact is true or not] and dismiss discourse shamelessly, then they're doing more damage to their own narrative. Nobody likes being told what to do(this includes knowing/believing/etc.), and facts matter as much as they're being understood.
Oh, they absolutely did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter was written in 1850.