posted
Doesn't it strike anyone else as bizarre that one's position on global warming seems to corrolate with where one falls on that hoary old Right-Left political spectrum? Why on earth is this such a fascinating, personal issue for so many people?
I'm asking this question because of the Civ Watch column that's currently up. It has such a triumphant tone. "Your science is WRONG! Mu-hahaha." And of course, those that believe in global warming often take the same tone.
There's an obvious answer to my question: lefties could like having reasons to bash corporations, and righties could think the "solutions" are potentially crippling for the economy.
But is that really all? OSC says the believers in global warming have an "ideology" and a "religion." Yeah yeah, once again OSC doesn't see that he's wielding a double edged sword. But is that all it really is? Political motivations to beat up the other side?
Why the correlation?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not care if the science is right, I would love to see tobacco and cotton in Illinois, corn in Canada and vineyards in Minnesota. I would not give up driving my SUV if you could prove to me that Hong Kong was going to need to build dikes in five years. That is inside a powerful SEP field. It is a political issue because it is attached to great big dollars in another robin hood scheme against the first world.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the reason it's a political issue is because the ramifications of accepting that global warming is reality include policy changes that certain parties want to make but others don't.
The question on why one's stance on global warming is a rough indicator of where one stands on the political spectrum is another kettle of fish. I'd suspect the involvement of other third factors, such as higher education level or religiosity.
I haven't read up on OSC's position on global warming. Is "religion" pejorative in that context?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the projected side effects of GlobalWarming, Counter Bean, is drought on the GreatPlains and the CornBelt. That lack of rainfall ain't gonna be a whole heck of a lot of good for growin' much of anything 'ceptin' dust storms and dunes.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The left has been more anti-business and the right has been more anti-government except when it isn't (!), and the proposed solutions to global warming are to have less of what business does, and more of what government does. It might be that it's just those people who tend to oppose business that would be interested ina theory blaming business, and those that tend to support business that wouldn't be.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The predicted drought is one of the least likely effects of atmospheric warming, more energy means more loft and more rain, I saw these predictions in the eightees for now and knew they were wrong, more moisture does not equal less rain.
That aside if we do have a drought, then we will deal with that problem, it will be ours. We have the largest bodies of fresh water in the world after all.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foust, you could ask the same question about evolution, reading education, or any number of issues. Unfortunately it seems that a lot of scientific and educational issues become politicized in the US, but I don't have a good answer as to why.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think these issues become more politicized in the US as compared to europe because of the different interactions between religion and science in the US, compared to the interactions between religion and science elsewhere
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Paul. I'd also wager that in other countries, different issues pop-up that aren't even on our radar.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back in the day, language reform was the hot-button right-left issue in Norway, with the left wanting the pure Norwegian language invented by Ivar Aasen (he's the guy who went around writing down all the dialect forms) and the right wanting the upper-class Danish-influenced Norwegian. Basically, the rich people wanted to write as they'd always spoken and the poor people wanted the same, and it got attached to the more general class struggle. It eventually got compromised as part of the social-democratic settlement after the war, although language was actually one of the last battles to be decided - you can still see the occasional skirmish, even.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, it's funny, but I think Foust has a point too. I work with several well-educated (B.S. and M.S. degrees in hard sciences) conservative atheists and agnostics who also think that the science behind global climate change studies leaves a lot to be desired. So the implication that that doubters are all a bunch of ignorant Christians doesn't really mesh well with my personal experiences.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
God, I wish global warming wasn't such a politicized issue.
But it involves legislation and economic change, so there's really no getting around it. We will have the science, and we will have the science drowned out in a haze of polemic and punditry; we will furthermore have people who accept or reject claims and positions based entirely upon their ideological inclinations and preconceptive bias.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I work with several well-educated (B.S. and M.S. degrees in hard sciences) conservative atheists and agnostics who also think that the science behind global climate change studies leaves a lot to be desired
On just an issue of numbers, I've seen way, way more degree-holding people who agree with anthropogenic global warming than those who don't. And most scientists will say we still need more research--if that's what they mean by "leaves a lot to be desired".
As for politicization, I'm always surprised when I see issues like abortion and marriage take the forefront of debate when they have very little to do with government at all.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I think I came across wrong. I'm not suggesting that statistically the majority of degree-holding people doubts anthropogenic global warming. I was just suggesting that Foust may have had a point when he named political ideology as a important factor. In my personal experience, one's location on a liberal/conservative political spectrum has been a much more accurate predictor of someone's view on global warming than religion or education.
What I meant by describing their views as "leaves a lot to be desired" is complex. I didn't mean it in the way that you stated it. It basically means that they think the science is not even close to right yet. In OSC's recent article for example, I have heard every single argument he made put forth by different people. I'm not interested in debating it, I'm simply weighing in on the OP by pointing out what I've heard from others, FWIW.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that on this subject there is such an abundance of misinformation. There are also very few people that do enough research to be able to seperate the good information from the bad. So when people are surrounded by tons of contradictary information, a lot of which appears credible, I think people take the path of least resistance. That means agreeing with the people that surround you or the groups with which you associate.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is another Left and Right issue that has been going on since the 60s. The Liberal Left has been screeming "death to the Earth" for so long that Conservatives (such as myself) simply don't believe any of it anymore. It doesn't matter how many scientists are behind the theory.
All of it sounds like we have been here before and it has gotten tired. In the 60s and 70s it was Nuclear Power and Gas Depletion. In the 80s it was the Rain Forests and Acid Rain. Now, for the past 10 year it is Global Warming. All of them have screamed the death of the earth in 10 to 20 years; and yet we are still here. Give it a rest already. I am not against changing some things to make it better, but don't give me more doom and gloom predictions. They sound trite.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason why it's political is, as far as I'm concerned, financial. Where does the most net gain lie- therein lies the political twist of do we spend money or save money. I believe everyone is concerned with the "climate change" sure enough, however, the idea of how the climate change is happening is disagreed upon. Even that disagreement, though, isn't really enough to make it as political as it is. What does make it political is finding out where the money goes and where the money comes from.
But... I get all my political knowledge from TV and comedians, so chances are someone who actually does research will post sometime after this to make a informative rebuttal explaining in 3 paragraphs and a link why, while I make a good point, my post is full of holes. When that happens, you should probably listen to them.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not care if the science is right... I would not give up driving my SUV if you could prove to me that Hong Kong was going to need to build dikes in five years.
Ok, so the science is irrelevant. This isn't quite the same thing as saying the science is wrong, though.
quote:I was just suggesting that Foust may have had a point when he named political ideology as a important factor. In my personal experience, one's location on a liberal/conservative political spectrum has been a much more accurate predictor of someone's view on global warming than religion or education.
Yeah, I do think it's a political correlation, not a religious one. I have no idea what connection religion could have to the issue of global warming, barring eschatological views.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is another Left and Right issue that has been going on since the 60s. The Liberal Left has been screeming "death to the Earth" for so long that Conservatives (such as myself) simply don't believe any of it anymore. It doesn't matter how many scientists are behind the theory.
Um... so it comes down to Conservatives hating the messanger? Boy, that bodes well.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
