Why are most climate change deniers right wingers?
Alain Quay
Posts: 534
It's strange how many who pride themselves on being rational and intelligent
can latch onto minority, difficult to substantiate notions of so called science
to justify a view that climate is not being seriously affected by human behaviour.
I guess it is because they are by nature people who place more
importance on money, possessions and what they bring and they don't want to give them up, or be told how to live their life by the government. But still,
why can't they be brave enough to accept what the overwehelming majority
of credible scientists are telling us?
can latch onto minority, difficult to substantiate notions of so called science
to justify a view that climate is not being seriously affected by human behaviour.
I guess it is because they are by nature people who place more
importance on money, possessions and what they bring and they don't want to give them up, or be told how to live their life by the government. But still,
why can't they be brave enough to accept what the overwehelming majority
of credible scientists are telling us?
0
Comments
-
Okay, I'll bite.
I consider myself to be educated and informed but I do not consider humans to be the major contributor to climate change :shock:
Why? Simply put, there has been climate change since way before we were here and I find it to be an extreme form of arrogance to assume that we are in charge. This planet has always been in a state of flux and always will be.
Now, if the question was about waste and pollution then that would be a completely different proposition. We are 99.999% to blame. Random figures
Let the battle commence
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Hold on folks, I think someone typed the wrong URL. Try moving this thread to http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree0
-
Alain Quay wrote:It's strange how many who pride themselves on being rational and intelligent
can latch onto minority, difficult to substantiate notions of so called science
to justify a view that climate is not being seriously affected by human behaviour.
I guess it is because they are by nature people who place more
importance on money, possessions and what they bring and they don't want to give them up, or be told how to live their life by the government. But still,
why can't they be brave enough to accept what the overwehelming majority
of credible scientists are telling us?
Because they've looked at the evidence available to them and come to a different conclusion.
I think the question can also be turned around to "Why are the most enthusiastic proponents of Climate Change normally left wing?" And I believe the answer to be because the methods proposed to combat it IE Taxing people who behave in a way you don't like, collectivist policies etc are dog whistles to traditional left wing thought. Likewise, a lot of thoroghly discreditied old lefties have found new political life through throwing their lot in with the Greens, witness the former Socialist Workers Party member and 9/11 "truther" running for them in Bristol a couple of years back."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Because they're normally the ones that are talking sense.
Seriously though, if mother nature has an off day or whatever and erupts a volcano, it puts the co2 output of the human race into second place for the year. Same sort of thing for methane, the output from mankind, is dwarfed by the amount of methane put out from all the swamps and areas of natural decay.
I'm old enough to remember the 1980's and the warnings of the scientific community at the time about the world being on the edge and about to plunge into the next ice age.
In my view it's all about money and how those in power can either tax us or create revenue for big business by whatever means they can come up with at the time.0 -
So let's get this one straight - there are a load of genuine, massive environmental problems - soil degradation, deforestation, over-fishing, air and water pollution, acid rain, resources depletion etc, etc that the world faces.
Yet scientists decide that they need to invent a new problem, which diverts attention and funding from all of the others. Environmental groups also take part in this conspiracy, trying in vain to get people to cut their wasteful lifestyles, while many of the above problems get neglected.
I don't think that climate change deniers have thought this one through properly...0 -
By the way, I've also met left-wing climate change deniers and conservatives who accept that it is happening. It's not a clear cut left/right split by any means.0
-
The majority of people don't care. The planet will outlive mankind and replenish itself, its done it before many times.
All that matters is me getting a pair of 50mm carbon tubs for next season and it being a bit sunnier 0 -
its just an excuse for m&s to charge 5p for a carrier bag
the robbing bassads! :evil:'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
Alain Quay wrote:It's strange how many who pride themselves on being rational and intelligent
can latch onto minority, difficult to substantiate notions of so called science
to justify a view that climate is not being seriously affected by human behaviour.
I guess it is because they are by nature people who place more
importance on money, possessions and what they bring and they don't want to give them up, or be told how to live their life by the government. But still,
why can't they be brave enough to accept what the overwehelming majority
of credible scientists are telling us?
As far as I'm aware and like a few other posters have said there is still no incontrovertible proof we are the direct cause.
Another point is you can't even get an accurate 5 day forecast yet they try and tell us what the weather will be in 30 years time. I remember reading the often reprinted story that we'll be able to grow grapes in the south of England soon...as far back as the early nineties I think it first appeared and since then the summers have become wetter, more upredictable and even less suited to producing these fantastic grape harvests.0 -
There is no doubt that climate change is happening, but as others have said, natural events have way more impact than Human activity. Maybe the small human contibution is enough to put things out of balance though? Who knows... studies don't seem to look at this :?:
The problem is that we are way to late to reverse the effects. Even if the entire human race stopped producing CO2 tomorrow, the time delay in the affect it has on the planet means things will get worse for several years (i imagine) before things steadied off. And as half the world dosn't really seem bothered by the whole thing, nothing is going to change. In the UK, is is just another excuse to tax the public.
The Earth has always had cycles of Ice Ages and Heat Waves, maybe we are speeding the process up, but at the end of the day, it is very likely that there is nothing we can actually do about it!
I think the whole thing is being approached the wrong way. I agree that everyone is far too wasteful, and many products are produced in a 'throw away' culture. If focus was put into educating us how to create less waste, reduce un-necessary packaging & recycle etc, then this would be a greater benefit (IMO), and probably reduce CO2 by default. Just taxing us over it just pi**es people off, and creates a whole negative attitude towards the whole thing.0 -
I attended a seminar on "Global Warming" (wasn't called climate change then) in 1989. The Lecturer asked where I was from. I immediatley doffed my flat cap & replied "Doncaster Sir, in that Yorkshire", all polite & that. He then proceeded to tell the assembled throng that he could " absolutely guarantee" that Doncaster would be on the East coast of Britain in 80 years. Now, that's a prediction made 20 years ago. The icecaps melting have not brought the North Sea a quarter if the way in land as yet(20 miles)...my point is learned & educated folks are telling us we are all doomed in 80 years( for instance) & yet so far not much has happened. A bold headline grabbing statement makes the front pages on a Monday is wrapping fish & chips by Wednesday.
We can & are told all sorts of things that don't hold water but can barely rememeber them a week later. My lecturer friend believed what he was saying. At the time I'm sure various calculations & theories led him to his heartfelt assumption.
Sceptical ...yes, very.
If a butterfly lands on the turret of a tank. Is that tank now heavier? Absolutely it is. It's a fact. Like wise are us humans contributing to climate change? Absolutely but probably in the same way that the butterfly contributes to the tanks weight.
Mother Earth is a big old tank & we are Cabbage Whites!0 -
andy162 wrote:If a butterfly lands on the turret of a tank. Is that tank now heavier? Absolutely it is. It's a fact. Like wise are us humans contributing to climate change? Absolutely but probably in the same way that the butterfly contributes to the tanks weight.
I like that analogy
0 -
I think most of the denyers tend to be a little older, and they do say if you're young and not left wing you havn't got a heart, if you're mature and not right wing you havn't got a head.' From the sharks in the penthouse,
to the rats in the basement,
its not that far '0 -
Imagine you are driving down a road at high speed. There are walls either side of the road so you can't go off the road. The brakes of the car are such that you can't pull up in the distance ahead that you can see.
Now imagine that someone tells you that there is a wall blocking the road up ahead. They can't say so for sure but the scientific evidence points to there being a wall. What do you do?
a) Carry on, as before, flat out and hope that those who tell you that the wall is there are wrong knowing that if they are right, you are going to be splatted
b) Pull up and stop which is safe but doesn't get you any further
c) Slow down so that if there is a wall, you can stop in time.
Basically, that is how things are. There is an almost overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that it is man made. That doesn't mean it is - just that there is a consensus. On that basis we can either carry on as we are and hope that consensus is wrong or try and react and do something. Where the right wing is probably more prone to ignoring climate change is that the timescales are too long. A focus on personal gain is hard to rationalise against something that will stuff future generations up.
(Personally, I'd go with c). No point in grinding to an economic halt but we do need to accept that reacting to climate change has a price).Faster than a tent.......0 -
andy162 wrote:I attended a seminar on "Global Warming" (wasn't called climate change then) in 1989. The Lecturer asked where I was from. I immediatley doffed my flat cap & replied "Doncaster Sir, in that Yorkshire", all polite & that. He then proceeded to tell the assembled throng that he could " absolutely guarantee" that Doncaster would be on the East coast of Britain in 80 years. Now, that's a prediction made 20 years ago. The icecaps melting have not brought the North Sea a quarter if the way in land as yet(20 miles)...my point is learned & educated folks are telling us we are all doomed in 80 years( for instance) & yet so far not much has happened. A bold headline grabbing statement makes the front pages on a Monday is wrapping fish & chips by Wednesday.
We can & are told all sorts of things that don't hold water but can barely rememeber them a week later. My lecturer friend believed what he was saying. At the time I'm sure various calculations & theories led him to his heartfelt assumption.
Sceptical ...yes, very.
If a butterfly lands on the turret of a tank. Is that tank now heavier? Absolutely it is. It's a fact. Like wise are us humans contributing to climate change? Absolutely but probably in the same way that the butterfly contributes to the tanks weight.
Mother Earth is a big old tank & we are Cabbage Whites!
That kind of scare-mongering - the Earth is going to turn into a desert planet/snowball, blah, blah, blah is just the extreme end of climate change theory. Most studies have come to conclusions which are far more moderate than what your lecturer said.
In fact the IPCC have recently had to admit that they got their sea-level rise figures wrong - sea levels had risen MORE than they had predicted they would!
I try to stay open-minded and read books showing both sides of the story, but when you read how scientists have come to these conclusions - taking into consideration natural causes for climate change and man-made ones, their arguments make a lot more sense than those who argue that humans have virtually no effect on the climate.0 -
This is particularly juicy bait....
I'm struggling to refrain from biting!Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
Manufacturing bikes adds to CO2 emissions. It also makes cyclists eat more, thereby putting unnecessary pressure on food resources. Stop cycling and save the world!
I am not cycling around the world - please sponsor me and save the universe.0 -
verylonglegs wrote:Another point is you can't even get an accurate 5 day forecast yet they try and tell us what the weather will be in 30 years time.
This argument is brought up a lot, but it makes no sense. If you add milk to your coffee, I have no hope of telling you the temperature of a given point in your coffee in the next few seconds. However, after 45 seconds or so when the milk is evenly distributed I can tell you the temperature with very high accuracy at any point.
Generating a 5 day forecast is a totally different calculation to finding general weather conditions in 30 years. You can't compare apples and oranges and exclaim when you discover they are different.FCN: 8
"This is what hydrogen does given space and 13 billion years"0 -
deptfordmarmoset wrote:Manufacturing bikes adds to CO2 emissions. It also makes cyclists eat more, thereby putting unnecessary pressure on food resources. Stop cycling and save the world!
I am not cycling around the world - please sponsor me and save the universe.
True, but gets us out of cars and away from TVs/computers (I say hypocritically)0 -
..I can't yet see an opening in this thread for NapD to crush us with his enormous display of quad power..but I'm sure he's watching, and waiting his opportunity...unless Manchester Airport is in the North S :twisted: ea already..0
-
If the North Sea ever gets anywhere near Manchester then we're in real trouble0
-
In the US, two aspects of this issue seem to get confused. There is no doubt that the planet will be fine in the end; humans will not destroy it. What we can, and apparently will, do is contribute at an unacceptable level to the inability of humans to live here. One has to be fairly determined to avoid the facts not to realize that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing far faster than it ever has in human history, and that this will have dramatically negative consequences. Yes, cows fart and this releases methane. Yes, volcanos erupt and gases are released in the process. But none of these things explain the unprecedented change in the atmosphere. The only thing that does is the effect of human behavior. And just because the future is difficult to predict with precision does not mean that these facts are wrong. The effects will be bad. Very bad. Isn't that enough to know?0
-
bompington wrote:If the North Sea ever gets anywhere near Manchester then we're in real trouble
Yeah, the Mancunians normally get a little frisky when they get near the seaside. Cycling weakly0 -
Just to be devil's advocate -
"One has to be fairly determined to avoid the facts not to realize that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing far faster than it ever has in human history"
Just what was the CO2 level 3000, 3,000,000 or 30,000,000 years ago? On a planet scale human history is only a tiny part. What was the planet's temperature at those times?
"Yes, cows fart and this releases methane. Yes, volcanos erupt and gases are released in the process. But none of these things explain the unprecedented change in the atmosphere. The only thing that does is the effect of human behavior."
Why are humans the only ones to blame? Surely a bloody great big volcano must have some effect? I think you will find that the ice age is a bit of a precedent for climate change
"The effects will be bad. Very bad. Isn't that enough to know?"
We all know that. The question is can we do anything about it?
I used the bike to commute today instead of the car will that affect anything?
In a negligable way, yes. But still negligable. I still think it is the ultimate level of arrogance to assume that we are in charge.
And for the question about the car and the wall. What if instead of a wall it is a tsunami heading your way?
The speed of the car won't make any difference, it's going to get flooded anyway.
Oh, and if we are concerned about the enviroment, why are you burning fuel in a speeding car?
My biggest bugbear is that our government appear to think that if I pay more taxes then the climate change will magically go away.
Just how the **** is that going to work??? :evil:None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Climate change my arse! Get a job ya fuc@ing hippies :!:0
-
You don't have to be right-wing to be sceptical about climate change or a govt over-reaction in the form of 'green' taxes and regulation. I don't consider myself to be right-wing, but can see the clear and present danger to our freedom that such a response implies.0
-
OK, so let's assume that humans aren't responsible for climate change - why are the vast majority of climate scientists fooled? With the vast amounts of money at the disposal of oil and car companies, how come the theory hasn't been refuted? After all, the scientists who deny that humans are mainly responsible for climate change have access to far larger grants than those funded by government bodies or environmental groups, so any researcher doing things purely for the money would side with Esso, not Greenpeace.
And how come scientists that do not participate in climate change research - let's say Stephen Hawking, for example - are willing to risk their reputation on a non-issue such as this?
Do people think that researchers into the subject haven't actually looked into the history of the Earth's climate? That they've missed some blindingly obvious point that the posters on this forum have all realised?
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, this issue diverts money and resources away from other very important, pressing environmental problems, and those responsible for allocating public research money would be pouring money into something of very little importance while other branches of science are screaming out for funding.
For all of those people to have got it so badly wrong after so much work has gone into it would be very, very unlikely.0 -
"OK, so let's assume that humans aren't responsible for climate change - why are the vast majority of climate scientists fooled"
They arn't but there is a political AGW bandwagon that is very lucrative to jump on, as well as the naysayers being villified.
"With the vast amounts of money at the disposal of oil and car companies, how come the theory hasn't been refuted?"
How do you prove a negative?0 -
They're going to have to start working on an effective and efficient ways to adapt bicycles to cycling on water, with no different in the amount of power needed to keep a certain speed on tarmac, see I think in about 40-50 years round here will be underwater and I don't want to give up cycling, and tbh, the dales and moors will be too crowded.
I was at the YWT and one of the guys in charge was telling me about the area south of hull, where scunthorpe is and all that, and around hull, and he was telling me that they have to think of land to sacrifice so they can keep hull above the water.0 -
That is more a question about how we in the UK fund our sea defences than it is about AGW. I don't notice the Dutch abandoning valuable agricultural land to the sea.0
