Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Earth To Mars

I don't read Conservative blogs too often, frankly it's painful. However, I did happen to see Small Dead Braincells latest post, debunking the threat of global warming. What is with the disconnect between conservatism and climate change? Why is it always the wingers that ignore the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence and instead scour the margins to find anything that questions the reality? Why the hostility?

The logic seems to view science as villian. I find it amazing that one's view on global warming seems to be a partisan affair. Isn't scientific study a domain that operates outside of personal bias? Oh sure, you can always find a few dissenters for every theory, but the totality overwhelms individual arguments and the theory gels. Yet, any article, any paper, that questions global warming is seized upon by wingers to support their flimsy arguments.

Even if you dispute the science, what about your own perceptions? Global warming has moved beyond the hypothetical, unfortunately you can actually see it. Therefore, an anti-climate change apologist now has to be two things- anti-intellectual and patently blind. I suppose the rationalized out is the "natural cycles" theory, which provides convenient excuse for ignoring the obvious. Those glaciers will be back, you just wait and see.

Newsflash, the earth is round, the earth is round!


knb said...

What is with the disconnect between conservatism and climate change?

Frankly I don't think they understand it. When the level of debate is, "what's the big deal if it get's a bit warmer?", or "we can play golf longer", well, what can be said?

I'm fascinated though, who will they vote for? Mighty Harper says he believes it now, so I guess they are calling their beloved leader, stupid, gullible, a liar and all the other lovely terms they use for us.

JimBobby said...

Whooee! I figger we'll all get a good ol' laff watchin' the ConMen flip-flop. Wait'n'see. They'll be up on their hind legs spoutin' green like they believed all along. I seen in today's news ol' Dubya's even latchun' on an' he's worryin' 'bout polar bears. Yeow! That oughta be a Canajun worry.

When the Cons realize that glowball warmin' means billion-dollar opportunities fer their big bizness buddy boy bankrollers, they'll do an' about-face quicker'n Ol'Spot when he sees a skunk.


Anonymous said...

knb - haven't you heard? Apparently Harper's conservatives are now the sole occupant of the middle of the political spectrum (according to SDA posters). I guess they are just going to have to start another grassroots right wing party that opposes taxes, immigration, the poor and denies global warming.

Anonymous said...

Hate to be a cynic, but follow the money. Conservatives are funded by big oil (and big ass) in Alberta, and big oil (surprise) wants us to... wait for it... USE MORE OIL!

Robert said...

"An Inconveient Truth" draws the parallels between the cigarette cartel efforts to cast doubt on the medical community findings on the harmful affects of smoking, and big oil and ass' efforts on climate change.

Doug said...

"I don't read conservative blogs too often" - pity
I consider myself to be what is currently called a conservative in this country although I was born raised and educated in a liberal environment and believe I am still a liberal. What we call right wing in Canada now is pretty amusing to an old timer.
As to your comments about global warming / climate change
I completely agree that there are groups and individuals that seek to downplay or undermine the mainstream of scientific information that has been generated on the subject. Iain Murray in the SDA article has been accused of this by some before. However there are also groups and individuals that seek to exaggerate the severity and consequense of the same information and the article is about that reality.
"I find it amazing that one's view on global warming seems to be a partisan affair"
That the global warming debate has become a partisan affair is the problem and you and your echo chamber sound very partisan to me.
Perhaps you should try to expand your thinking about this subject a little more rather than pontificating to us poor benighted ignoramuses from your perch on mount knowitall. I suggest visiting
REALCLIMATE. You will find much that will agree with your current world view but you will also find that the science doesn't lend itself to easy answers on what exactly if anything we could/should do about it. Start with the article "Just what is this consensus anyway"
I also suggest reading the Skeptical Environmentalist just for some context on the whole environmental picture.

syncro said...


I could not have said it better.

With all due respect to the owner of this site......I linked here via SDA.

Hell I even go see what McLelland has to say.

The fatal assumption that many on the left make is that all us wingnuts are uneducated dolts.

Do so at your own risk.

The reason that Kate has the highest readership in Canada is all about the quality of the links.

Very light on opinion and heavy on facts. But I suppose that's the very thing that throws ya off.

The unvarnished truth is sometimes hard to take. And those of you who think "big oil" or "big ass", as Jackass is fond of calling them, had better follow the carbon credit trading scam.


Check out Mo Strong, Powercorp and Koffi.


Steve V said...

"Perhaps you should try to expand your thinking about this subject a little more rather than pontificating to us poor benighted ignoramuses from your perch on mount knowitall."

Expand my thinking? Maybe you should acknowledge the mountains of evidence, instead of grasping at any rogue commentary that fits nicely into your denial. No one is pontificating, but frankly the doubters look more and more like some wigged out cult.

Anonymous said...

Oh Syncro - I am sure you meant to say very light on the facts and very heavy on opinion.

I have an alternate view on why SDA has such high traffic. Most of us can feel comfortable sharing our political views with our neighbors, friends and families because most people are open to the free exchange of ideas without resorting name calling and vilifying anyone who does not agree with them. Further, most people do not respect views that are biggoted and full of hatred. That is why so many bigots have found a haven at SDA, because I do not imagine those views are appreciated in most public forums. There is only one place for them to go, and that is why that one place is so busy. The rest of us have any number of public forums where we feel comfortable expressing our views.

Now, to go back to your assessment of fact v. opinion; I recall a few months ago Kate posting about a cemetary in England that chose to allign all their graves to face east, because that was the direction most requested, and they wanted to have a unified appearance. A whopping 6 people in England posted about how that was wrong, yet the SDA posters, without knowing anything more about this story than what I stated above, decided this was part of a conspiracy of Islam fundamentalists to take over the world. You may call that fact, but for most of us that is pure, hysterical, hateful opinion.

knb said...

Doug, reading conservative blogs and other sources is one thing. Reading Harper supporter blogs is quite another. I wish there were more Tory blogs out there, speaking to conservative concerns in a logical manner. Social Conservatives however, who's raison d'etre, is to paint any progressive in this country in the most negative terms, holds no interest for me.

Like Steve, I'll wander over there once in a while and all I see is loathing, denying reality, bigotry, (not all of them mind you), but as to the "so called" most wide read, anon@5:47 has it right. Many opinions there are unsupported and founded in fear.

Leave partisan politics out of it, we are experiencing climate change, polar bears are in trouble and even the US has declared them endangered. What the heck are we quibbling about?

If we spend our time disputing cause, aren't we wasting time to fix it? If x+y=z, and z is bad for the planet, then let's work on changing the equation. Let's fix it.

Steve V said...

I'm sorry if I sound condescending, normally I respect opposing views. I just find it staggering that people are still wasting energy on the "debate", when clearly we should be on "solutions". We don't have time for the stubborn who rail against a simple reality. The irony, you don't have to be very intelligent and/or perceptive to see what is happening. Debate, while Rome burns.

The tobacco analogy is bang on in this instance.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps if the wingnuts wanted to be more respected they should elevate their blogs.

I can't believe some of the garbage in the neo-con blogosphere.

You know why they don't believe in global warming - because their great white leader said so. You know, that big bully in Ottawa.

Steve V said...

"You know why they don't believe in global warming - because their great white leader said so. You know, that big bully in Ottawa."

What is really sad, even "the leader" recently acknowledged a "serious problem". You know your fu$%ed when you're behind the Harper curve.

Anonymous said...

There is precisely zero chance of me wasting any more time than I already have reading or listening to the conservative movement *in it's current incarnation*.

They've been fatally poisoned by the RNC and don't know it.

If they seek treatment and recover there's a chance I'll listen again but not under the present circumstances.

Doug said...

What happened to my second post sent about 15 minutes ago?
Did I screw up or was it blocked for some reason?

Olaf said...

Damn conservatives - they really grind my gears. Lost causes, the lot of 'em.

Worst thing is, they always blindly follow whatever Kate says from upon her lofty right wing pedestal.