On the federal scene, Harper uses political correct language now, but we should all remain suspicious. As well, Harper seems to have a penchant for appointing deniers to the Senate, just a random coincidence I'm sure, for a media that refuses to challenge beyond appeasing language. Move to the "grassroots" and you see deniers everywhere, if you challenge global warming, massive odds are come from the right of the spectrum, ditto down south, the correlation is incredibly strong and persistent. Why? Why would a particular perspective on science line up so neatly with political expression?
The right wing tends to support the idea of natural resource exploitation, whereas the traditional left tends to highlight environmental concerns. Part of the denier bent is tied to economic outlook, a natural resistance to anything presented which could curtail free activity. Somehow science has become a partisan consideration, rather than evidence based perspectives, apparently everyone has an angle they are trying to shove down our throats. Never mind that 98% of climate scientists see NO DEBATE, there is a heated debate, sound arguments irrelevant, all that is needed is incoherent counters, providing a warm cocoon for like-minded people.
In many respects the global warming debate has moved from physical science to human psychology, within that discussion at least something constructive. The real debate centers around the right wing and their hostility to objective science, as though a conspiracy created by enemy forces. That's the mentality, this bizarre paranoia that some untrustworthy entity is trying to trick the populous, as part of a deeper philosophical threat. Read the right wing blogs, read the commentary, listen to the code language, it's a freakish reality out there, almost chilling in its reaffirming bubble of denial, there is NOTHING you can present to dissuade, NOTHING. Wingers love to mock the global warming "religion", but really that is projection, their rigidity in the face of scientific retort offers an almost fanatical belief, incapable of incorporating new information, steadfast and stubborn.
Borrowing a John Stuart Mill quote, "conservatives are not necessarily deniers, but most deniers are conservatives". You could also use the real JSM quote, but then you consider that incredibly intelligent people like Flanagan have also joined the cause, and you are left with such a head scratching reality, you realize there is a deeper bias than simple ignorance. Danielle Smith's disarming smile doesn't distract from a dangerous reality, people ascending to positions of power with no grounding in the reality based community, should concern us all. That the global warming debate seems to have fragmented along partisan lines is an alarming development, because now science is just another human actor, it's relevance outside of personal slant in question, an amazing devolution.
Strange days indeed.
23 comments:
Money, money, money.
Acceptance of the fact that man made climate change is a reality means accepting curbs on development of the tarsands. That means less money for the vested interests, be they oil barons, oilfield workers or third-party businesses and service industry workers.
For these people, money trumps any sense of social responsibility. Grab whatever makes us more money and damn the consequences. Future generations can figure out how to deal with the mess we're leaving behind.
Whether it's tailings ponds, contaminated waterways or nuclear waste dumps, we're saddling our grandchildren and their grandchildren with a deadly burden.
It's ethical, right?
"money trumps any sense of social responsibility."
I find modern expressions of conservatism to be selfish, devoid of any concern besides immediate self interest.
Isn't Harper going to Switzerland for the Oil Barons, among other things.Why can't he stay here and try to find peace with the natives, FIRST!
I guess Flanagan is on the outs with Harper?
Does this mean Flanagan will be too busy to spread his ideology on the CBC? I hope so.
Probably, but that might mean more Joan Crockett ;)
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
—John Kenneth Galbraith
Perfect.
"The real debate centers around the right wing and their hostility to objective science, as though a conspiracy created by enemy forces."
The same phenomenon can be observed south of the border with the "evolution theory vs. creationism" bullshit.
One is an established theory, developed over centuries, that's as proven and scientifically accepted as gravitational theory (gravity is still just a theory). The other is a bunch of supernatural hokus-pokus as credible scientifically as alchemy ...wait, I take that back, that's a cheap shot at alchemy.
But to the lunatic fringe, no matter what evidence of evolution, you provide, or for that matter evidence that shows the Earth has been around longer than 6000 years (A LOT LONGER) nothing will ever be good enough. All this "evidence" is all a just a plot perpetrated by the satanic, commie, liberal, Islamo-fascist, homosexual-mafia, Illuminati.
Once you begin to deny overwhelming scientific data, there is no point in "debating" anymore. Either the deniers are complete idiots, or they are resisting the science because it breaks apart their personal worldview. Regardless, any debate with them has nothing to do with science anymore.
The climate science deniers are no different. They cling to their worldview because:
a) it ultimately challenges the foundations of a globalized neo-liberal economy,
and more locally;
b) a shift from fossil fuels will devalue the sludge they mine in northern Alberta.
Simple as that.
It's so bizarre you have morons like Levant chastizing Suzuki's scientific background, when he has ZERO himself. Live in a dreamworld.
Great point. Dr. Suzuki got his PhD from the University of Chicago in 1961 studying fruit-fly genetics (fun fact, there is a gene 'sort-of' named after him, the DTS-gene)
Ezra has no scientific background what-so-ever (and I'm scratching my head how he managed to get a law degree).
So if Dr Suzuki's background is not adequate, then Ezra's got fuck-all for validity and should shut his fat face.
You have all these people who don't know jack squat about the science challenging the scientists like they're peers. Yep, 98% of scientists have it wrong, but SDA Kate has it ALL figured out. Like I've said before, this is a PhD psychology thesis just waiting for an author. I've given up discussing years ago, you CAN'T PENETRATE a closed mind.
Most of the "proof" the deniers present is ad hominem attacks on the Suzuki's lifestyle (or Al Gore's in the States). The general meme is you are just trying to con people if you do not live in grass hut with no technology.
This is like demanding someone stop driving any car if they advocate for cars to be equipped with air bags and antilock brakes.
It's always about the money though. Look at the Keystone and Northern Gateway pipelines. Keystone wants to spend 7 billion dollars to build thousands of km of pipe, but didn't want to add another hundred miles and an additional pumping station. They stonewalled to save a few bucks (and a bunch of jobs of course) expecting their friends in government to bludgeon their way. Similarly, a lot of the objections to Northern Gateway would disappear if they went the extra distance to Prince Rupert which is practically on the open ocean. Even Captain Schettino could avoid cracking up a tanker from there.
Most of the "proof" the deniers present is ad hominem attacks on the Suzuki's lifestyle (or Al Gore's in the
States). The general meme is you are just trying to con people if you do not live in grass hut with no technology.
This is like demanding someone stop driving any car if they advocate for cars to be equipped with air bags and
antilock brakes.
It's always about the money though. Look at the Keystone and Northern Gateway pipelines. Keystone wants to spend 7
billion dollars to build thousands of km of pipe, but didn't want to add another hundred miles and an additional
pumping station. They stonewalled to save a few bucks (and a bunch of jobs of course) expecting their friends in
government to bludgeon their way. Similarly, a lot of the objections to Northern Gateway would disappear if they
went the extra distance to Prince Rupert which is practically on the open ocean. Even Captain Schettino could avoid
cracking up a tanker from there.
You have all these people who don't know jack squat about the science challenging the scientists like they're peers. Yep, 98% of scientists have it wrong, but SDA Kate has it ALL figured out.
Kate's not corrupted by the education system or "big green." ;)
Most of the "proof" the deniers present is ad hominem attacks on the Suzuki's lifestyle (or Al Gore's in the States).
If you can't attack the data, attack the person who's generating the data.
One of the biggest factors which drove me further and further away from the political right in this country is this increasing anti-intellectualism that has not only become accepted but considered a badge of honour and that science is something to view with inherent distrust as a partisan construct instead of what it truly is. As I have pointed out many times in the past I am not a simple one element political thinker/person, I am a mix of traditional conservativism, liberalism, and other political doctrines/theories. I tend to be a pragmatist in that i care more about what works and how well it prevents abuse of it down the road than I am from what part of the political spectrum it originates.
This increased anti-science nature of the modern NA conservative movement will do more to destroy the future economies of both the US and Canada than anything else, far more than the costs of dealing with global warming ever could possibly do. That these so called defenders of the economy utterly fail to understand the inherent conflict between a modern technologically driven economy, especially one that is consumer driven at heart and the need for continual discovery of new technologies and uses of of what already exists and this anti-science mentality underscores not just how dangerous they are from a partisan POV but from any POV that has a connection to reality regardless of where on a political spectrum one sits if one even does to begin with.
The modern conservative movement expelled me long before they wiped out the progressive formally from their name because of this insanity. I watched it progress since the mid 70s in the USA and slowly over the next few decades watched it manage to slither its way into our federal scene, first through unwitting middlemen like Preston Manning and his Reform party and then with the knowing connivance of Harper et al first in Reform, then running the NCC, and then with his return to the political scene and his eventual takeovers of first Reform/CA and the hostile takeover of the PCPC with the aid of traitor MacKay and the creation of the perversion that is the CPC claiming the legacy of Toryism for gaining votes while in reality holding it all in contempt and doing all they can to besmirch and destroy its honourable past in this country's history.
This *WAS* after all, one of the core reasons why I spent the prior decade warning about the need to stop Harper and the rise of his brand of "conservativism" before all else for the good of us all regardless of political persuasion. That what he would bring with him would be damage that may not only be uncrecoverable from but could even be sufficient to destroy this nation as a viable long term entity, and not just on the Quebecois front either.
So, we are all agreed. The answer to Steve's quite interesting, although somewhat loaded, questions is that conservative supporters are all stupid or greedy or both. You all deserve some r & r after the mental energy you expended to come up with that fresh insight. Is this part of the renewal effort?
So, we are all agreed. The answer to Steve's quite interesting, although somewhat loaded, questions is that conservative supporters are all stupid or greedy or both.
I don't think they're stupid. It takes a lot of mental energy to argue their points. I think part of this comes down to tribalism (this is what my group believes in). There are probable subjects that people who are on the left-side of the political spectrum have sacred cows of their own that they'd defend to ridiculous extremes.
Still, during Mulroney's time in office, the Progressive Conservatives didn't deny climate change. Back in 1992 Canada was one of the first governments to ratify the UN climate change agreement.
The problem with Canadian Conservatives is the toxic influence of American politics on the Canadian scene.
Peter
I do appreciate good sarcasm, let me know when you can come up with some.
There is denialism on all sides. Science denialism seems to be a right wing phenomenon (climate change, evolution etc). The loony left have their '9/11 was an inside job' types of denialists.
The rejection of intellectualism really bugs me, no matter where it comes from. It really bothers me when it is about the future of the planet.
"The loony left have their '9/11 was an inside job' types of denialists."
Really? Jesse Ventura is part of the looney left? I'd say that delusion clearly cuts across party lines.
Well, I work at a University, so perhaps I run in to more loony left than right here, could be a matter of perspective.....
Conspiracy theorists drive me wild, the 9/11 stuff is just maddening.
Me too, as you can see in this talk I gave at a social media conference in June: http://davebrodbeck.com/blog/2011/7/23/your-story-deserves-no-attention-whatsoever-the-video-1.html
Post a Comment