Right-wingers who think global warming is a lefty plot

[Mon Mauler]

Ahhh, God forbid you have to work together with anyone.

You seem to have some quaint idea that the state of humanity doesn't effect you & that everyone working disconnectedly is more efficient & effective than people actually joining forces for a worthy cause.

Imagine if your body's cells had that philosophy. "F*** the gallbladder" says the liver, "I want more oxygen rich blood for me. Teamwork, smeamwork.". You'd be dead within seconds.

That woudn't make sense for the body, its cells, the liver or the gallbladder. They all would die, as you point out.

I work with people everyday on very large, very expensive projects that benefit not only myself, but usually thousands of others as well.

I work with these people, and these people work with me, because we believe that we will each be enriched by our mutual cooperation. If I didn't think working with these people would benefit me, then I wouldn't work with them.

Fighting anthropogenic global warming is akin to tilting at windmills. It most certainly is not a worthy cause.

Worthy causes comprise self-interest. That's it.

Fighting a natural phenomenon that has been operating cyclically for millions of years, and is controlled by factors that we do not fully understand and cannot alter, is the epitome of pointlessness.

Yeah, and the moon "looks" like it's made of cheese.

We all know the moon isn't made of green cheese. But what if it were made of barbeque spare ribs? Would you eat it?

I know I would.

 

[Mon Mauler]

I doubt plot is the right word. Right-wingers (that I know) don't think it's a lie where its proponents are nefarious schemers. Instead they think it is a problem that has been blown out of proportion. As an analogy I don't think the Mormons who stop by my door are deceivers; I think they have been willfully deceived. Much the same way, it doesn't take much imagination to figure why someone would allow themselves to be deceived. You could just watch any eco-horror movie out there, like The Day After Tomorrow. People have an innate desire to be part of a story greater than they are, to meet an impossible challenge and overcome it. We want to be the voice of reason pleading from the wilderness, the justified yet crucified savior of mankind.

The proper question would be why are right-wingers immune to this malady. I propose the Christians already feel they are a part of a grander story and the rest love their money so much to be skeptical of anything that would take it. (bold emphasis added)

The bolded section echoes many of my feelings on the topic.

It smacks of arrogance.

 

[bhsup]

For what it's worth, I reject any right wing accusations of global warming being a leftist plot. There is nothing sinister about a naturally occurring cyclical temperature change.

 

[MobBoss]

For what it's worth, I reject any right wing accusations of global warming being a leftist plot. There is nothing sinister about a naturally occurring cyclical temperature change.

Precisely. Well said.

 

[RedRalph]

For what it's worth, I reject any right wing accusations of global warming being a leftist plot. There is nothing sinister about a naturally occurring cyclical temperature change.

On what basis do you disagree with the vast majority of scientists?

thats the part I dont understand. How is it that all of a suddent the vast majoprity of scientistc around the world decided to become pinko left wing whingers? What is their motivation?

 

[Mon Mauler]

On what basis do you disagree with the vast majority of scientists?

thats the part I dont understand. How is it that all of a suddent the vast majoprity of scientistc around the world decided to become pinko left wing whingers? What is their motivation?

What's anyone's motivation, in general?

Money?

Power?

A feeling of self-worth?

 

[MobBoss]

On what basis do you disagree with the vast majority of scientists?

thats the part I dont understand. How is it that all of a suddent the vast majoprity of scientistc around the world decided to become pinko left wing whingers? What is their motivation?

Tribalism.

Lets face it...those guys, smart as they are, still function and perform in what is primarily quite a closed society. They can be just as guilty of the group mind-think as anyone simply because they are human.

Being a scientist doenst make you immune from human behavior, and coming out against ones peers to disagree (and then face possible exclusion) isnt exactly a preferable action in those type of groups.

 

[RedRalph]

What's anyone's motivation, in general?

Money?

Power?

A feeling of self-worth?

BEST. DODGE. EVER.

 

[RedRalph]

Tribalism.

Lets face it...those guys, smart as they are, still function and perform in what is primarily quite a closed society. They can be just as guilty of the group mind-think as anyone simply because they are human.

Being a scientist doenst make you immune from human behavior, and coming out against ones peers to disagree (and then face possible exclusion) isnt exactly a preferable action in those type of groups.

It happens aaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllll the time in the scientific community. Its an essential part of science in fact.

 

[jessiecat]

For what it's worth, I reject any right wing accusations of global warming being a leftist plot. There is nothing sinister about a naturally occurring cyclical temperature change.

So you're saying that all recent climatic events are merely part of "naturally occurring cyclical temperature changes" that are totally unnaffected by human actions like those which increase CO2 levels despite there being firm evidence for such a link? And your opinion is based on what?

 

[bhsup]

Is CO2 increasing because temperatures are increasing or the other way around? PROVE your accusation that this warming in earth's history is sooo different from all the others that have occured over the billions of years that the earth has existed that man MUST be responsible.

Have they taken EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE VARIABLE into account? No way they are missing anything? Perfect computer models with no margin for error? Or is this going to be yet another one of those things where in 20 years there will be a "well, we didn't have the capability we have now and we now realize that we were wrong back then"?

 

[MobBoss]

It happens aaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllll the time in the scientific community. Its an essential part of science in fact.

Again, RRW, the herd/group mentality can indeed exist in that community just like in any other. And it actually tends to be even more powerful in smaller peer oriented groups like that, because its easier to be excluded in a small group.

Look, you asked for possible explanations, and I tried to give you one here. If you dont want to dicuss it, and just thumb your nose at peoples suggestions why even start the thread?

 

[RedRalph]

Again, RRW, the herd/group mentality can indeed exist in that community just like in any other. And it actually tends to be even more powerful in smaller peer oriented groups like that, because its easier to be excluded in a small group.

Look, you asked for possible explanations, and I tried to give you one here. If you dont want to dicuss it, and just thumb your nose at peoples suggestions why even start the thread?

I'm not thumbing my nose just saying its not an explanation. you are stating that scientists are vulnerable to huiman behaviour in general but not giving any proposed motivation for nearly every one of them taking the standpoint they do

 

[Bigfoot3814]

We all know the moon isn't made of green cheese. But what if it were made of barbeque spare ribs? Would you eat it?

I know I would.

I beginning to like this guy.

 

[Mon Mauler]

BEST. DODGE. EVER.

Give me a break. I answered your question. Perhaps I need to spell it out:

Money: Scientists and academes are largely funded by grants and donations. Their livlihood depends on these grants and donations. It doesn't do much good for the climatologist or whomever to go and say, "I've studied global warming at length, and I've determined it is a naturally occurring phenomenon and we have no more need to study it. Please stop sending grant money."

Rather, for the scientist or academe, it is a lot easier for them to say they have analyzed the problem, determined it's us, and that if you give them more money they are confident they can pin down the exact causes and identify solutions.

Power: From my previous point: the scientist/s and politician/s that claim they have determined the problem and have a solution are given more sway in their respective communities. They are regarded with reverence by their peers.

Self-Worth: Also tying in with the previous point, an individual achieves a better feeling of himself if he is able to identify a potential solution that is accepted by his peers.

But it's more than just that. As other posters were saying, there is somewhat of a herd-mentality. It is easiest, and gives a feeling of contentment, acceptance, and, consequently, self-worth, to go along with the pack than it is to constantly fight against the grain. If an individual's work is constantly being assailed by his peers, no matter whether the work is correct or he believes it is correct, it does damage to an individual's psyche.

 

[RedRalph]

So the ones who disagree with the majority of science do so because they are more resolute individuals?

Look this is probably my fault, I left out the word 'plausible' when asking for possible motivations.

 

[Leonel]

Carbon credits are probably the most awesome scam I've ever seen! Wish I had thought of it earlier. Big companies are pressured into buying them by people concerned about global warming and a government pressured by said people and if any company questions the validity, they risk alienating a part of their market!

I mean the brilliance of the scam just boggles the mind! It not only exploits people that care about the earth, it also exploits corporations that rely on people that care about the earth as a market segment! It's like you get twice the money exploiting one or the other!

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not thumbing my nose just saying its not an explanation. you are stating that scientists are vulnerable to huiman behaviour in general but not giving any proposed motivation for nearly every one of them taking the standpoint they do

The motivation is those that may indeed disagree are in turn ostricized for their disagreement. Happens in pretty much all communities in which humans interact.

Case in point...what actually has indeed happened to the few scientists that have disagreed with the groupthink? They get called quacks or wackos, or worse and no one pays them the least attention anymore. The more that happens, the stronger the groupthink becomes.

 

[Kerozine]

Give me a break. I answered your question. Perhaps I need to spell it out:

Money: Scientists and academes are largely funded by grants and donations. Their livlihood depends on these grants and donations. It doesn't do much good for the climatologist or whomever to go and say, "I've studied global warming at length, and I've determined it is a naturally occurring phenomenon and we have no more need to study it. Please stop sending grant money."

Rather, for the scientist or academe, it is a lot easier for them to say they have analyzed the problem, determined it's us, and that if you give them more money they are confident they can pin down the exact causes and identify solutions.

Power: From my previous point: the scientist/s and politician/s that claim they have determined the problem and have a solution are given more sway in their respective communities. They are regarded with reverence by their peers.

Self-Worth: Also tying in with the previous point, an individual achieves a better feeling of himself if he is able to identify a potential solution that is accepted by his peers.

Couldn't the same be said for someone hoping to achieve the opposite? (i.e. disproving a previous theory)

 

[Mon Mauler]

So the ones who disagree with the majority of science do so because they are more resolute individuals?

Look this is probably my fault, I left out the word 'plausible' when asking for possible motivations.

I really don't think I'm being that ambiguous.

The motivations are the same on the other side:

Money: There's always money for the contrarian viewpoint, as well. A lot of people will lose a lot of money if strict regualtion of CO2 is codified into law. Firms that produce energy from carbon-based resources certainly don't want that to happen and will finance efforts to debunk.

Power: On this issue there isn't much power to be had in voicing the contrarian viewpoint other than that which will come after the contrarian viewpoint is proven correct.

Self-Worth: This would be your class of "more resolute individuals" and is the largest reason contrarians hold such opinions on the issue of global warming. They know they are right and they don't care what anybody else says. It gives them a greater feeling of self-worth to be correct than it does to be accepted at fancy university parties and luncheons.