Right-wingers who think global warming is a lefty plot

[Mon Mauler]

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

Yes, it could. See my last previous post, where I think I addressed this question in regards to anthropogenic global warming skeptics.

Remember, my post about a person's motivation included three general reasons (which are usually intertwined, as I think my posts indicate): Money, Power, Self-Worth.

I did not ssay that it was specific to either side of the argument.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I've studied in agroenvironment (I seem to have said that a lot lately), and I have been swarmed with debates and info about global warming to the point where I'm fricking fed up with the subject. As a graduate student who wanted funding in the field of agroenvironment, there just HAD TO BE a sentence about global warming in my subsidy request for the public employee who was going to read it, otherwise I had no chance. It`s ridiculous, I`ve seen the most ridiculously unrelated projects being funded with a global warming sentence included in the forms. It's laughable sometimes, we even joked about that. Personally, I think global warming is important, but is gathering a portion of the public's perception of environmental challenges that is WAY TOO LARGE.

Whether you believe or not in global warming, its causes, or its consequences, one fact remains though... Believing in global warming makes people save energy, have better farming practices, have better forestry practices, have better consumption habits. So to me, the argument of whether or not it's true is pointless. Just go with it, the only things that happen after that are positive in the long run.

 

[Captain Planet]

Saving the environment is a leftist plot because it inevitably leads to a socially left world. Pollution, crime, and poverty must then be a rightist plot.

The argument really lies in the how the right has managed to make the environment and economy oppose each other.

 

[Rub'Rum]

The argument really lies in the how the right has managed to make the environment and economy oppose each other.

This is at the core of the problem for me. Absolutely. Economy and environment can't exclude each others, but we're trying really hard to, in some awesomely counter-productive manner.

 

[Bill3000]

Who here fits your OP profile?

Merkinball has explicitly told me that he thinks that global warming is a conspiracy by liberals to raise taxes.

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.

THat is the most convulted explanation that I have ever seen. Science just doesn't work that way. Scientists are more likely to criticize other scientists' work than merely agree with it - it's what makes them successful scientists. You're implying here that there is no real peer review whatsoever. And that it's not in the interest of an individual scientist to criticize other scientists' work. That's absurd and patently false. Scientists are the first to criticize other scientists work!

Compare this to the legal requirement for companies to act to increase their profits, the many, many historical examples of companies misleading public in order to serve their interests - tobacco is the classic example, and your convulted explanation goes right out the window.

 

[Death_Machine]

What do you think is our motivation is for making this phenomenon up?

I don't think you're making it up. I think you're wrong about man causing it. The planet has been in Ice Ages before & heated up after..........looooong before any of the things y'all say we are doing existed. If it's getting hotter it is because the sun is burning hotter.

I think that y'all who believe man is causing it are simply being useful idiots by those who wish more government regulation & influence.

 

[Captain Planet]

I don't think you're making it up. I think you're wrong about man causing it. The planet has been in Ice Ages before & heated up after..........looooong before any of the things y'all say we are doing existed. If it's getting hotter it is because the sun is burning hotter.

I think that y'all who believe man is causing it are simply being useful idiots by those who wish more government regulation & influence.

Okay, but we are also talking about the health consequences of polluting. Surely and unfortunately you know someone who has died recently of a cancer as a result of the environment?

 

[Rub'Rum]

I don't think you're making it up. I think you're wrong about man causing it. The planet has been in Ice Ages before & heated up after..........looooong before any of the things y'all say we are doing existed. If it's getting hotter it is because the sun is burning hotter.

I think that y'all who believe man is causing it are simply being useful idiots by those who wish more government regulation & influence.

Whether you believe or not in global warming, its causes, or its consequences, one fact remains though... Believing in global warming makes people save energy, have better farming practices, have better forestry practices, have better consumption habits. So to me, the argument of whether or not it's true is pointless. Just go with it, the only things that happen after that are positive in the long run.

Like I said, I wish someone told me what the point of refuting global warming is, in the first place, when accepting it (true or not) only makes people behave better for the future ahead of us.

 

[Captain Planet]

Yeah, my uncle is dying of lung cancer right now. I don't think he really gives a . .. .. .. . if man causes the earth to heat up or not, but I do think he believes we should probably do something about the pollution he breathed in over 53 years that is causing him to die in 7 months.

 

[Death_Machine]

Okay, but we are also talking about the health consequences of polluting. Surely and unfortunately you know someone who has died recently of a cancer as a result of the environment?

No, I don't know anybody like that & Global Warming is about the planet getting hotter & having dramatic weather shifts. Don't confuse the issue.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I beginning to like this guy.

It's a simple question, Big. If it were made of ribs, would you eat it?

 

[Captain Planet]

No, I don't know anybody like that & Global Warming is about the planet getting hotter & having dramatic weather shifts. Don't confuse the issue.

I think were more concerned about people dying from pollution right now then from being scorched by the sun or being killed in a hurricane, Death Machine. At least, I think it kills more people regardless of whether you want to divide the concerns.

 

[Bill3000]

I think that y'all who believe man is causing it are simply being useful idiots by those who wish more government regulation & influence.

Why the hell would environmentalists want government regulation on something that's not real?

 

[El_Machinae]

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 sudden the vast majority of scientistc around the world decided to become pinko left wing whingers? What is their motivation?

Remember that many AGW deniers are from cultures which fought the idea of evolution for generations. They have a cultural history of feeling like science is not only wrong, but corrupting. A lot of that meme has spread to others, and so it's drawn upon when dealing with AGW.

I mean, ferchrissakes, we've been able to determine how some types of sound travel further in the oceans, due to the increased acidity from CO2 pollution. The level of knowledge regarding CO2 pollution is astounding. And it's had measurable effects outside of heat-retention.

 

[Death_Machine]

I think were more concerned about people dying from pollution right now then from being scorched by the sun or being killed in a hurricane, Death Machine. At least, I think it kills more people regardless of whether you want to divide the concerns.

I guess I'm just one of those rare people who doesn't worry about dying via any of those things. In fact, if I had to worry about a way to die I would say that it would be all old, not able to care for myself, & crapping in an adult diaper.

Why the hell would environmentalists want government regulation on something that's not real?

Dude, don't ask me to tell you why an environmentalist wants anything. I want clean air, water, and all that......... does that make me an environmentalist or do I have to go make a cause out of everything?

 

[Rub'Rum]

Dude, don't ask me to tell you why an environmentalist wants anything. I want clean air, water, and all that......... does that make me an environmentalist or do I have to go make a cause out of everything?

It kind of does. And people believing they can do something to stop global warming are directly and indirectly helping in providing you with clean water and air, whereas a lot of deniers aren't.

 

[Death_Machine]

It kind of does. And people believing they can do something to stop global warming are directly and indirectly helping in providing you with clean water and air, whereas a lot of deniers aren't.

Good, that means I'm an environmentalist who doesn't believe in man made global warming.

 

[Mon Mauler]

Merkinball has explicitly told me that he thinks that global warming is a conspiracy by liberals to raise taxes.


THat is the most convulted explanation that I have ever seen. Science just doesn't work that way. Scientists are more likely to criticize other scientists' work than merely agree with it - it's what makes them successful scientists. You're implying here that there is no real peer review whatsoever. And that it's not in the interest of an individual scientist to criticize other scientists' work. That's absurd and patently false. Scientists are the first to criticize other scientists work!

Science shouldn't work that way, and I agree that in most cases it does not. However, in this case, that's exactly how it is working.

Perhaps you are not reading the thread.

As I stated before, once the idea of anthropogenic global warming was adopted by the left and pushed because the purported solutions fall in-line with leftist ideals, the integrity of the scientific process in regards to this question was corrupted, probably irreversibly so.

Once leftist universities, politicians and "benefactors" figured out they could use the idea of anthropogenic global warming to increase taxes, increase regulation, increase the size the of government and attack corporations, it started to become in the scientists self-interest to go along with it. These donors and contributors are basically giving money away.

I think this point is supported by the comments made by SimonL as well as reason and logic.

Please read the thread and try not to take a single post as the entirety of my argument on the point.

Compare this to the legal requirement for companies to act to increase their profits, the many, many historical examples of companies misleading public in order to serve their interests - tobacco is the classic example, and your convulted explanation goes right out the window.

I don't think it's a legal requirement for companies to act to increase their profits. I probably would've heard about it in law school or the years since, especially considering I practice in corporate law. They do have non-profits, you know (and some non-profits even act as such).

In regards to tobacco: corporations are capable of misleading the public in order to serve their interests, but individuals are not? Scientists are not? Politicians are not? Academes are not?

To use your words:

THat is the most convulted explanation that I have ever seen.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Good, that means I'm an environmentalist who doesn't believe in man made global warming.

My point, again, is that there is no point in not believing in it. Even if it turned up to be a giant scam, what would be the consequences?

"Oh no we learned to use our energy in better ways! We reduced agricultural pollution and now make intelligent and diverse tree plantations instead of monocultures!"

OH NOES!

 

[Bill3000]

Dude, don't ask me to tell you why an environmentalist wants anything. I want clean air, water, and all that......... does that make me an environmentalist or do I have to go make a cause out of everything?

In the eyes of a conservative or libertarian, yeah, it does. Clean air and water requires regulations.