Right-wingers who think global warming is a lefty plot

[Mon Mauler]

So, apparently the vast majority of scientists are "leftists", (a term which is infamously vague, and which you have failed to define) or under the control of "leftists"; and this grand conspiracy has forced "rightist" scientists out of practically every major scientific institution?

The thread title specifically referenced "right-wingers" and "lefty," which is why I used the term here. I assumed everyone knew what we were talking about. A lefty or leftist would be someone whose political views fall on the left side of the political spectrum. I didn't think it required definition from myself, seeing as I was not the one that initiated the use of the term. I believed I understood what the OP was referring to and used the term with that understanding, and my use of the term hasn't been challenged until you just did. Perhaps it is you with the disconnect?

And, again, please read the posts. I say explicitly that I do not think it is a leftist "plot", and I do not think there is some grand conspiracy.

Moreover, I am not certain that the majority of scientists are leftist. They may be, but they may not be. I don't know enough about the political beliefs of the scientific community to conjecture. I have consistently said that I believe scientists are corrupting their opinions on this topic in order to receive greater benefit, especially from leftist benefactors, who are the main source of funding into the examination of anthropogenic global warming.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Moreover, I am not certain that the majority of scientists are leftist. They may be, but they may not be. I don't know enough about the political beliefs of the scientific community to conjecture. I have consistently said that I believe scientists are corrupting their opinions on this topic in order to receive greater benefit, especially from leftist benefactors, who are the main source of funding into the examination of anthropogenic global warming.

In most cases, at least in Canada, the benefactor is the government. A government that the people chose and vote for. A government made of business-minded lawyers and MBAs that can apparently only take one environmental problem at a time or something. That environmental problem ends up being the flavour-of-the-day media buzz word.

 

[Bill3000]

The "Left-wingers"/"Right-wingers" stuff is . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Same as the "Red State"/Blue State" is.

Here is a map to give you a clue...

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/...osterAll50.gif

So many of you "Enlightened" "Left-Wingers" grasp onto these terms and think you are so much smarter than the general population. Here is a clue.

It turns people off. Same as the "Obama is a terrest" people turn us off.

Except a majority of right-wingers in the United States do deny evolution from happening. 23% of the US population are fundamentalists. Creationism goes further than that because of ignorance and the anti-intellectual culture of the United States in its common people.

This isn't true in intellectual circles, but the hostility to science going against one's ideology is still there.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

The "Left-wingers"/"Right-wingers" stuff is . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Same as the "Red State"/Blue State" is.

Here is a map to give you a clue...

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/PurpleAmericaPosterAll50.gif

So many of you "Enlightened" "Left-Wingers" grasp onto these terms and think you are so much smarter than the general population. Here is a clue.

It turns people off. Same as the "Obama is a terrest" people turn us off.

Get a clue yourself. I'm an independent. If you really wanted a fair map, you'd use one that scaled sizes by population, instead of allocating pixels by population density. Left/Right wing politics is not "......." in the US, because it as a political dimension explains over half the variation. (Can't remember the exact figure, haven't got a source handy right now. Will search.)

 

[Rub'Rum]

Left/Right wing politics is not "......." in the US, because it as a political dimension explains over half the variation. (Can't remember the exact figure, haven't got a source handy right now. Will search.)

I just got nightmares from my advanced statistics classes. If I wake up at night for the next two weeks, I blame you.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

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 your explanation begs the question: why are they doing that? Why are "leftist universities, politicians, and 'benefactors'" trying to increase taxes, increase regulation, and increase the size of the government? Do they want big government because they like big government? Do pages of the Code of Federal Regulations have some kind of aesthetic appeal to them?

Cleo

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Left/Right wing politics is not "......." in the US, because it as a political dimension explains over half the variation. (Can't remember the exact figure, haven't got a source handy right now. Will search.)

Still searching, figured I'd drop this in just to show that I wasn't making stuff up:

One interesting result Eysenck noted in his 1956 work was that in the United States and Great Britain, most of the political variance was subsumed by the left/right axis

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#cite_note-Eysenck-4

 

[Mon Mauler]

Given that you've hardly looked at the science, and that you're motivated by money (lower taxes, etc.), wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that you're more likely to be promoting bad science?

Very, very valid points. I'm glad you brought them up. Of course, these points generally apply pretty much across the boards concerning science here at CFC.

Of course, I would say that the scientists coming to the conclusions concerning anthropogenic global warming are also being motivated by money. Many, many people are motivated by money. It's a good thing to remember.

With that said, I have looked at the science a little bit. "Hardly looked at the science," as you characerize it is probably apt, especially in light of how much examination on the topic is done by actual scientists.

However, I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person, and with the information and data I've read about and seen, it seems to indicate that global warming is a naturally occurring phenomenon and that the activities of humans cannot and could not cause a precipitous change in the global climate short of something such as total nuclear exchange between a number of world powers.

From what I have read the climate of the planet seems to be affected by a variety of factors: the behavior of astral bodies such as the sun and other planets, ocean currents, the movement of the earth, winds, tectonic shifts, the natural release of gasses, plant life, animal life, and many other factors, of which human activity is only a very small part. To simplify, there seem to me to be too many factors for human activity to change anything. We are, collectively, just a drop of water in a very, very large ocean. And I think the data supports this.

After all, the planet has been cycling through warm and cool periods for millions of years.

The thought that we can change it smacks of hubris.

Obviously, you could be correct. A stopped clock is right twice a day. But on sheer likely-hood, who's more likely to be wrong, the guys who study a problem in detail or the guy who doesn't want to be taxed?

The simple fact that you admit that I could be correct is telling.

The cost is far too high to take action that would increase taxes on virtually every individual living in a developed nation, especially when you aren't really sure of the science, and especially when those monies could be put to much better use by private individuals in the way they deem best. If you want to go buy a Prius and cut down on your carbon footprint, it's all good. Just leave me alone to drive my big, expensive, flashy, gas-guzzling, Lexus SUV whenever I please...

 

[Erik Mesoy]

If you want to go buy a Prius and cut down on your carbon footprint, it's all good. Just leave me alone to drive my big, expensive, flashy, gas-guzzling, Lexus SUV whenever I please...

I will no more do so than I will leave you to keep swinging your fist once it makes contact with my nose. I want compensation for externalities.

 

[RomeoTheCat]

Get a clue yourself. I'm an independent. If you really wanted a fair map, you'd use one that scaled sizes by population, instead of allocating pixels by population density. Left/Right wing politics is not "......." in the US, because it as a political dimension explains over half the variation. (Can't remember the exact figure, haven't got a source handy right now. Will search.)

This is pointless.
I was trying to say that "Red State" and "Blue State" terms were lame.
I suppose I'm just too stupid to point that point here.
I'm just going to boycot political threads here from here on out.
I'm sure that will upset you.

 

[Kerozine]

However, I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person, and with the information and data I've read about and seen, it seems to indicate that global warming is a naturally occurring phenomenon and that the activities of humans cannot and could not cause a precipitous change in the global climate short of something such as total nuclear exchange between a number of world powers.

From what I have read the climate of the planet seems to be affected by a variety of factors: the behavior of astral bodies such as the sun and other planets, ocean currents, the movement of the earth, winds, tectonic shifts, the natural release of gasses, plant life, animal life, and many other factors, of which human activity is only a very small part. To simplify, there seem to me to be too many factors for human activity to change anything. We are, collectively, just a drop of water in a very, very large ocean. And I think the data supports this.

After all, the planet has been cycling through warm and cool periods for millions of years.

The thought that we can change it smacks of hubris.

My understanding was that, be there a naturally occurring 'global warmth cycle' or not, modern human activities have accentuated (or created) the current phenomenon of global warming/climate change.

 

[Murky]

I am definitely on the environmentalist side of the global warming debate but sometimes there's room for exceptions. For instance, I think it's OK for auto-enthusiast to upgrade their car's performance if they want too. Part of being free is the freedom to choose things like that. There does need to be fuel efficiency regulations in place for automakers. It's not the few souped-up hot-rods that's the problem, it's the cars & SUVs that people drive everyday. We know that the technologies exists to solve the crisis, we just need the will power to do so. As time goes on, this will become more and more of a bipartisan issue. It's the right-wingers who, in denial, stood against adapting to change that caused them to lose some political support. It's no fault of the left.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I am definitely on the environmentalist side of the global warming debate but sometimes there's room for exceptions. For instance, I think it's OK for auto-enthusiast to upgrade their car's performance if they want too. Part of being free is the freedom to choose things like that. There does need to be fuel efficiency regulations in place for automakers. It's not the few souped-up hot-rods that's the problem, it's the cars & SUVs that people drive everyday. We know that the technologies exists to solve the crisis, we just need the will power to do so. As time goes on, this will become more and more of a bipartisan issue. It's the right-wingers who, in denial, stood against adapting to change that caused them to lose some political support. It's no fault of the left.

Good point. Better technology has been around. For some reason it's not being put to good use. I'd even go as far as to say that today's hybrid cars are frauds. I wouldn't buy one. Seriously, they can do much better than that. But they don't.

 

[BasketCase]

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

Three major possibilities:

#1: The oldest of motivations, profit (well, actually it's sex ). A large number of evil capitalist corporations are already making money off global warming--hybrid cars, windmills, solar cells, biofuels. The problem may not be real, but these four solutions are already making money for people.

#2: Political gain. Politicians chant the global warming chant in order to keep left-of-center voters on their side of the fence. When voters care about anything, smart politicians are going to tell them what they want to hear. If voters care about the environment, the politician who tries to "save" the environment scores big time. If they need to make up a problem in order to solve it.....well, they've been doing that for as long as politicians have existed.

#3: Incidental gain. Regardless of whether or not global warming is real, the attempt to stop it will reduce pollution, get people to stop using coal and oil, and produce other beneficial effects. So global warming could simply be a way to shove people in the right general direction; simply cleaning up the planet may be the real goal.


Disclaimer: the author is undecided on whether global warming is real, and has no idea if any of the above ideas are actually true. But he is a flaming right-winger on a lot of things, and was drawn to this thread like a Sidewinder missile to a flame.

 

[Rub'Rum]

#1: The oldest of motivations, profit (well, actually it's sex ). A large number of evil capitalist corporations are already making money off global warming--hybrid cars, windmills, solar cells, biofuels. The problem may not be real, but these four solutions are already making money for people.

Just like some people make money on polluting activities. Personally, I'd much rather have a bunch of swine making money off innovative things than swine making money off coal.

 

[BasketCase]

How about an innovation that actually works?

I've got one all set for ya: nuclear. I know the U.S. can go this route because France already has.

 

[Till]

Very, very valid points. I'm glad you brought them up. Of course, these points generally apply pretty much across the boards concerning science here at CFC.

Of course, I would say that the scientists coming to the conclusions concerning anthropogenic global warming are also being motivated by money. Many, many people are motivated by money. It's a good thing to remember.

With that said, I have looked at the science a little bit. "Hardly looked at the science," as you characerize it is probably apt, especially in light of how much examination on the topic is done by actual scientists.

However, I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person, and with the information and data I've read about and seen, it seems to indicate that global warming is a naturally occurring phenomenon and that the activities of humans cannot and could not cause a precipitous change in the global climate short of something such as total nuclear exchange between a number of world powers.

From what I have read the climate of the planet seems to be affected by a variety of factors: the behavior of astral bodies such as the sun and other planets, ocean currents, the movement of the earth, winds, tectonic shifts, the natural release of gasses, plant life, animal life, and many other factors, of which human activity is only a very small part. To simplify, there seem to me to be too many factors for human activity to change anything. We are, collectively, just a drop of water in a very, very large ocean. And I think the data supports this.

After all, the planet has been cycling through warm and cool periods for millions of years.

The thought that we can change it smacks of hubris.

It speaks for you that you have tried to look into the science behind climate change. I suppose then, you have read about the Carbon cycle? And that you also understand how we release carbon back into the atmosphere that had been removed from the cycle (fossil fuels), as well as prevent additional carbon from being sequestered (deforestation)? If you disagree with it, please explain where and why.

If you want evidence for an increase of carbon in the atmosphere, look at the Keeling Curve. If you don't think the increase is due to human meddling, please provide an alternative explanation with evidence.

If you can't imagine how a small change (such as the increase in carbon emissions due humans compared to the total amount of "natural" carbon emissions) can result in a huge effect on a system, read up on leverage effects.

If you are interested on the effect of cosmic interference on the climate, i recommend this thread by an actual expert on the field.

 

[Rub'Rum]

How about an innovation that actually works?

I've got one all set for ya: nuclear. I know the U.S. can go this route because France already has.

I actually think nuclear isn't such a bad idea. But I still think that we should diversify our energy sources. Actually, a lot of environmental problems should be approached by diversifying our practices, instead of just canceling everything. Same goes for agricultural practices (thousands upon thousands of square miles of the intensive corn crop... ugh...). Diversity is key to so many things. Even our wallets (investments)!

 

[Mon Mauler]

It speaks for you that you have tried to look into the science behind climate change. I suppose then, you have read about the Carbon cycle? And that you also understand how we release carbon back into the atmosphere that had been removed from the cycle (fossil fuels), as well as prevent additional carbon from being sequestered (deforestation)? If you disagree with it, please explain where and why.

If you want evidence for an increase of carbon in the atmosphere, look at the Keeling Curve. If you don't think the increase is due to human meddling, please provide an alternative explanation with evidence.

If you can't imagine how a small change (such as the increase in carbon emissions due humans compared to the total amount of "natural" carbon emissions) can result in a huge effect on a system, read up on leverage effects.

If you are interested on the effect of cosmic interference on the climate, i recommend this thread by an actual expert on the field.

Of course, all of this assumes that there is a direct correlation between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the mean global temperature, wherein a rise in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is met with a rise in the mean global temperature. I have not seen any data that conclusively shows this.

Till, I have some literature in my car that will change your whole way of thinking.

Actually, I have a couple books and articles at home on the topic. I'll see if I can't post some cites here later tonight.

 

[stuge]

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.

QFT. "Fighting global warming" is sometimes used as a motive for some truly obnoxious projects. "Let's replace this rainforest with monoculture palm trees. Biofuels will save the planet!" :wallbang: Maybe human meddling is too insignificant to affect the cyclical nature of earth's climate. Maybe the next ice age won't destroy mankind thanks to the CO2 of today. Who knows?

Trying to prevent climate change might ultimately be a charge against windmills, but I don't really care. If it gets more people to ride bikes, it's all good.