And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[amw]

3)Perhaps Australia and Europe are different in this, but here in the US the politicization began with the Left, not the Right.

As far as I know, "politicization" began in the 1950s when Exxon & several other oil companies were provided with evidence that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change, and proceeded to use money and political influence to bury that evidence and lobby against future climate research for some 30 years. Any kind of environmentalists were labeled eco-terrorists, communists and soviet agents, and had their activities officially suppressed, a suppression that continues today outside the US with the murders and disappearances of land defenders and conservationists across Latin America, Africa and Asia. All of this has become well documented in recent years.

[JBS]

As to point number 2, no, I never claimed scientists are immune to these problems. But your claim is that scientists fall prey to POLITICAL groupthink, which is nonsense.

Again you have cause and effect entirely backwards. If scientists in your country now tend to vote Democrat, that is because they cannot now bring themselves to vote for a party that has made a firm commitment to scientific illiteracy.

I'm saying the "consensus" is an orthodoxy enforced by groups who are more interested in maintaining control of the discussion than actually arriving at the truth. That's why I call it groupthink.

What I mean by leftist solutions are ideas which are based on increased governmental control, increased bureaucracy, increased taxation, increased government interference in private life.  All the things traditional American conservatives are opposed to, no matter what the context. (Traditional being preTrump conservatism. Trumpism is something completely different from that.)

Just start from first principles for once and realise that facts are supposed to shape policy instead of politics shaping facts. And don't you DARE respond by claiming that leftist politics is shaping the scientific facts.

It's not shaping the facts, but it is shaping the presentation of the facts.

[Florestan]

I said I would not argue anymore with anyone, and I stand by it. I didn't say I would post no more.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wstarbuc/Writing/Prejud.htm

[SimonNZ]

Do you see the irony in hunting out a paper on confirmation bias to the end of confirming your bias?

[Madiel]

It's not shaping the facts, but it is shaping the presentation of the facts.

Oh the irony.

[greg]

Just a question.

Would you people that are both liberal and support climate change NOT question the scientific consensus on climate change at at all if the solutions were heavily in the favor right wing policy?

If the solutions were to drastically cut government spending on the poor, education, health care, etc. and cut taxes for the rich (which tbh are policies I don't support, either), and the politicians use climate change as an excuse, would you just be like, "Okay, guess I'll vote for a Republican this time!"?

[SimonNZ]

How the hell would that be a solution?

Also: "support climate change" is a weird and telling way of phrasing it.

[Madiel]

Just a question.

Would you people that are both liberal and support climate change NOT question the scientific consensus on climate change at at all if the solutions were heavily in the favor right wing policy?

If the solutions were to drastically cut government spending on the poor, education, health care, etc. and cut taxes for the rich (which tbh are policies I don't support, either), and the politicians use climate change as an excuse, would you just be like, "Okay, guess I'll vote for a Republican this time!"?

I don't know if I can answer this because I don't identify as "liberal". In my country's political landscape I am slightly left of centre, and a swinging voter.

At least I try to be one, with a history of having voted for... at least 4 different political parties. Maybe 5? Not certain.  The problem being that the centre-right has been on the way out. And it's not simply me that thinks that. Malcolm Turnbull, the centre-right Prime Minister who was kicked out of leadership by his own party twice, made a very astute observation about the rise of centre-right independents in this country (we have an electoral system that makes independents winning seats viable) as his party shifted further right so that centrists had to turn somewhere else.

To be honest your question is a bit unclear, you refer to using climate change "as an excuse". For any policy there's a basic question whether it genuinely addresses the problem. My whole point thus far has been that we can't even get that far if people deny the problem exists, but if we're trying to move further to a situation where both sides of politics acknowledge that there IS a problem, it then becomes a question of judging whether a solution offered in good faith, not simply with a climate change badge slapped on it, is an effective solution and a relatively efficient one.

There's no real praise to be gained for designing a solution that doesn't actually do very much and costs a lot. This has been a criticism levelled at some efforts of our current right-wing government.  Any policy, no matter where it comes from, needs to be assessed for what it will achieve and what it will cost.

(One of the great ironies of all this, of course, is that there has been ample economic advice along the lines that the overall cost of combatting climate change would be less if we started earlier.)

Beyond that your question gets extremely hypothetical because I'm struggling, genuinely, to think of how it is that, say, spending on education or health care actually has a climate change impact, apart from perhaps the grisly reality that if a large part of the world's population dies off this will achieve a reduction in emissions which I'm sure is way too far along the cost-benefit analysis scale for anyone but extreme greens to advocate.  Putting aside those difficulties, though, if there was clear evidence from scientists and economists that a right-wing policy represented a good approach for reducing emissions, then that would very much be a mark in the favour of the party presenting that policy.

The other great irony here is that it's fairly clear the commercial world and market forces are likely to deal with climate change if governments dither, providing a more right-wing solution anyway. There is a lot of money to be made in developing new, more environmentally technologies. I've already referred to the fact that there are Chinese billionaires thanks to the development of the solar industry in that country. The term "peak coal" is not being used to refer to when production will be at a maximum but to when demand will be at a maximum. Running out of the stuff has ceased to be a concern exercising many minds, because most forecasters think we will stop wanting it before it's all gone.

[JBS]

Oh the irony.

I will refer to a story told of Rev Sydney Smith.  He saw two women arguing with each other from windows in adjacent houses, and remarked that they would never agree, since they were arguing from different premises.

[Karl Henning]

I will refer to a story told of Rev Sydney Smith.  He saw two women arguing with each other from windows in adjacent houses, and remarked that they would never agree, since they were arguing from different premises.

Nice!

[greg]

How the hell would that be a solution?

Also: "support climate change" is a weird and telling way of phrasing it.

Umm... looks like I have to be insanely 100% clear to be understood, thought that the point would have been clear.

Hypothetically, if that were a solution (obviously, it isn't, I'm speaking hypothetically), what would your reaction be?

I'm trying to force people to imagine themselves from the perspective of someone else, because the question asked here was "Why do so many conservatives deny the science?"


...(yeah, "support climate change" is me typing quickly, "supporting the climate change narrative", etc. whatever you call it).

[SimonNZ]

Sure: in an alternate universe with, apparently, different physical laws, I'd support that because it would obviously be a solution.

In this one, however, I'd say "how the hell is that a solution?"

I think what you're asking is: would a D support a science and data based solution put forward by Rs that would be undeniably be effective but also give them all the credit and ensure their reelection? Then I would think: yes. (though, again, we are probably describing an alternate universe.)

...or you could phrase the hypothetical as: would you support the Rs drastically cut government spending on the poor, education, health care, etc. and cut taxes for the rich if they also had a proven science and data based solution for climate change?

[JBS]

I will try to clarify Greg's point with this article as a parallel

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/13/europe/insect-apocalypse-report-scn/index.html

Notice that it calls for individuals doing things with their own property and making their own decisions to take action. It doesn't call for government banning or restricting  pesticides now in use, doesn't call for government programs to reverse population decline, or anything else.

That's the conservative approach.

[SimonNZ]

The Agribusiness multinationals don't let individuals make decisions, and what few individuals can are a drop in the bucket in comparison.

[greg]

I don't know if I can answer this because I don't identify as "liberal". In my country's political landscape I am slightly left of centre, and a swinging voter.

At least I try to be one, with a history of having voted for... at least 4 different political parties. Maybe 5? Not certain.  The problem being that the centre-right has been on the way out. And it's not simply me that thinks that. Malcolm Turnbull, the centre-right Prime Minister who was kicked out of leadership by his own party twice, made a very astute observation about the rise of centre-right independents in this country (we have an electoral system that makes independents winning seats viable) as his party shifted further right so that centrists had to turn somewhere else.

To be honest your question is a bit unclear, you refer to using climate change "as an excuse". For any policy there's a basic question whether it genuinely addresses the problem. My whole point thus far has been that we can't even get that far if people deny the problem exists, but if we're trying to move further to a situation where both sides of politics acknowledge that there IS a problem, it then becomes a question of judging whether a solution offered in good faith, not simply with a climate change badge slapped on it, is an effective solution and a relatively efficient one.

There's no real praise to be gained for designing a solution that doesn't actually do very much and costs a lot. This has been a criticism levelled at some efforts of our current right-wing government.  Any policy, no matter where it comes from, needs to be assessed for what it will achieve and what it will cost.

(One of the great ironies of all this, of course, is that there has been ample economic advice along the lines that the overall cost of combatting climate change would be less if we started earlier.)

Beyond that your question gets extremely hypothetical because I'm struggling, genuinely, to think of how it is that, say, spending on education or health care actually has a climate change impact, apart from perhaps the grisly reality that if a large part of the world's population dies off this will achieve a reduction in emissions which I'm sure is way too far along the cost-benefit analysis scale for anyone but extreme greens to advocate.  Putting aside those difficulties, though, if there was clear evidence from scientists and economists that a right-wing policy represented a good approach for reducing emissions, then that would very much be a mark in the favour of the party presenting that policy.

The other great irony here is that it's fairly clear the commercial world and market forces are likely to deal with climate change if governments dither, providing a more right-wing solution anyway. There is a lot of money to be made in developing new, more environmentally technologies. I've already referred to the fact that there are Chinese billionaires thanks to the development of the solar industry in that country. The term "peak coal" is not being used to refer to when production will be at a maximum but to when demand will be at a maximum. Running out of the stuff has ceased to be a concern exercising many minds, because most forecasters think we will stop wanting it before it's all gone.

I'm not sure you'd count then in my story (don't know anything about Australian politics).

"as a reason," is also another wording.

Sure: in an alternate universe with, apparently, different physical laws, I'd support that because it would obviously be a solution.

In this one, however, I'd say "how the hell is that a solution?"

I think what you're asking is: would a D support a science and data based solution put forward by Rs that would be undeniably be effective but also give them all the credit and ensure their reelection? Then I would think: yes. (though, again, we are probably describing an alternate universe.)

I really have my doubts it would be that way. Maybe for you it would be.

I could imagine that many would make up some reason that the scientists are corrupted because the majority are male, therefore influenced by the "patriarchy" or something and want to push an agenda of conservative policies (men are more conservative, on average, to begin with). Or some other reason.

I will try to clarify Greg's point with this article as a parallel

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/13/europe/insect-apocalypse-report-scn/index.html

Notice that it calls for individuals doing things with their own property and making their own decisions to take action. It doesn't call for government banning or restricting  pesticides now in use, doesn't call for government programs to reverse population decline, or anything else.

That's the conservative approach.

Actually I'm not really seeing how this relates to my point...

[SimonNZ]

I could imagine that many would make up some reason that the scientists are corrupted because the majority are male, therefore influenced by the "patriarchy" or something and want to push an agenda of conservative policies (men are more conservative, on average, to begin with). Or some other reason.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff from. Is it Fox?

[JBS]

The Agribusiness multinationals don't let individuals make decisions, and what few individuals can are a drop in the bucket in comparison.

So you're reflexively rejecting a conservative solution.
(Maybe you don't intend to do so, but that's how your answer sounds.)

[JBS]

I don't know where you're getting this stuff from. Is it Fox?

That's how social justice advocates talk here in the States.

[SimonNZ]

I'd like you to address that consideration...no matter how "reflexive" you think it sounds

[JBS]

I'd like you to address that consideration...no matter how "reflexive" you think it sounds

In the actual context of the article, Agribusiness isn't relevant. The article is talking about backyard gardeners and people planting their own vegetables, not commercial farming.