Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 09:56:10

As most of you know, I mostly stay on these Environment threads. I of course do get some idea of some posters' political views, but mostly we hone pretty close to the science and consequences here (except for the denialists, of course).

But my wanderings into the more political threads has made me realize more just how many of the people who regularly contribute solid science and great insights into the workings of CC and GW here are politically quite 'conservative,' even more so than I had suspected in a number of cases. (I put that in quotes here, since the term doesn't have much relationship these days to its meaning in say the Eisenhower Administration.)

I want to say first that, however vehemently I challenge their political positions when that is the topic, I am seriously very impressed and frankly heartened that there are so many conservatives on this site who can look past WSJ oped positions and US Republican leaders snowball tossing to understand and accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for GW. So, thank you folks for that.

But I wonder if those insightful and scientifically acute posters could help me understand why exactly it is that so many of their colleagues remain so steadfastly opposed to even considering the possibility that the consensus of climate scientists (and even more so for published papers on the subject) has any validity.

How come you guys 'get it' when the vast majority of self-described conservatives don't seem to be able to come even close to getting it.

Any insights or light anyone can throw on the subject would be welcome. (And I honesty don't want this to devolve into mere political mud slinging. That means I don't really want to hear anything about Obama--yes, I'm talking to you, Plant! :-D The Great O has nothing to do with my question. I want to know what is it about you few that allows you to see and understand and accept the science, and even come here and help the rest of us understand it, when so few outside these threads from your side of the political spectrum can't. Thanks ahead of time for sticking to this point and for avoiding getting side tracked.)
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18364
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby Cog » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 10:36:14

Ok here is one perspective. If you accept that humans are causing climate change to the detriment of mankind as a whole, you accept that we should change what we are doing so it doesn't happen. When conservatives look at some of the solutions bandied about, they see destruction of BAU and the economy to save the planet. In other words, the solutions to solve the climate change problem would basically destroy our current way of life. So even if they believe climate change is real, they don't like the solutions recommended to fix it.

It also doesn't help when some climate change action advocates/propose we reduce the population of the planet down to 500 million by any means necessary to save Gaia. That is such a radical change that most conservative people, even those with a scientific bent, won't buy into it.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12594
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 10:49:19

I voted Julie Stein (Green Party) for Prez and opposed Trump since the beginning. I'm to the left of Obama on global warming, foreign wars, reining in Wall Street etc so I can't pretend to be a conservative

Personally I accept the fact that Trump won the election campaign and hope we have a successful presidency this time

Now to your question, Doh. I don't think the premise is correct. Polls show----if I remember right---that about 65% of Ds but only ca 35% of Rs accept AGW. On R plus side it turns out a lot of scientists and engineers are Rs.

Cheers
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22510
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby efarmer » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 10:51:29

Science and belief systems will always jostle with each other, with belief systems fighting science until the science is obvious to enough people on a personal basis to become a new addition to their belief system. In the GW Science case, this entails questioning the marvelous fossil fuel ride we have experienced in our recent generations. It seems the Carbon Horse Cowboy will die in the saddle.
User avatar
efarmer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 11:38:11

It would help if people on the left end of the political divide did not start from the position that anyone who disagrees with them is either evil, ignorant or foolish.

I was not won over by name calling and attempts to shame me, I was won over by the massive Arctic sea ice loss of 2007. IOW real world observation, not loaded rhetoric and accusations by our left leaning membership.

You need to make allies to win the climate debate. To win allies you treat people as future friends, not current enemies, no matter what differences they may have from yourself in other political positions.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15479
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby GHung » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 15:00:31

Tanada wrote:It would help if people on the left end of the political divide did not start from the position that anyone who disagrees with them is either evil, ignorant or foolish.

I was not won over by name calling and attempts to shame me, I was won over by the massive Arctic sea ice loss of 2007. IOW real world observation, not loaded rhetoric and accusations by our left leaning membership.

You need to make allies to win the climate debate. To win allies you treat people as future friends, not current enemies, no matter what differences they may have from yourself in other political positions.


Right.... You should meet some of my conservative friends and family members who "start from the position that anyone who disagrees with them is either evil, ignorant or foolish." Jeez,, there are plenty of pots calling kettles black around here these days. That's why I'm a pragmatic independent who grew damned tired of ideologues long ago. In my world, there isn't much point in trying to discuss much of anything since I get the same response from both sides; none of it constructive.

Most folks I deal with simply aren't into situational assessment and problem solving if it: #1 - Shows that their lifestyles have been causing the problems; #2 - Means that it is they, themselves, that will need to change their own behavior (just about all of it). Left or right, it's generally someone else's fault.

My response to these things started here at home with some pretty dramatic lifestyle changes. Therefore, I reserve the right to blame all partisan political ideologues. I try to not waste my time doing so.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 15:17:47

Doh,
Skipping over above response, I'll read later, I stunned by how many LIBERAL folks do NOT get CC. Sure they mouth the PC words but when you really plumb the depths of understanding -splat! It's all PC posture, no real concept of the science. And brother have I tried. Very disappointed.

I just had this argument with a whole crowd who banned up on me that mysoginisim is more important than climate change or over consumption.

I think the divide is less political ( right vs left) than the ability to project into the future. My observation is they (whom ever "they" are) just can't project themselves into a world three generations from now. What is in their face over rides.

In short...
"Oh look....SPARKLY!"
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12901
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 15:35:27

The atypical belief system called "science" supposedly has inviolable rules. The most fundamental of these being the distinction between theoretical science and rigorous physical science.

I have previously more than once made the point that AGW/CC are definitely NOT rigorous physical science. To qualify as so, we would need a planet otherwise identical to Earth, except the inhabitants would never have burned any fossil fuels. By observing the climate differences between the two planets, we could determine the actual impact of FF combustion upon planetary climate. I believe that the chances of us ever discovering another planet that is identical to Earth, save for the burning of FF's and the overshoot human population thus enabled, are so remote as to be practically speaking, impossible. In the absence of such a control planet and true rigorous analysis of AGW/CC, we are reduced to the other alternative of theoretical science. Theoretical science also has rigorous rules. The other major scientific theories dependant upon the rules of theoretical science include but are not limited to the writings of Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Charles Darwin in the respective fields of Economics, Psychiatry, and Biology.

In his latest book The Kingdom of Speech, author Tom Wolfe said:
The ideas of the first two, Marx and Freud, would seem to have been unpersuasive from the first. Unworthy of the attention of folks who were, well, paying attention. As important as economics are, humans are motivated by many more things than their material condition, contrary to what Marx tried to teach us. He’s discredited now almost everywhere save university faculty lounges, always the last places to get the memo.

Freud, from the comfort of his middle-class psychiatric practice in Vienna, gave us penis envy, the Oedipus complex, and other equally risible phantasms. First hearing of these matters in university lectures as a freshman, I kept waiting for the punch line which never arrived. It finally sank in on me that sentient and otherwise coherent adults were taking this nonsense seriously. (Confirming once again that he who laughs last didn’t get the joke.)

Of the three men, only Darwin’s ideas had a bit of surface plausibility about them at the beginning. But only a bit. Darwinism, which many with the show call science but has no experimental basis and is dealt with now like religious dogma, can be stated economically, to wit: A series of small, random, mutations with survival value brought us, in four and a half billion years, from the single-cell bacterium in slime to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

Not a chance in the world.


http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-kingdom-of-speech-tom-wolfe/1123110042?ean=9780316404624#productInfoTabs

Theoretical science is by it's very nature, speculative and beyond proof. The works of Marx/Freud/Darwin have dominated the thinking of those in Western civilization for almost a century, but remain at best, rank speculation. Now we have another proposed scientific theory, that of AGW/CC, that fails even the most basic test of widespread acceptance, as it has a few tens of thousands of proponents in a world of 7.4 billion people.

The AGW/CC theories are not, in the modern phrase, settled science. They aren’t even unsettled science. They are educated guesses at best. There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, AGW/CC — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of AGW/CC...well...no...no...no...no, and no.

Lastly, I don't think that political ideology in any way corresponds to a belief in the proposed theory of AGW/CC. If you actually believe in the theory, you would demonstrate such a belief with your lifestyle, which would be rural, agrarian, and sustainable. You would not own any vehicle with a fuel tank, use any electricity from the power grid, or consume any but locally sourced foodstuffs. And you would definitely not live in the stinking human hives we call cities, or the slightly less odiferous suburbs.

It so happens that I know several families of such people, as the high tech lifestyle of Silicon Valley often produces a backlash that results in an early retirement, followed by a slower and more contemplative lifestyle in rural splendor. I would say that the mix of liberals and conservatives is the same as when they lived the urban lifestyle of Silicon Valley. They are of course now surrounded by more conservative folks who never would consider living in cities or suburbs. After a couple of generations, there won't be any observable differences between these folks and their neighbors, I would speculate.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby GHung » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 16:38:28

KaiserJeep wrote:...... If you actually believe in the theory, you would demonstrate such a belief with your lifestyle, which would be rural, agrarian, and sustainable. You would not own any vehicle with a fuel tank, use any electricity from the power grid, or consume any but locally sourced foodstuffs.


Typical KJ absolutism. I "believe in the theory", and am most of the way there. Meanwhile, your society puts a lot of road blocks between walking most of that walk and being an absolute purist. Even something as mundane as paying property and income taxes involves contributing to BAU.
Last edited by GHung on Mon 14 Nov 2016, 18:03:53, edited 1 time in total.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby Cog » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 16:42:24

So what is the solution? I do believe that humans are causing climate change, at least to some extent. I'm a Republican conservative in political thought. If you tell me that I have to wipe out 9/10th of the human population to save the world, I'm going to say " Come up with a different plan". If you tell me that is the only plan that will work, then I will tell you to forget about it.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12594
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 17:12:32

As a moderate, I tend to lean liberal toward many social issues, but conservative toward many financial issues. However, I try to make my decisions with the data in mind.

What drives me crazy is how the greens and generally the liberals call the GOP obstructionist and are angry that they're against a carbon tax -- BUT even the greens / liberals aren't for actually doing much if anything about it, when push comes to shove.

For example, while watching the election returns, I noticed prop 732 going down in flames in the LIBERAL state of Washington. So much for the liberals setting the example on this key issue by approving a carbon tax (imperfect as it was) on themselves.

Nope, instead because they didn't like other tax issues or wanted a bigger carbon tax, or considered the proposal unimportant to some other issue, they soundly rejected the proposal.

I strongly believe in AGW and that working to mitigate that ASAP is job number one. If I find the Washington rejection a giant smack in the head to the credibility of the climate activists, just imagine how conservatives who are unsure about AGW or who don't trust the motivation of those pushing carbon taxes must feel about this.

Before waving the flag of blame at the conservatives, perhaps the greens/liberals need to wave the flag of "WAKE THE HELL UP!" at their own supposed supporters.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/11/12/c ... ton-state/
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6967
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 17:27:27

Cog wrote:So what is the solution? I do believe that humans are causing climate change, at least to some extent. I'm a Republican conservative in political thought. If you tell me that I have to wipe out 9/10th of the human population to save the world, I'm going to say " Come up with a different plan". If you tell me that is the only plan that will work, then I will tell you to forget about it.


That's in fact the bottom line, Cog. You either believe in humanity and our intelligence and our language and technology as the purpose for the planet which is our creche, or you believe that humanity is a disease to be eradicated for Gaia's sake.

I doubt if it's actually a binary choice, as I too believe in an analog world. However, as I have said before, it really doesn't matter a whole lot whether the unproven theory of AGW/CC is ever proved or not, as I would place a priority of about #4 on such a problem, if proved real. My first priority would be to establish a social system that allowed humans to live fulfilling and productive lives without reproducing beyond the limits of the environment they live in.

If you can't do that as a vital first step, then the planetary environment is doomed by overpopulation. All the other problems we have including the ever-so-slim possibility that AGW/CC is real, are of far less importance.

I believe our unique intelligence allows us to build off-world habitats, and I believe we need to do so ASAP. But it's not a popular opinion here.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 17:29:39

Cog wrote:So what is the solution? I do believe that humans are causing climate change, at least to some extent. I'm a Republican conservative in political thought. If you tell me that I have to wipe out 9/10th of the human population to save the world, I'm going to say " Come up with a different plan". If you tell me that is the only plan that will work, then I will tell you to forget about it.


That about sums it up. No plan, no action, no change. It seems inevitable that we can't engineer a soft landing, so a hard landing will inevitably ensue, killing 9/10 of the population.

I don't like your position. Yet I have nothing better to offer. Wanna beer?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12901
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 17:53:03

I thought about what you said, and started with chilled vodka and cranberry juice.

Even a dieback of 9/10s of the humans is at best a temporary respite, as long as we are hardwired by evolution to reproduce. It is true that reproduction falls back to replacement rates or below in long-civilized places, but that doesn't help at all. If hardship causes a dieback of humans to 10% or less of the current number, it will also flip that evolutionary switch and we'll all be reproducing like 3rd world countries.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 18:02:50

KJ,
This is one arena where we pretty much agree 100%.

We could probably find a way to turn it into a pissing match, but I'm too lazy. :-D
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12901
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby Cog » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 18:03:18

Newfie wrote:
Cog wrote:So what is the solution? I do believe that humans are causing climate change, at least to some extent. I'm a Republican conservative in political thought. If you tell me that I have to wipe out 9/10th of the human population to save the world, I'm going to say " Come up with a different plan". If you tell me that is the only plan that will work, then I will tell you to forget about it.


That about sums it up. No plan, no action, no change. It seems inevitable that we can't engineer a soft landing, so a hard landing will inevitably ensue, killing 9/10 of the population.

I don't like your position. Yet I have nothing better to offer. Wanna beer?


Might as well have a beer with you as there is nothing better to do, plus I would like to. I know you try to live a lower carbon output life and I do as well but mostly because I'm a cheap cuss. I think if you can show the high carbon output people like us Americans are, that they can simplify their lives and not be so big of consumers of just pure junk, and still be quite happy, it would help. I don't know how to do that. I've talked to people about living simply and growing a garden and you would think I was asking them to move into a communist commune. Finally gave up on it.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12594
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 18:21:00

Ditto. I'm a cheap cuss too. I spent a bit of money and a lot of time trying to get discussion going. Ha!

For a while I ran a monthly movie, environmental theme, t be followed by discussion. Thousand of folks, mostly liberals, live within walking distance. I made posters, made popcorn. Hell, I provided FREE BEER! By and large the few that showed were cranks that wanted to talk about their prostrates.

Once, after I was fed up with it, my Wife ran "Idiocracy". Had a big crowd. They all sat around laughing at the styles in he movie. I sat there looking at them thinking "You dorks ARE the folks in the movie, you are just to ignorant to realize it."
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12901
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby Cog » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 18:24:25

LOL Thanks for providing me a belly laugh Newfie. We have spoke for several years now and I value your insights. Its like no matter what you try people are going to descend down to their lowest impulses. I wish it were not so. So I guess we are along for the ride, no matter where it takes us.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12594
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Why Can Some Conservatives Accept GW Science?

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 14 Nov 2016, 19:07:44

Pstarr,
Sorry dude, I spent 40 years working in mass transit. I've spent time listening to the various planning stages, read EISs, talked to planners and simulation experts. Mass transit is no solution.

You are just saying "Technology will fix things so we don't have to compromise our life or population."

I don't feel like debating it. I worked for decades thinking I was doing the public good, contributing to the solution. The realization that it was all a farce, a mistake, is a bitter pill.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12901
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Next

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests