In simpler words, too many of us treat science as subjective — something we customize to reduce cognitive dissonance between what we think and how we live.
In the case of global warming, this dissonance is especially traumatic for many conservatives, because they have based their whole worldview on the idea that unfettered capitalism — and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture is has spawned — is synonymous with both personal fulfillment and human advancement. The global-warming hypothesis challenges that fundamental dogma, perhaps fatally.
The appropriate intellectual response to that challenge — finding a way to balance human consumption with responsible environmental stewardship — is complicated and difficult. It will require developing new technologies, balancing carbon-abatement programs against other (more cost-effective) life-saving projects such as disease-prevention, and — yes — possibly increasing the economic cost of carbon-fuel usage through some form of direct or indirect taxation. It is one of the most important debates of our time. Yet many conservatives have made themselves irrelevant in it by simply cupping their hands over their ears and scream out imprecations against Al Gore.
Rants and slogans may help conservatives deal with the emotional problem of cognitive dissonance. But they aren’t the building blocks of a serious ideological movement. And the impulse toward denialism must be fought if conservatism is to prosper in a century when environmental issues will assume an ever greater profile on this increasingly hot, parched, crowded planet. Otherwise, the movement will come to be defined — and discredited — by its noisiest cranks and conspiracists.
Seriously. This makes too much sense. The NP will come out and announce that they've been pranked, and Kay will reappear with a 500 word thingy bashing QuAIA.
Or maybe its real. Maybe Kay has been diagnosed with something serious and wants to make amends for all the bad he's done. Its just weird when people change all of a sudden like that.
18 comments:
Kay misses the point of the denialism. In its essence, it's about religion and end times. To acknowledge global warming is to admit it needs to be fixed. But repairing a broken planet only delays the ultimate reward for these people. Science is not the problem. Religion is.
Let's pretend your right consensus is now part of science.
Let's pretend Al Gore and Suzuki may not have financial interests like many on the IPCC tied to CAGW.
Let's pretend invoking the term denier is a valid point.
Gallileo was part of the minority against the consensus.
I look forward to why we need to send billions to Africa's dictators to reduce the temp of the earth.
Organized crime has made billions on the Carbon Exchange market.
It is nice to see nothing changes for redistribution of wealth.
Galileo's problems were with the Catholic church. Arguably, by the time he wrote, Copernican Astronomy WAS the consensus among scientists.
Science is not the problem. Religion is.
Except the Catholic Church, which calls for sustainable development. (They're also building the largest solar plant in Europe). And then there's the Presbyterians... :)
Anyway, if you're interested in denialism, there was a study on denialist.
"Organized crime has made billions on the Carbon Exchange market."
Proof? or is this another Canadiannonsense wankoff?
Heh, Google Galileo, thanks for posting that Lenny!
ohhhhhhhhhhh the global warming thingy ?
Still? Its like so 90's. Its like so past tense.
Time to come up with a new hairy scary eco-hysteria storyline.
I'd suggest biodiversity. Should be a great one for fund raising . . think of all the pictures of dying little critters you can use to get fools to cough up their guilt-dough.
I wonder if we could combat global warming by throwing Fred and his hot air down a well.
Fred and Canadiansense..two peas in a pod. I hope they never breed.
Gene Rayburn said...
I wonder if we could combat global warming by throwing Fred and his hot air down a well.
First there would have to be some actual 'global warming', and there isn't. That's why you and your kind decided to change it to 'climate change'...because despite all your predictions of hurricanes and sea level rises, your computer simulations and your doomsaying, the damn planet just refused to heat up. But now that you've changed it to 'climate change', you can now blame whatever happens on mankind, right?
(...well, not really. Climate change is normal, natural and unstoppable; the one thing about it that IS predictable is that it is always changing.)
This is a fight that you've already lost, sadly. You just aren't smart enough to figure it out yet. It doesn't matter how many scientists or people claiming to be scientists believe something to be true (or *claim* that they do, since their livelihood depends on it), because science isn't about consensus. POLITICS is about consensus; science is about facts and evidence, and one of the most important tenets in science is the ability to conduct experiments and reproduce results (consistently). This is where the Warmists have failed so miserably, and will continue to fail until the preponderance of evidence becomes to much even for them to deny...
Gene Rayburn said...
I wonder if we could combat global warming by throwing Fred and his hot air down a well.
First there would have to be some actual 'global warming', and there isn't. That's why you and your kind decided to change it to 'climate change'...because despite all your predictions of hurricanes and sea level rises, your computer simulations and your doomsaying, the damn planet just refused to heat up. But now that you've changed it to 'climate change', you can now blame whatever happens on mankind, right?
(...well, not really. Climate change is normal, natural and unstoppable; the one thing about it that IS predictable is that it is always changing.)
This is a fight that you've already lost, sadly. You just aren't smart enough to figure it out yet. It doesn't matter how many scientists or people claiming to be scientists believe something to be true (or *claim* that they do, since their livelihood depends on it), because science isn't about consensus. POLITICS is about consensus; science is about facts and evidence, and one of the most important tenets in science is the ability to conduct experiments and reproduce results (consistently). This is where the Warmists have failed so miserably, and will continue to fail until the preponderance of evidence becomes to much even for them to deny...
sure Fred, just keep huffing that glue.
The problem is Fred, your statement that global warming is false is unproven. Unless you are citing those delusions that the tories fax to you.
Here's a timely example of the consequences of the slackwit's anti-science.
Perhaps the Yes Men hacked the National Post website?
Climatologists are, based on facts and evidence, virtually united in what they are saying about climate change.
We defer to the experts on so many things: the drugs we take, car safety, food safety, ect. Why should this be any different?
You find me peer-reviewed science to validate denialism and I'll believe you.
BCL: amazing prediction.
Although his climate change column was crap and amounted to "they're scientists people! they cant bullshit", you deserve kudos for calling it.
In order to address an issue as big as climate change, polarization is hardly advantageous to creating forward momentum.
Having a conservative publication call out the bald deniers and demand that minds be opened, and cease to "cup their hands over their ears" over the issue, is to be fair, a significant move that shouldn't be too quickly dismissed because of it's source.
Because - while the odds are pretty good that nothing said by David Suzuki or, no offense, BCL, is going to make much difference to the opinion of a conservative.. the National Post publishing an article, in bold letters, stating "Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause" may have the unfortunate effect of making conservatives more moderate and therefore, electible.. but may actually prove to help the planet.
Oh..
And I seem to recall other conservative types who have also suggested to their fellow conservatives not so long ago, "Conservative does not mean stupid".
Post a Comment