Tweet
Cognitive Dissonance by TheGiantVermin, on Flickr
On April 6, all but one of the Republican members of the US House of Representatives rejected a Democratic amendment that would have put the chamber on record backing the widely held scientific view that global warming is occurring and humans are a major cause. The following day the GOP-led House voted 255 to 172 to strip the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gases. It is remarkable that in 2011, a majority of Republicans in Congress reject the indisputable, scientific consensus that human activity is altering the climate.
Why are conservatives, despite the mounting evidence, so unwilling to accept that climate change is a serious threat caused by greenhouse emissions? It seems climate change is now part and parcel of America’s “culture wars.” Similar to abortion and other social issues, climate change has become a partisan issue, with liberals backing the science, and conservatives denying it. Often times, when pondering the reasons for climate change denial, we immediately blame the media for allotting disproportionate airtime for industry backed psuedo-scientists to sow doubt in the minds of viewers, in their quest for “balance.” Of course this analysis is correct, but incomplete.
It’s been widely proven that fossil fuel interests, most notably ExxonMobil, used the tobacco industry’s playbook and an extensive arsenal of lobbyists and “experts” to manufacture disinformation designed to confuse the public and stifle action to address climate change. As documented by Greenpeace, in recent years this corporate PR campaign has gone viral, spawning a denial movement that is largely immune to reasoned response. While the more powerful climate change deniers have manipulative objectives, such as preserving their vested interests in fossil fuels or political posturing with their constituencies, many on the right actually believe climate change is a hoax. This PR campaign has contributed immensely to denial, but there is still more to the story.
Thus, the question remains: Why is the reality of climate change such a threat to the right? A new study published in the Spring 2011 issue of Sociological Quarterly delves into this very topic. The study finds that conservatives’ refusal to acknowledge the very real threat of climate change, has more to do with its implications rather than skepticism of scientific facts. It’s a classic case of cognitive dissonance!
Stanford University social psychologist Leon Festinger coined the theory of cognitive dissonance, based on a famous case study from the 1950s. Festinger and his colleagues infiltrated a cult that was awaiting what they believed would be the imminent end of the world on December 21, 1954. When the prediction failed, rather than recognize the error of their beliefs, the cult members’ faith grew stronger, so strong that they began to proselytize. People will go to great lengths to rationalize their deeply held beliefs, even more so when exposed to evidence that challenges their worldview.
Climate change poses a profound threat to many things that right-wing ideologues believe in. Conservatives tend to champion individual freedom, private property rights, small government, free markets, and above all else, unfettered industrial capitalism. Industrial capitalism is an economic system predicated on the accelerating extraction and consumption of fossil fuels for energy, which is driving the climate change we face today. To accept this basic premise, one is compelled to question the wisdom of capitalism itself, which is a terrifying notion for conservatives. And it doesn’t take long to recognize that conservative values are inherently antithetical to the desperately needed actions to tackle global climate change.
Seriously dealing with the threat of climate change would require government to heavily regulate corporations and subsidize renewable energy. It would entail a strong international body, most likely boosting the power of the UN. It would bring an end to the inefficient and energy-wasting free-trade agenda, as localizing economies would become necessary to sustain communities. And, most importantly, confronting climate change demands addressing climate justice for developing nations suffering from the pollution of industrialized nations, or more simply, a redistribution of wealth from North to South. Climate change poses a direct threat to the spread of free markets, the maintenance of national sovereignty, and the continued abolition of governmental regulations, all key components of the conservative agenda. These are the types of ideas that cause conservatives to gasp, point, and shout “communist!”
When we recognize the role of cognitive dissonance, it becomes clear that conservatives and Republicans are more likely to dispute or deny the scientific consensus and the claims of the environmental community, in order to defend the industrial capitalist system. It is far more simple to deny science, than to accept that one’s worldview is wrong. Unfortunately, environmental organizations are in a kind of denial as well. Climate change is about an economic model that demands infinite growth on a finite planet. However, environmental groups are reluctant to relate climate change to economics and politics, probably because conservatives would see it as confirmation of the right-wing myth that global warming is a socialist plot to redistribute the world’s wealth.
For a conservative whose entire identity is defined by faith in the economics of capitalism and free markets, acceptance of climate change poses a danger to their sense of self, and will be avoided at all costs. Therefore, attempts to persuade this portion of the country with science and logic is a lost cause. However, for those of us who truly care about the future of our one and only planet and our species, it is time that we face what we have been loath to highlight in the past: Unfettered industrial capitalism is unsustainable and is causing climate change to spiral out of control. Until we begin to challenge the economics fueling environmental degradation, we are no better than our climate denying counterparts.
79 Comments
Thanks, astute observations. One trend that I have noted, that is slightly at variance with the concept that environmental responsibility redistributes wealth to developing nations. Most developing nations’ leaders have been under the influence of the fossil fuel corporate welfare addicts, and believe that any imposition of regulation to control pollution works against their economic interests. Thia has been a limiting feature at international conferences on energy, that the industrialized countries are being asked to conserve and limit pollution, while many lesser industrialized nations demand freedom from those limits.
Excellent diary.
This morning I heard Leon Panetta, the new Secretary of Defense, said “job one will be to ensure that we remain the strongest military power in the world, to protect that security that is so important to this country.” There is no security in preserving a world view out of touch with reality.
I agree with what you said. However, I’d like to add that with many, if not most, congressmen it’s not so much cognitive dissonance than it is cynical pandering. Their corporate / rich paymasters see facing up to climate change realities as bad for business. Also, the people in who vote for them (who -are- victims of cog dis) don’t believe in climate change.
The top priority of any congress person is re-election, so even if they do believe in climate change they wont vote for climate change bills because the votes/money aren’t/isn’t there.
“It seems climate change is now part and parcel of America’s “culture wars.” Similar to abortion and other social issues, climate change has become a partisan issue, with liberals backing the science, and conservatives denying it.”
Such a simple and obvious connection yet one I just never made, regarding the ‘cultural wars’ theme. Great observation and statement!
I like your choice of cognitive dissonance as a ‘lens vehicle’ with which to view the issue of climate change and conservative reaction to it all.
Call it ‘cog dis’ or anything else, you clearly point out the reason for Teh Stupid. N you can’t fix stupid, sadly.
Great read once again, rcc’d, HEARTILY!
I think the corporate climate change deniers are simply lying, like the assholes on the natural gas teevee ads are lying. They have profit only in mind. The others in the camp simply parrot the meme that ‘their team’ parrots, though a few who might believe the science don’t care, as God will either fix it, ‘innovation’ experts will find a fix without pain for us, or the Rapture will happen, so none of it matters.
“It is remarkable that in 2011, a majority of Republicans in Congress reject the indisputable, scientific consensus that human activity is altering the climate.”
Ah, so yet another climate propagandist who either doesn’t understand what the substantial debate is about, or else is deliberately obfuscating it. Color me not impressed.
I hope the Republicans’ pursue inquiries into fraudulent and/or shabby climate ‘science’ to their logical ends, though I have my doubts. I wonder what, if anything, they’ll do to punish climate scientists who lie to them? If they have not the means or willingness to punish people who lie to them, well, I expect they’re going to be hearing a lot of lies.
Why no word about the corrupting $$ pressures to support the we-need-a-global-carbon-tax global warming ‘concensus’. Oops, the new phrase is ‘climate change’. Whatever the phraseology, I expect Goldman Sachs to clean up, big time.. Funny, you didn’t mention them, either.
The massive majority of influential skeptics are volunteer bloggers and a few but not great number of career politicians such as Inhofe and Monkton (as complements to Gore).
You are thus creating a fake boogeyman.
Here’s my favorite skeptic, actually, left wing journalist Alexader Cockburn, in a quick candid interview outside his home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Real thermometer records demonstrate that recent warming shows no upswing from the historical trend going back 350 years:
http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg
Of course if you want to include assholes in the mix, your side has plenty of psychopaths to choose from:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/2jb7fk7.jpg
“It seems climate change is now part and parcel of America’s “culture wars.”
‘I don’t like people like you, people like you are wrecking our country, so it stands to reason that I don’t believe the things you believe and I never will, no matter what …’
“Similar to abortion and other social issues, climate change has become a partisan issue, with liberals backing the science, and conservatives denying it.”
I have a problem with your use of the concept of cognitive dissonance. Your mixing it up into tribal group belief systems and obscuring the relevant issue.
That quote could just as easily been written as:
with conservatives being cautiously skeptical of the empirical evidence and liberals callously willing to subjugate people into control by a few authoritarians
(I’m not advocating for conservatives just making a point)
It seems cognitive dissonance could be easily applied to the liberal view as trying to promote an agenda just as the right is.
Again just trying to make a point. I have to make that clear since in either the right or left they both are trying to protect their belief systems. Yes they both are. Look at the arguments objectively, not about Global Warming but the arguments used on the left and the right.
Yeah, let’s just look at the “arguments,” skipping scientific evidence and not including those inconvenient facts whilst considering the issues of climate change.
Got it.
Ignore reality and play tribal politics all day long and nothing gets done.
I don’t have any kids, but plenty of conservatives do. Guess they don’t give a stuff what happens to them or their grandkids.
Too bad that, as leftie, I appear to care more about what happens for future generations that conservatives do.
We can sit around playing this game forever. Meanwhile, the planet’s climate forces will do what they’re gonna do. Ignore it all at your risk in your zeal to prove that one “side” is more “right” than the other.
“Yeah, let’s just look at the “arguments,” skipping scientific evidence and not including those inconvenient facts whilst considering the issues of climate change.”
No that’s not what I said. What I meant is recognize that both sides are using irrational arguments that are meant to reduce cognitive dissonance on their respective sides. Once you see that you can look at the actual evidence objectively rather than trying to protect your emotional investment into your respective left or right world view in order to reduce your own personal cognitive dissonance.
Just last week, I wrote a comment about this subject in the Charlie Daniels blog(slightly right of …Attila the Hun).Birtherism is the result of patriotic Americans who believe the Commander In Chief deserves respect, but they hate the current CinC, for whatever reason. The resolution is to deny his claim to be president by whatever means necessary.
I was unsuccessful in winning converts.
Most climate change deniers don’t understand the relatedness of science. With religion, you can pretty much pick and choose doctrine. With science, if even a tiny part is found invalid, the ripple effects cast everything in doubt. Yet they blog, drive cars talk on cell phones, watch the weather forecasts on TV and act as if they can ignore the part they don’t like.
If the science behind climate change is not true, very little else would work, because it is all the same science.
“If the science behind climate change is not true, very little else would work, because it is all the same science.”
Science is neither true nor untrue but only valid or invlaid for it’s relevant field and conditions.
You can both be skeptical of the data in climate science without rejecting it’s conclusions in total.
I see this as another massive failure by our team over the last couple of years. We should have made our concerns law instead of relying on EPA actions that can and are being challenged. We had the muscle – and we did not act!
“I see this as another massive failure by our team over the last couple of years. We should have made our concerns law instead of relying on EPA actions that can and are being challenged. We had the muscle – and we did not act!”
That illustrates my point:
“That quote could just as easily been written as:
with conservatives being cautiously skeptical of the empirical evidence and liberals callously willing to subjugate people into control by a few authoritarians”
Can’t wait to see the climate change deniers standing behind the exhaust of a running car in a parking lot to cool off. Preferably in one of the heat islands formed by a city.
Developing countries have been impacted the most by climate change yet they have been least responsible for emissions. So it’s only fair that industrialized countries assist by providing them with the resources to adapt and mitigate the worst effects of climate change, while ensuring that developing countries don’t follow the same dirty energy path of that rich countries have. This is what I mean by redistribution of wealth.
Without this type of redistribution, the polution of less industrialized nations, as you said, will continue to rise. And you’re absolutely right. This has been a limiting feature at international conferences bc the climate justice movement is consistently excluded from the debate.
I never suggested that cognitive dissonance is confined to the right only. But on this particular issue, a large portion of conservatives are choosing to disbelieve the science. On the other hand, the majority of liberals increasingly support the scientific consensus. Liberals have no reason to deny the science because all of the needed solutions to address climate change are in line with liberal values, like heavy government regulation of industry, government investment/spending on alternative energy, etc. This is not so for conservatives, hence… cognitive dissonance.
Whether global warming is real or a hoax, It’s pretty clear that nothing will be done about it. Other than react to it I mean. So I fail to see the utility of putting the conservatives on the couch.
I totally agree with your conclusion. Our focus should be on changing a system that must grow or die.
Indeed, and unfortunately too many leaders of the developing world are being courted by the Big Oil climate destroyers.
So in other words conservatives are babies that are afraid of giving up their “bwankie”
Right back at you censored.
A big part of cognitive dissonance is aggressive vilification of anyone who disagrees with one’s worldview.
Bless your heart.
Conservatives and Cognitive Dissonance go together the same way Lobbyists and Obama go together. Carbon Dioxide is not harmful to people or plants after all! At 4 parts per ten thousand of course, CO2 is not harmful.
But some conservative criticism is valid. The so-called “Cap and Trade” solution is just another Wall Street Fraud, just more corporatism. Cap and Trade is not environmentalism, it is the opposite.
Corporations, Conservatives and investment Bankers have given us a failed energy policy since always. Cap and Trade has basically been a sell out to corporations and is the latest energy policy failure by the Establishment. Reject Cap and Trade.
Except Cockburn (whose buddies on this are all funded by the dirty-energy lobby) has been debunked already.
Here’s a small taste from http://www.socialistaction.org/frank8.htm –
Oh yeah: Speaking of cognitive dissonance, the anti-nuke Cockburn, in his desire to keep driving the 1950s and 1960s gas-run American muscle cars he loves, embraces Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, who is not only not a climatologist but is so pro-nuke he’s written an article titled “The Myth of Fallout Cancer.”
Oh, yeah. Liberals are so callous that they’ve made the EPA all-powerful. NOT.
Put down the Ayn Rand and look at reality for a change. (Besides, Rand modeled her male heroes on a particularly vile mass murderer, so you really shouldn’t be emulating them.)
They’re given lots and lots of money to do what they do.
As Upton Sinclair said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
My snark isn’t obvious?
It’s yet another “third way” compromise that doesn’t do much. The global economic downturn, combined with the growing adoption of better technologies, has probably done more:
From http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/u-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-projected-to-grow-slowly/?ref=globalwarming –
Why would you assume I adhere to or believe anything Ayn Rand?
I believe and adhere to the non-aggression principle and the respect and empathy of each individual human being.
You know it’s also time we start explaining it further.
Like this;
“It is difficult to get a man to admit that he understands something when his salary depends on his loudly making believe that he does not understand it.”
Most of the worst climate-change deniers are actually tactical liars, and their fans are committed identity-politics adherents who just don’t care about the truth if it gets in the way of kicking the opposition.
These identity-politics adherents who just don’t care about the truth, believe that everyone they consider the ‘other’ is also a tactical liar, and so from their point of view, all their lying is justified because it’s all part of the game.
This is the reason I so hate the MSM’s addiction to covering the Horse-Race instead of the issues, because it has taught the identity-politics adherents who just don’t care about the truth that they can never be forced to discuss the issues honestly and directly, because winning ‘the game’ is more important than the truth, and the tactical lie has become a universally accepted rhetorical device.
The simple fact is not everyone you disagree with is diliberately lying to your face, though you’d never know that from listening to/reading ‘the news’.
I’s the temperature of the oceans that are key. See? I admit to being an asshole, but not so much on accepted science.
Unquestioning, unassailable belief in anything and everything is the ultimate work around for cognitive dissonance.
The right wing has developed the concept of a religious political belief system which cannot stand the scrutiny of disinterested observation or the test of independent verifiability.
Belief is a sacred right and must not be questioned.
The eleventh commandment was: Do not question the first ten, just believe.
Follow.
The.
Money.
… excellent debut, welcome to MyFDL. Thanks for this diary.
I’m sorry you pulled it off so well you were indistinguishable from them
I’ve actually heard them say that exact same thing, just in a serious way…
Sorry for the misunderstanding
I’m sorry you pulled it off so well that you were indistinguishable from them
I’ve actually heard them say that exact same thing, just in a serious way…
Sorry for the misunderstanding
Agree.
Cognitive dissonance happens with the right, with the left, with libertarians and with independents. Let’s just get that out of the way.
However, climate-change is based heavily in science. We can play semantic word games, or we can agree that it’s mainly conservatives who chose to ignore science and factual reality much more on this particular issue, than those with a more liberal/progressive/leftwing perspective do.
No problem, I’ve read enough of your comments to know it was a temporary mis-understanding.
The “…no matter what.” thing was the key to understanding my snark, and our problem, God talks to these people and what can facts do in the face of God’s direct communication?
Peace.
Why are we surprised at these idiots. They have been doing it for years. They voted against the draft in November of 1941. They refused to support providing polio vaccinations to all citizens in th 1950s. They have always been stupid. And stupid is as stupid does.
Hasn’t it always?
BYW, what are they ‘conserving’ that is worth conserving?
“They have always been stupid. And stupid is as stupid does.”
Exactly!
And… ignorance is a verb.
It’s understandable(but not forgivable) that corporations don’t want to spend the money to clean up their messes but I don’t understand why ordinary people fight against this so much.
Why do they not believe the science of the situation? The evidence is there to see. And what if the science is just half right – would it make them feel better to be told that NY may have 6 feet of water in the streets rather than 12?
What do you mean “both sides?” Both sides of the climate change debate? Left v Right? Liberal v Conservative? Something else? I ask because if I don’t understand what you mean by that phrase, I am guessing at your point.
Sometimes I guess incorrectly.
Great post.
“For a conservative whose entire identity is defined by faith in the economics of capitalism and free markets, acceptance of climate change poses a danger to their sense of self, and will be avoided at all costs.”
Yes. To be slightly more specific, acceptance of global warming would imply that free market capitalism inexorably leads to global warming AND that unfettered markets exacerbate the potential for harm.
Why are conservatives, despite the mounting evidence, so unwilling to accept that climate change is a serious threat caused by greenhouse emissions
is this a trick question?
because their contributors and puppet masters tell them to
Since industry has left since they deregulated everything, I think you are incorrect to blame industrial capitalism. It is actually big ag and the oil, gas and timber industries that are pushing this stuff, as well as finance capital.
interesting though, these aren’t really conservatives, they don’t want to conserve anything
the neo cons, the milton friedman’s, economic libertarians, they have co-opeted the term.
the term “conservative” has morphed into something that is unassociated with the word
In other three words: The Koch brothers.
here’s another question designed to provoke cognitive dissonance:
if the democrats believe that climate change is a serious threat, why didn’t they do anything about when they controlled the house, the senate and the presidency?
here’s another question:
if liberals believe that climate change is a serious threat, then why would spend more time focused on what conservatives are thinking instead of what democrats in deecee are doing (or not doing)?
I don’t think it’s actually “capitolism, I believe capitolism has suffered the same fate as “conservatism”
I believe what is now seen as “capitolism” is actually a previously un-documented system of economics that should be called “corporatism”
this is the subject of a blog post I have been meaning to write
we know about socialism, communism, conservatism
we are facing none of those, we are facing today “corporatism” and someone of econobuzz’s or ecahnomic’s stature and knowledge should author a piece
great questions, I suppose largely intended to be rhetorical since we know the answer, democrats are controlled by the same corporate contributors as republicans, they have been able to market themselves to us f ing hippys as the only alternative to repukes
yup, the kock brothers and their kock suckers control our government our fourth estate and write our law
But, but, but Al Gore is FAT! And he has a big house. that he uses light bulbs in!
Seriously though, it’s not just climate science. From young Earth creationism to pulp “psychology” to climate change denial, conservatives are in denial about science in general. I had a conservative acquaintance once tell me that he could “prove” that there was no such thing as science. His “proof”? That science isn’t an object that one could point to. This is what we are up against: A whole segment of the population who would rather play word games than carry on a serious conversation about addressing problems. They are being manipulated by the money interests, (who know climate change is real), so they can keep making money. Sustainability is so quaint. These days it’s all about maximizing profit for the next quarter at all costs. And they’ve made themselves an army of brainwashed zombies to get their backs.
“These days it’s all about maximizing profit for the next quarter at all costs.”
Amen. And the POTUS maximizing campaign contributions.
you know, I never realized you can’t point to science, I have to re-think now if it exists
did you ask him if he could point to g-d?
I have a date with a chess board, see all later
In the context of the diary Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives.
Cog.Dis. is not about ideology although it seems to be used in this case to promote ideology.
Republicans do what they are told. They have always been more in lockstep than the dysfunctional Democratic party.
High temp records have been far outpacing low records – worldwide.
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/1036/record-high-temperatures-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us
hi perris!
yeah. i don’t get why more liberals, progressives, etc aren’t ranting about the the D party climate policies. i mean, the only one they came up with was a treat for the banksters and sucked for the climate.
if we really think there is serious threat? why are we yelling about the need for a carbon tax?
i have to conclude that most democratic party partisans don’t actually believe it any more than republican party partisans do. it’s being used by both sides as a wedge issue to score points.
have fun!
You too
I think folks recognize fraud when they see it.
I did. But apparently that doesn’t apply. BTW, I did point to science. I pointed at his cell phone and when he insisted that was technology, not science, I pointed to the definition of technology as “the practical application of science”. That doesn’t count either. Like I said, it’s pointless arguing with them. We’re better off trying to transplant spines into people who do believe in science.
Brilliant analysis. I’ve read your piece and the one by David Roberts so I’m a happy man today. But I ask you the same question: what do we do? I can’t see any way forward at the moment other than the Greens. But I’m very open to suggestions. Thanks.
The folks on the right aren’t a monoculture, they have numerous motivations. Most are authoritarian followers. Some are cynical panderers in service to big business and the wealthy. Pretty much all of them are fear-based in one form or another.
Many of them are simply magical thinkers (this is not exclusive to the right). They believe that belief determines reality. If enough people believe something, it becomes true, and that history is a struggle of belief systems to determine our collective reality. And that is why they are passionate about spreading their belief systems.
The converse of this is that disbelief will also alter reality. If they themselves refuse to believe in climate change, it can’t happen. But that may not be enough, they have to make sure that WE don’t believe it.
These people can’t be reasoned with, because they neither employ nor value reason. They have to be politically defeated and kept away from power so that the majority of reality-based people can effect change.
beyond cognitive dissonance there seems to be four significant impediments to clearly understanding global warming and it’s relationship to climate change. First, we need to understand that there is a great difference between weather (what’s happening outside your home right now) and climate (global, fairly enduring conditions that determine your weather over a long period.) They are fundamentally different processes.
Secondly, we need to understand that whether the earth is warming really isn’t the question. Our planet warms and cools in long term cycles of roughly 100,000, 40,000 and 20,000 years (determined by the Earth’s aspect to the sun) and in short term cycles (determined by a myriad of other factors including solar activity, ocean salinity and the concentration of greenhouse gasses and aerosols in the atmosphere to name few.) So, the question we need to be asking is whether the Earth is warming faster than would be expected through natural causes. The answer here is yes and the implications of that answer are staggering.
Thirdly, we need to understand that the result we should expect from global warming is not simply hotter weather but, rather, it is increasing frequent extreme weather because planetary warming destabilizes the physical conditions that produce climate on a global scale.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, we need to understand that the processes that dictate climate are extremely complex and understanding those processes requires at least a cursory familiarity with a number of sciences. The key word here is science because climate change is a scientific issue, not a political one and believing the issue to be political is a sign of potentially fatal ignorance. Conservatives, centrist and liberals have an equal stake in controlling this problem because if we don’t control it we are all going to pay equally.
They’re reactionaries, I wouldn’t call them conservatives. In their hearts they distrust genuine conservatives. “Lying in the defense of dishonesty is not a vice”.
The denial of climate change may indeed be expressed as a cognitive dissonance, but that dissonance has nothing to do with the labels of ‘conservative’ ‘centrist’ and ‘liberal’. It has to do with the maintenance of power. As I think Teddy Partridge said, follow the money.
There is a power structure now to which all politicians must bend in order to even be noticed in this country, and that power structure depends absolutely on the maintenance of the status quo. Fossil fuel energy and the money it brings in is fundamental to our present power structure, which is not a democracy by any means, nor even less a republic. And everyone must be a part of this, beginning with the hiring of pseudo-scientists by the megacorporations who are our real masters. It is very much like threatening to do away with slavery – that is the mentality which cognitively cannot be dealt with in a reasonable manner because it is a way of life for the elite and they are addicted to it as much as were the plantation owners, the tobacco kings, opium dealers. They will kill and are doing so to maintain their positions of power. And there are among them so-called ‘conservatives’ and so-called ‘centrists’ and so-called ‘liberals’ but they are none of these.
They are oligarchs and will push the planet to its own violent reactions in the many forms that reaction will take.
All I can advise is that we should stay with the planet in this upheaval, if we can.
“A big part of cognitive dissonance is aggressive vilification of anyone who disagrees with one’s worldview.” You guys don’t have a great gift for self-awareness, do you?
Bingo. How many progressives do you know who’ve sold their low-elevation property and moved to higher ground?
Yep.
Conservatives quite agree with you in their dislike of seeing science perverted to serve a political agenda.
The issue of climate change is the starkest example of the difference between progressive and conservative thinking.
Progressive thinkers gather facts and empirical evidence, and use them to arrive at a conclusion.
Conservatives start with a conclusion, and then go about looking for evidence to support that conclusion. If neccessary, evidence is fabricated where none can be found.
No they don’t. But Conservatives surely have mastered the propaganda technique of preemptively accusing their opponents of their own sins. Goebbels would be proud but critical thinkers are no longer fooled. When you reject science you are back in the Dark Age. Enjoy your money. Maybe your children can eat it when they run out of food.
It’s Industrial society itself whether Capitalist or other wise that is pushing climate change. During the Soviet era the Communists were just as bad or worse at polluting and extracting. I don’t buy the it’s all Capitalism’s fault logic.
As I said, almost zero self-awareness. You’re too busy spitting hatred at conservatives to listen to what they’re saying.
Climate change and the environment are not even on the list of issues the DNC polls party members on. They are complicit.
I repeat from my response to Selise above.
“Climate change and the environment are not even on the list of issues the DNC polls party members on. They are complicit.”
Unfortunately, this whole article is based upon the following incorrect statement: “… the widely held scientific view that global warming is occurring and humans are a major cause.”
A global warming scientist attempted for over 4 months to prove the above statement on ClimateClash.com and he failed. The bottom line is there is no valid evidence that humans are causing significant climate change.
Until someone provides convincing observational evidence that humans are causing significant climate change, there is no basis to claim “deniers” are wrong. They are not denying science. They are only saying the alarmists have not proved their case … which is true.
If you think you can show otherwise, give it your best shot on ClimateClash.com. You can read a summary here http://polymontana.com/2011/04/25/global-warming-scientist-loses-climate-clash-debate/.