The Right on Climate Change

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Radix »

mikenz66 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:51 pmThe key divide that has come to the fore in the past 30 years is not left-right, it's between those who pay attention to the consensus of experts and those who find expertise and science rather inconvenient.
I find this is a simplistic analysis. I believe in climate deterioration ("climate change" is such a politically correct term; I heard it was deliberately introduced to replace "global warming"). But I don't believe this because of what scientists say, but because of what I see for myself, and because of my moral standards.
The latter also don't acknowledge that science changes (hence the typical objection: "they've changed their minds - therefore, they must be wrong!").
Scientists and experts do ask a lot from people; in fact, they ask for too much. The way science demands trust from people is similar to how religion demands trust from people. But at least religion has some aspiration to being constant, unchanegable.
Of course, science is not about everyone agreeing - it's a process that makes progress though disagreement and attempts to falsify models.
That's just not good enough. It's at best moral relativism. No wonder many people are skeptical of science. Trusting science is like being married to someone who tells you every other day that they don't know whether they want to stay married to you or not, but that you need to be faithful to them regardless.
So it's always possible to find people who disagree with the current consensus on anything. And there's always a small chance that they are right.
Science frames the whole issue wrongly. It works on the principle "If it's not too shitty, then it's okay. So let's measure if it's too shitty or not." What's "too shitty" is, of course, quite arbitrary.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4531
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Dan74 »

Regarding "doomsday claims that didn't materialise", I do recall some, but have there been any from more reputable bodies like the IPCC? What climate scientists I've spoken to told me, was that all they can say with confidence (or 95% confidence) is that if we stay on the same trajectory, the world will warm up by at least ____ within 30 years and at most _____ within 30 years. But since such predictions, being science, don't exactly roll off the tongue, journalists dumb them down and they sometimes become something else entirely.

But if we cherry-pick the most outlandish predictions and use them as evidence that it's all hogwash because doomsday has not come, are we really proving that nothing concerning is going on?

In the meantime, there are many predictions that are indeed materialising (unfortunately), some that were around the worse end of the range...
Last edited by Dan74 on Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_/|\_
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Radix »

DNS wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:43 pm Even if there is no climate change or it's all just a cycle, nothing to do with humans causing the change;

then what about pollution?
Which is the right direction to take.

It's not about trying to calculate how much particle pollution is still acceptable, still "safe", or how much time we have before the polar ice melts. It's about understanding that using natural resources is a matter of morality, a matter of ethical conduct, and not something we are simply entitled to do at our leisure.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
mikenz66 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:51 pmThe key divide that has come to the fore in the past 30 years is not left-right, it's between those who pay attention to the consensus of experts and those who find expertise and science rather inconvenient.
I find this is a simplistic analysis too.

For both climate and other unmentionable recent applications of "the science", it seems to be more a 3-way distinction between:

- A small group who actively wish to implement technocratic totalitarianism

- Those who find technocratic totalitarianism morally repugnant

... and a much larger third group who don't much like the idea of technocratic totalitarianism but can either be scared, intimidated, threatened, gaslit or brow-beaten to go along with it "for the greater good" under the banner of "science". :ugeek:

The primary objection of "the Right" fundamentally distils to an objection towards "technocratic totalitarianism", with a secondary concern about the corruption and waste that cling onto it.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Last edited by retrofuturist on Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by cappuccino »

:candle:
Last edited by cappuccino on Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Sam Vara »

Moderator note: before this deteriorates into a shapeless general argument about climate change and its amelioration, please could people remember to address the question phrased in the OP?

Thanks. :anjali:
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Bundokji »

From my corner of the world, Thatcher is more known for neoliberalism than conservatism, even if she represented "the conservative party" as a prime minister of England at the time. Neoliberalism and the privatization of the economy had globalists and expansionist ambitions to achieve its goals where talking about climate change might have served the agenda at the time. Had it been a true conviction, she would not have supported the war against Iraq more than anyone else to secure oil supplies.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4531
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Dan74 »

Radix,

How do you mean that the scientists and experts ask for too much? Their conclusions, the data they are based on and all the methods are in the public domain. There are also many popular explanations that break it down for non-experts. What more can be done? How would you do it differently?
Radix wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:23 pm
mikenz66 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:51 pmThe key divide that has come to the fore in the past 30 years is not left-right, it's between those who pay attention to the consensus of experts and those who find expertise and science rather inconvenient.
I find this is a simplistic analysis. I believe in climate deterioration ("climate change" is such a politically correct term; I heard it was deliberately introduced to replace "global warming"). But I don't believe this because of what scientists say, but because of what I see for myself, and because of my moral standards.
The latter also don't acknowledge that science changes (hence the typical objection: "they've changed their minds - therefore, they must be wrong!").
Scientists and experts do ask a lot from people; in fact, they ask for too much. The way science demands trust from people is similar to how religion demands trust from people. But at least religion has some aspiration to being constant, unchanegable.
Of course, science is not about everyone agreeing - it's a process that makes progress though disagreement and attempts to falsify models.
That's just not good enough. It's at best moral relativism. No wonder many people are skeptical of science. Trusting science is like being married to someone who tells you every other day that they don't know whether they want to stay married to you or not, but that you need to be faithful to them regardless.
So it's always possible to find people who disagree with the current consensus on anything. And there's always a small chance that they are right.
Science frames the whole issue wrongly. It works on the principle "If it's not too shitty, then it's okay. So let's measure if it's too shitty or not." What's "too shitty" is, of course, quite arbitrary.
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4531
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Dan74 »

Bundokji wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:31 pm From my corner of the world, Thatcher is more known for neoliberalism than conservatism, even if she represented "the conservative party" as a prime minister of England at the time. Neoliberalism and the privatization of the economy had globalists and expansionist ambitions to achieve its goals where talking about climate change might have served the agenda at the time. Had it been a true conviction, she would not have supported the war against Iraq more than anyone else to secure oil supplies.
This may be so, but many people who are concerned about global warming adopted (especially in the past) a middle-of-the-road position. "So we work on new technologies and on curtailing the emissions but we don't foreswear the use of oil just yet (because too costly)."

Not sure about Thatcher. Maybe she was being disingenuous, but maybe she also cared about her legacy and wanted to be remembered as a responsible leader? Or even actually care about the world, hard as it may be to believe (given many of her actions)?
_/|\_
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by TRobinson465 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:18 pm In the 1980's Margaret Thatcher was warning about the dangers posed by man made climate change. Why then is it today the Right has mostly opposed the very idea?
Hyperpolarization due to social media and the internet where people have devolved into bubble thinking and changing the facts to fit their opinion rather than changing their opinion based on clear facts, combined with intentional misinformation campaign from American oil companies to preserve their business model and several regions in conservative places that rely on fossil fuels for their economy and are thus more willing change the facts based on their opinion and accept the misinformation from oil funded groups because its easier to believe something you like than not like. and for people who depend on coal and oil for thier economies they much rather beleive in the bogus science that man-made climate change isnt a thing when all real science points to it being a thing by pretty large consensus.

To be fair, this has happened all over thanks to the rise of the internet and social media algorithms feeding us self reinforcing info and creating a bubble mindset. The left used to be about free speech, now there's a rising faction that is agaisnt it. They also still think identity politics is a winning strategy when even in my home state of California, the stereotypical liberal state, affirmative action in public universities is routinely voted down on voter referendums by large margins.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by TRobinson465 »

Like with all issues, COVID, immigration, war, crime etc. You have to balance the costs and benefits. Short of a breakthru in fusion power it is currently infeasible to completely go off of fossil fuels in the near term without causing major disruptions to people in the modern world and the left has to come to terms with that. Although if the right just accepted the facts rather than pretending its not a problem and worked toward solutions rather than living in denial, the medicine we'd have to take to avert major problems in a few decades wouldnt have been as bad.

IMO the fixation on climate change was counter productive. If the left didnt waste so much time and resources trying to convince coal country conservatives climate change was real and playing into the fossil fuel industries hands and just highlighted other benefits to getting off of fossil fuels like clean air, i think we actually woulda gotten somewhere. Almost nobody is against clean air.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by mikenz66 »

Radix wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:23 pm Scientists and experts do ask a lot from people; in fact, they ask for too much. The way science demands trust from people is similar to how religion demands trust from people. But at least religion has some aspiration to being constant, unchanegable.
Experts in science and related areas (at least those who are sticking to an ethical approach) try to explain their best estimate of what is going on/what can be done. In contrast to Retro's depressing conspiracy theories, the scientists, engineers, etc that I know would very much like an open dialog about what is happening and what could be done. It's much more complex than just the science of, say, climate change - there are all kinds of social issues that affect what is possible, and the collateral effects of actions.

Any sensible leader, on the left or the right, needs to weigh the input from a variety of experts (in this case much broader than jut climate science), as well as the opinions and aspirations of their citizens. That's what we were seeing in Thatcher's UN address. Unfortunately, as I said above, the rise of an attitude of distrust around expert opinion has made some of these discussions very difficult. Ironically, many of the naysayers about experts (in science and other areas) seem much more certain of their understanding of a huge variety of technical issues than I am of mine (outside of my actual areas of expertise).

:heart:
Mike
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by TRobinson465 »

mikenz66 wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:26 pm
Radix wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:23 pm Scientists and experts do ask a lot from people; in fact, they ask for too much. The way science demands trust from people is similar to how religion demands trust from people. But at least religion has some aspiration to being constant, unchanegable.
Experts in science and related areas (at least those who are sticking to an ethical approach) try to explain their best estimate of what is going on/what can be done. In contrast to Retro's depressing conspiracy theories, the scientists, engineers, etc that I know would very much like an open dialog about what is happening and what could be done.
Yes if we can just look at the facts and and work toward a solution that balances each sides concerns rather than just pretending facts we dont like are fake most of the worlds unsolved problems would actually be solved. We do have to acknowledge that sometimes science gets it wrong, like it did with the whole one drink a day is good for you thing that has now been disproven, and was literally misleading ppl for decades into breaking the 5th precept in hopes of better health. But having healthy rational skepticism for science is different from having blind partisan denialism.

Its kinda depressing to see debates about climate change, something 99% of climate scientists agree on and each and every year the more research that is done on it the more evidence points to it being real and man-made, takes a turn similar to US gun debates where every time there is a mass shooting conservatives scream "theyre taking our guns, theyre taking our guns" at even the most mild gun control law, rather than just working on an actual solution that can balance gun safety with gun owner rights. That literally, because the most extreme climate predictions from 40 years didnt come true, climate change happening isnt at all. Somehow background checks on gun purchases = theyre taking your guns away and climate change = The Day After Tomorrow, or its not happening at all.

But there are people nowadays who also think progressive tax = communism, racial discrimination in hiring = slavery, anybody i dont agree with = Hitler, concern about Isreal's treatment of Palestineans = Kill all Jews, so its not that surprising to see it i guess.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Bundokji »

Dan74 wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:22 am This may be so, but many people who are concerned about global warming adopted (especially in the past) a middle-of-the-road position. "So we work on new technologies and on curtailing the emissions but we don't foreswear the use of oil just yet (because too costly)."

Not sure about Thatcher. Maybe she was being disingenuous, but maybe she also cared about her legacy and wanted to be remembered as a responsible leader? Or even actually care about the world, hard as it may be to believe (given many of her actions)?
If you link the cost to how capitalism operates, it seems that globalism was only profitable to multinational companies, rather than the average citizen. Trump run his campaign based on that according to my understanding. Many on the right became pro-isolationism because of jobs and capital being shipped overseas, no longer "trickling down" to workers.

Since the outset, it seems to me, climate change was not the main concern.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Radix »

Dan74 wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:18 amHow do you mean that the scientists and experts ask for too much?
They expect people to trust them, unconditionally.
Their conclusions, the data they are based on and all the methods are in the public domain.
So how are your experiments at CERN going?
There are also many popular explanations that break it down for non-experts. What more can be done? How would you do it differently?
Stop assuming that people are idiots and stop patronizing them.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Locked