The Right on Climate Change

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
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 »

Some really interesting points made all round. I tend to agree with Mike's scepticism as to whether there is truly a left/right divide, in that the internet tends to create a kind of distorting effect and amplifies the ideas of those who monopolise a few sites. As yet, climate change has not created a division along mass political lines, as income distribution and national/cultural self-determination did throughout much of the last century. Nor has it led to much in the way of political violence. It strikes me as very significant that communists and fascists killed millions in the 20th Century, and Irish Republicans attempted assassinations of the UK Prime Minister and took up arms against the British Army. That's serious stuff, essentially over the political administration of a small economically unproductive corner of the EU. But although I know many people who claim that climate change is the most desperate emergency ever faced by the whole of humanity, very few of them actually do much about it. From my limited perspective, climate change seems to be a matter of social allegiance, rather than a political belief.

As DNS points out, many right-of-centre people are concerned about the climate. It's sometimes claimed (for example, by the Adam Smith Institute) that capitalism will innovate solutions if left relatively unregulated. And traditional cultural conservatives apply Edmund Burke's reasoning that we - the living - have a duty towards future generations:
But one of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and the laws are consecrated, is lest the temporary possessors and life-renters in it, unmindful of what they have received from their ancestors, or of what is due to their posterity, should act as if they were the entire masters; that they should not think it amongst their rights to cut off the entail, or commit waste on the inheritance, by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society; hazarding to leave to those who come after them, a ruin instead of an habitation
(Reflections on the Revolution in France)

He was mainly thinking of political institutions and culture here, but it also applies to the natural environment.

We hear less from their counterparts on the left - Marxists who think that increasing industrialisation and production is desirable because it accelerates the demise of capitalism. Forty years ago, that was almost the default position on the left.

I think the main reason why some on the right are opposed to measures designed to mitigate or avert climate change is that they see such measures as requiring increasing regulation and control of individual freedoms. For them, the right of the individual to make their own choices appear threatened by political control. They refer to "watermelon politics": green on the outside, red on the inside. They fear blundering into an irreversible situation of surveillance, scarcity, and curtailment, or suspect that ecological issues have been hijacked by the unreconstructed Marxists and collectivists that they always feared.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4530
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Dan74 »

retrofuturist wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:43 am Greetings Mike,

I wasn't reading anything unless someone quoted it here. I was, however, watching the video and commenting on the selective editing.

As for the text you've just highlighted, the "greenhouse effect" isn't what current "climate change" advocacy is based on, though.

When prophecies about the greenhouse effect failed to materialise on schedule, the popular terminology changed to "climate change" as a broad and nebulous term for any weather pattern deemed undesirable, which deviated from some supposedly "natural" norm - whether it be warmer or colder, wetter or drier, or vaguely more "extreme" (whatever that means). Being malleable to mean whatever people wanted it to mean on any given day, it's conveniently unfalsifiable.

Therefore, this really is like comparing apples and oranges. Meanwhile, it's another decade, and another impending apocalypse that never arrives - see Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions for an entertaining and nostalgic trip down memory lane.

As for Western Buddhists, a lot seem to experience fear, concern, worry, anxiety, aversion and greed in relation to the climate, meanwhile reading The Guardian, watching state media, and cheering on society's climate superheroes as they fly their private jets to far flung corners of the world to schmooze, feast and further promote their industry. I don't see much value or wholesomeness in it.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Paul,

We all make mistakes, so why not admit it when you made one? Mike quoted the speech in the 3rd post on the thread. It is clear that Thatcher said much more than you ascribed to her. She talks about curtailing emissions and called it "Climate Change." Also not at all sure what you mean by "the "greenhouse effect" isn't what current "climate change" advocacy is based on." What else is it based on if not reducing greenhouse gas emissions and also positive measures like conserving the forests (like the Amazon) that naturally sequester carbon.

And in response to the OP, I think Thatcher was able to say it because it had not become a party-political issue yet. Well, fortunately in the UK, it's never become such an extreme party-political issue like in the US, but it is clear that the reality of climate change and the need for action are not political statements. Politics and ideology may enter into how we approach solving it, but that the facts themselves became a matter of politics are a sad indictment of our discourse.
Last edited by Dan74 on Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
_/|\_
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 Dan74,
Dan74 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:47 am We all make mistakes, so why not admit it when you made one?
So my mistake is thinking we were watching the OP's video rather than reading transcripts? Right-o champ.
Dan74 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:47 amMike quoted the speech in the 3rd post on the thread.
Yes, a different section thereof. What was that about mistakes Dan74?
Dan74 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:47 amIt is clear that Thatcher said much more than you scribed to her. She also mentioned curtailing emissions and called it "Climate Change."
Implying "climate change" in 1989 meant what "climate change" means in [current year] is like saying that terms like racism, fascism and social justice still mean the same thing as they did 34 years ago.

As BrokenBones said, he's now gone from being regarded as left wing to being regarded as right wing in that time. He didn't change - the definitions and their application have.

As I said, apples and oranges. This attempt to use sleight of hand to imply Thatcher would endorse what was described above as "watermelon politics" because she strung together the words "climate" and "change" is absurd. It would be like a Christian saying that because the Buddha praised faith (saddha) we should worship God.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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
Dan74
Posts: 4530
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Dan74 »

retrofuturist wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:55 am Greetings Dan74,
Dan74 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:47 am We all make mistakes, so why not admit it when you made one?
So my mistake is thinking we were watching the OP's video rather than reading transcripts? Right-o champ.
She mentions climate change multiple times in the video, which you said was just about the hole in the ozone layer. And then you still persisted in your mistake after Mike posted the excerpt from the speech.
retrofuturist wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:55 am
Dan74 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:47 amMike quoted the speech in the 3rd post on the thread.
Yes, a different section thereof. What was that about mistakes Dan74?
Was the question about what Paul heard in the minutes of Thatcher's speech he listened to or what she actually said in that speech, and more broadly, the conservative approach to Climate Change? If you listen to even just the video, what is said is inconsistent with what you appear to have taken from it. But Mike emphasised the rest for us soon enough to correct any erroneous impressions. Yet, you persist. Is admitting a mistake a sign of weakness, or what's going on? I make plenty of mistakes. I've made them here and on DW-M and admitted it. TBH, I make mistakes all the time. And if I am making one now, I will admit it, but so far it doesn't seem to be the case.
retrofuturist wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:55 am
Dan74 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:47 amIt is clear that Thatcher said much more than you scribed to her. She also mentioned curtailing emissions and called it "Climate Change."
Implying "climate change" in 1989 meant what "climate change" means in [current year] is like saying that terms like racism, fascism and social justice still mean the same thing as they did 34 years ago.

As BrokenBones said, he's now gone from being regarded as left wing to being regarded as right wing in that time. He didn't change - the definitions and their application have.
I think that's a separate conversation, but I don't think the analogy with racism, fascism and sj holds. The basic ideas remains the same - the world is warming due to human action and we need to act before the environment is irrevocably damaged. That's what Thatcher said in that speech and it is just as true today, except that too little has been done, according to the vast majority of experts in the field and the window of opportunity to ameliorate the effects is shrinking fast.
retrofuturist wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:55 am As I said, apples and oranges. This attempt to use sleight of hand to imply Thatcher would endorse what was described above as "watermelon politics" because she strung together the words "climate" and "change" is absurd. It would be like a Christian saying that because the Buddha praised faith (saddha) we should worship God.

Metta,
Paul. :)
I don't know what she would endorse. But that could be an interesting conversation. What climate change action would be acceptable to classical conservatives? She talks of nuclear energy, climate activists like George Monbiot support more nuclear energy. Doesn't seem to me like worlds apart, you're arguing for, but maybe in other ways it is.
_/|\_
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 Dan74,
Dan74 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:22 am She mentions climate change multiple times in the video, which you said was just about the hole in the ozone layer. And then you still persisted in your mistake after Mike posted the excerpt from the speech.
You either totally skipped or misread my response to Ceisiwr about it. Either way.
Dan74 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:22 amwhat's going on?
It's already been clarified how what she said in 1989 is not equivalent to what is meant by the term in 2023 where it can mean all sorts of things other than just the "greenhouse effect" and the ozone layer. Here in Melbourne in [current year] they even blame the cold weather on climate change.

I don't care whether you agree or not, but these distinctions and shifting definitions have already been explained in previous posts.
Dan74 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:22 amI think that's a separate conversation
Yes, whereas I think the slippery and malleable definitions employed by those in the climate industry and activist classes are the very crux of the matter, and are precisely why people (including supposedly conservative political parties) still play along with it, despite decades of apocalyptic climate predictions that never come to pass. As above, they've defined things in such nebulous terms, that its now an unfalsifiable proposition. How convenient for the longevity of their industry.
Dan74 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:22 amaccording to the vast majority of experts in the field and the window of opportunity to ameliorate the effects is shrinking fast.
Remember me on your death bed, after a very long and satisfying life in decades time, when nothing has changed. In the meantime feel free to read the predictions at the link I shared earlier.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Last edited by retrofuturist on Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:19 am, edited 1 time 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
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Pondera »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:09 am

I think the main reason why some on the right are opposed to measures designed to mitigate or avert climate change is that they see such measures as requiring increasing regulation and control of individual freedoms. For them, the right of the individual to make their own choices appear threatened by political control. They refer to "watermelon politics": green on the outside, red on the inside. They fear blundering into an irreversible situation of surveillance, scarcity, and curtailment, or suspect that ecological issues have been hijacked by the unreconstructed Marxists and collectivists that they always feared.
Inter solar human expansion is the future. That is only possible with time/space bending technology - only possible with fusion power - only possible with a free market where demand powers innovation and the human spirit of discovery forwards scientific achievement.

We’ve become a very “fat” society and we are not likely to tighten the belt any time soon. 😉
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
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,
How should a layperson process constant doomsday claims that don’t materialize?

A well-meaning person might say: Well, maybe these people are experts, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Or perhaps: Maybe they’re generally correct and under-estimated the timeline previously, but this time they’ll get it right.

After a while, though, other possibilities come to mind: They’re overstating what they know because they’re scared. Or: Maybe they’re over-hyping because they have a political agenda.

Those skeptical possibilities grow to probabilities in one’s mind as (1) the number of failed doom-predictions increases, and (2) when those who’ve issued the failed doom-predictions never acknowledge their mistakes.

One marker of honest and scientific thinking is exactly that: The willingness to admit that one’s theory-predicted result did not come to pass. Absent those frank admissions of error, the suspicion grows that the doom-predictor is not functioning as an honest scientist. Rather, the probability is that the doom-predictor is engaging in a combination of fear-mongering and intellectual intimidation.

The issue matters because understanding the climate is important, as is widespread respect for the genuine science that will generate that understanding. Those chronic-doomster semi-scientists (and the journalists and activists who abet them) are thus doing all of us a disservice.

Analogies:

Those in Energy who for over a century have told us we will run out of everything in five years.

Those in Art who for a century have told us that modernist and postmodernist art is genius and that if you don’t see it you must be a barbarian.
Source: https://www.stephenhicks.org/2023/03/25 ... om-saying/

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Ceisiwr »

Dan74 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:22 am
Was the question about what Paul heard in the minutes of Thatcher's speech he listened to or what she actually said in that speech, and more broadly, the conservative approach to Climate Change? If you listen to even just the video, what is said is inconsistent with what you appear to have taken from it. But Mike emphasised the rest for us soon enough to correct any erroneous impressions. Yet, you persist. Is admitting a mistake a sign of weakness, or what's going on? I make plenty of mistakes. I've made them here and on DW-M and admitted it. TBH, I make mistakes all the time. And if I am making one now, I will admit it, but so far it doesn't seem to be the case.
Sadly most people here and on social media generally, actually most people in general it seems, tend to double down rather than say “I was wrong”. Being wrong doesn’t feel nice, and so it provokes a lot of aversion. Personally whilst I don’t like being wrong i don’t mind it too much, as it means I learnt something new.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:04 am Greetings,
How should a layperson process constant doomsday claims that don’t materialize?

A well-meaning person might say: Well, maybe these people are experts, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Or perhaps: Maybe they’re generally correct and under-estimated the timeline previously, but this time they’ll get it right.

After a while, though, other possibilities come to mind: They’re overstating what they know because they’re scared. Or: Maybe they’re over-hyping because they have a political agenda.

Those skeptical possibilities grow to probabilities in one’s mind as (1) the number of failed doom-predictions increases, and (2) when those who’ve issued the failed doom-predictions never acknowledge their mistakes.

One marker of honest and scientific thinking is exactly that: The willingness to admit that one’s theory-predicted result did not come to pass. Absent those frank admissions of error, the suspicion grows that the doom-predictor is not functioning as an honest scientist. Rather, the probability is that the doom-predictor is engaging in a combination of fear-mongering and intellectual intimidation.

The issue matters because understanding the climate is important, as is widespread respect for the genuine science that will generate that understanding. Those chronic-doomster semi-scientists (and the journalists and activists who abet them) are thus doing all of us a disservice.

Analogies:

Those in Energy who for over a century have told us we will run out of everything in five years.

Those in Art who for a century have told us that modernist and postmodernist art is genius and that if you don’t see it you must be a barbarian.
Source: https://www.stephenhicks.org/2023/03/25 ... om-saying/

Metta,
Paul. :)
You can accept climate change and accept that it will be damaging without thinking it’s the end of the world. Something can be very bad and unwanted yet the world goes on. I’m sorry to say but the Right has got things so badly wrong on climate change. Or rather the noisy, mostly American, Right (or those looking to become celebrities like Jordan Peterson) has.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Ceisiwr »

Dan74 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:47 am
And in response to the OP, I think Thatcher was able to say it because it had not become a party-political issue yet. Well, fortunately in the UK, it's never become such an extreme party-political issue like in the US, but it is clear that the reality of climate change and the need for action are not political statements. Politics and ideology may enter into how we approach solving it, but that the facts themselves became a matter of politics are a sad indictment of our discourse.
Yes it shouldn’t be a political issue, but it is. I can’t even suggest that it’s because tackling climate change is seen as socialism in disguise, because Thatcher was a Neo-liberal. Perhaps that’s become the mistaken perception though, pushed by other neo-liberals.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
sunnat
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:08 am

perception and propaganda

Post by sunnat »

Opinion shapers use effective means to guide opinions. [see E. Bernays : ‘the engineering of consent’].
The century of self : bbc documentary
‘happiness machines’ part one

Part two. ‘the engineering of consent’
Part three. Part four.
Last edited by sunnat on Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Ceisiwr »

It’s also not just climate change. You don’t hear many on the Right talk about conservation of species, or destruction of habitat much. Liz Truss did have conservation in her policies, but that’s all I can think of as of late. Then you have horrible examples like Bolsonaro who didn’t seem to care about the Amazon at all (deforestation increased during his term).
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17191
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by DNS »

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? Who wants to live in a smog infested city?

The Buddha made some rules for monks not to harm plants; so what would he say about mass deforestations, toxic waste dumping, wasting of resources in general?
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 »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:09 am Some really interesting points made all round. I tend to agree with Mike's scepticism as to whether there is truly a left/right divide, in that the internet tends to create a kind of distorting effect and amplifies the ideas of those who monopolise a few sites. ...
The 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. The latter also don't acknowledge that science changes (hence the typical objection: "they've changed their minds - therefore, they must be wrong!"). Back when Thatcher made that speech, the modelling of climate change was quite crude, both in terms of computer models and in terms of the data needed to feed into the models, which is often hard to measure - the thermal conductivity of sea ice, for example, which is very different from the ice in a freezer. Back in the 90s quite a few famous scientists were very skeptical. That's much less so today. Of course, science is not about everyone agreeing - it's a process that makes progress though disagreement and attempts to falsify models. 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.

Do you feel lucky? :tongue:

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: The Right on Climate Change

Post by Radix »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:11 pmSo my questions remains, why do so many on the Right now question the very idea of man-made climate change let alone proposals to tackle it?
Because they believe that life is a battle for survival and that only the fittest survive.
They love the struggle, the conflict, the competition, the fight.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Locked