It’s politics, not science

Posted on August 4, 2010 | 11 Comments

I am currently reading Clive Hamilton‘s book “Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change.” This figure in the book intrigued me. It’s taken from the report Global Warming’s Six Americas: An Audience Segmentation Analysis.

I think this demonstrates clearly that much of the public debate on climate change is politically based. Too often the real issue for those who argue against the science of climate change is political or ideological. The actions required to deal with climate change are seen as a threat to “free enterprise” because they require collective action to restrain the self-interest of individuals.

I just wish people with these concerns would be honest and stop trying to discredit the science and the scientists. After all, one can’t change reality, and it is only sensible to deal with the real issues. To deal with the politics. As I argued in Liability of scientific denialism to political conservativism attempts to discredit the science are really only a cop-out from the real political issues.

Warning

By the way – you shouldn’t read the wrong things into the above figure. The data is simply displaying the proportion of each classification (Alarmed, to Dismissive) who were liberal or conservative. “Moderates” are not shown hence the totals are less than 100. The figure does not indicate what proportion of the population is in each classification.

Another figure from this report gives this information (see below). As you can see only a small proportion of the American population is dismissive or doubtful about climate change.

Permalink

Similar articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Share

This entry was posted in diversity, Environment and Ecology, politics, SciBlogs, science, Science and Society and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 responses to “It’s politics, not science”

  1. Ross | August 4, 2010 at 9:53 am |

    The statistics could just be showing that liberals are more gullible.

    Like

  2. Richard Christie | August 4, 2010 at 11:03 am |

    The statistics could just be showing that liberals are more gullible.

    Judging from the reliability of the sources of information relied upon by each pole of the argument (e.g. NASA vs Monckton) I’d say it is certainly indicative of the very opposite.

    Like

  3. Ken | August 4, 2010 at 11:47 am |

    Ross, the data has no lessons on gullibility. They purely show the motives.

    The deniers could be the brightest peas on their pod but their motives are political/ideological – not scientific.

    Hence we get the common distortion of science by the deniers. Even the childish behavior of people like Monckton. But it’s not based on science.

    Like

  4. Cedric Katesby | August 4, 2010 at 10:47 pm |

    The statistics could just be showing that liberals are more gullible.

    Or it could just be showing the people who gathered the information were….Communist.
    Or perhaps it could just be showing there was no gathering of information in the first place. Maybe the author of the bo0k just faked all the figures?

    If you don’t like the results about something then dismiss it with a comment that you just pulled out of your butt.
    You seem to do that a lot, Ross.
    Nasty habit.

    Your “thinking” on climatology matches your “thinking” on evolutionary biology.

    No evidence required. No actual investigation required.
    Just rationalise it all away in five seconds flat and get on with the rest of your life.
    Reality is for nerds, right?

    Embrace your inner conspiracy theorist.
    An ad hoc answer for every situation is guaranteed for every situation.

    It’s just like the moronic reaction to scientists being exonerated of any wrong-doing in the fake “Climategate” scandal.
    Exonerated?
    Five times by five different, independent groups?
    Well…
    Um…
    Er…

    Clearly they were exonerated because…the investigators were PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!!

    😉

    Like

  5. Ross | August 5, 2010 at 10:11 am |

    My thinking has required evidence and investigation. Thousands of hours of investigation of both sides of the evolution and climate science debates.
    As a result, I have come to firm conclusions.

    If you look closer at the five ‘climategate’ investigations, you will find that they were not independent, grossly negigent and/or were very limited in scope. See http://is.gd/e2Uus for example.

    Like

  6. Ross | August 5, 2010 at 10:12 am |

    My thinking has required evidence and investigation. Thousands of hours of investigation of both sides of the evolution and climate science debates.
    As a result, I have come to firm conclusions.

    If you look closer at the five ‘climategate’ investigations, you will find that they were not independent, were grossly negligent and/or were very limited in scope. See http://is.gd/e2Uus for example.

    Like

  7. Ken | August 5, 2010 at 11:34 am |

    Ross, I have looked closely at all the “climategate” reports and written posts on some of them. I disagree completely with your characterization which you have obviously derived only from denier sources. These are completely unreliable often relying on distortions and outright lies. Only the ideologically aligned would them accept uncritically.  

    Of course your stance us a typical denier one. You don’t want to consider the evidence objectively – just try to cherry pick and distort to feed your own prejudice. On the process you commit the din of libeling honest people.

    But, doesn’t it worry your conscience, or your god, to be so dishonest?

    Like

  8. Cedric Katesby | August 5, 2010 at 4:32 pm |

    My thinking has required evidence and investigation.

    …and so says every other Holocaust denier, 9/11 Truther, YEC, anti-vaxxer, Moon Landing Hoaxer and HIV denier ever born.

    Your “thinking” has led you to reject climatology.
    An entire field of science and you’ve flushed it all down the toilet.
    Wow.
    It’s the same “thinking” that led you up the garden path with biology.

    Thousands of hours of investigation of both sides of the evolution and climate science debates.

    Yeah, I know. You are a graduate of the University of Google. Just like Jenny McCarthy.

    As a result, I have come to firm conclusions.

    Dunning Kruger Effect
    Your conclusions are a sad, pathetic joke that insulate you from the real world.

    Science for you is just one big, ol’ mean international conspiracy where only you, a few crackpot sites on the internet and your basement bible study group know the real trooth.

    Every Museum of Natural History is a den of deceit.
    Every antibiotic a useless placebo.
    Every penny of research into viruses including HIV is a waste of money.
    Every university with a science faculty is a nest of con artists.
    NASA is a secret cabal of charlatans.
    The CSIRO a pack of liars.

    The investigations found the scientists were guilty?
    Then clearly that proves there’s a conspiracy!
    Those scientists were up to no good.

    The investigations found the scientists were innocent?
    Then clearly that proves there’s a conspiracy!
    The investigations were part of the cover-up.

    Head you win, tails the opposition loses.
    You are not a skeptic; you’re a sucker.

    Like

  9. Pat | August 5, 2010 at 6:08 pm |

    Did you chase this book down after I mentioned it on the ‘Say Hello to My Little Friend’ blog? Remember our discussion/debate with Geoff?

    Like

  10. Ken | August 5, 2010 at 6:12 pm |

    Yes I did, Pat. Thanks for the recommendation.

    I actually got a review copy so will be posting a review eventually.

    It’s certainly easy to read and quite thought provoking.

    Like

  11. Ross | August 5, 2010 at 7:11 pm |

    Cedric, how can a TOP (Truthful, Opinionated, Paleoconservative) scholar like me be a sucker?

    And there is no need to expand my list of ‘real trooths’ to include those that I have not espoused, thank you!

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.