Analysis of recent scientific publications finds widespread agreement among climate scientists that human activity is the primary cause of climate change.
As it very clearly demonstrates in the article you linked, the reason why climate skepticism still exists at all is political, not scientific.
Conservatives are much more likely be skeptical of climate change because media outlets like FOX News and Republican politicians give credence to their natural bias that everything is fine and there is no pressing need to adjust their lifestyles or personal convictions regarding the environment. Following the example of Big Tobacco, the fossil fuel industry has spent billions of dollars on think tanks, political donations, and recruiting scientists who would produce favorable research for them in an attempt to obfuscate and artificially manufacture public doubt regarding anthropogenic climate change to the extent that climate denial is virtually an entire industry unto itself.
The problem with trying to “both sides” everything is that there aren’t always two reasonable and equitable positions to take. Quite often, one side is just plain wrong.
Liberals are much more likely to be skeptical of “climate realism” (let’s call the conservative position) because media outlets like CNN and MSNBC and liberal politicians cater to their natural tendency towards concern / precaution towards new development and the desire to make sacrifices for “the cause”.
Following the example of Big Pharma, the green tech industry has spent billions of dollars on groups / individuals who would produce favorable research for them in to artifically manufacture public support for the theory of manmade climate change; “climate alarmism” is virtually an industry unto itself - https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm
The problem with trying to “both sides” everything is that there aren’t always two reasonable and equitable positions to take. Quite often, one side is just plain wrong.
So, the question is how to sort out which side is in the right. I think a centrist take is that fossil fuels do pollute, but it’s a trade off many people are willing to make for faster technological progress. Once green tech is good enough, people could just transition to that; green tech is not at present efficient enough to overtake fossil fuel usage. Do you think this is the big thing holding green tech back? You might say it’s just lobbying… I understand that position, however the oil companies are also investing in green tech. I’ve looked in to consumer green tech solutions and… it seemed pretty unclear what a person should do if they wanted to be totally green (like, you might be able to buy costly things but it wasn’t clear if it would scale or be worth it). Like massive deindustrialization… is this the proposed solution of the left? The problem is also countries like China that don’t play by the rules, so I guess it can also be like a “prisoner’s dilemma”, or a game theory problem? What I mean to say is the U.S. could be greener and deindustrialize more and other countries like Russia and China could embrace the fossil fuels and get an edge and get ahead… I suppose that’s probably factored in as a component in considering if it’s worth taking the trade-off of green tech or not (geopolitical concerns).
I mean anyway personally I like green tech that gives me more personal freedom, so while I don’t really embrace it because I am concerned with “climate change” I am in to it for those reasons; I often find self-interest and what’s good for the environment ultimately overlap. Composting is basically making use of free resources that would otherwise be wasted, and so on.
Any thoughts on burning wood, which is renewable but also pollutes?
Any idea how to make progress on the discussion further?
edit: the other belief is that climate change / environmental regulations take away personal freedoms which make people weak and vulnerable; the thought is they’re not being pushed “in good faith” but just by corporations so that the corporations can benefit from these developments. A perhaps similar but distinct view is left and right are owned by the same people politically speaking (so it’s not always simply “fight the oil companies” because the green tech companies are destructive as well).
edit 2: I guess the question is specifically what do you want people to do? Like have you tried to incorporate green tech in to your life? I’ve found it seems costly, has maintenance issues… it doesn’t seem like a no brainer to switch to. Fossil fuels have potential issues but also a lot of positives to them, which is part of why they’re used.
As it very clearly demonstrates in the article you linked, the reason why climate skepticism still exists at all is political, not scientific.
Conservatives are much more likely be skeptical of climate change because media outlets like FOX News and Republican politicians give credence to their natural bias that everything is fine and there is no pressing need to adjust their lifestyles or personal convictions regarding the environment. Following the example of Big Tobacco, the fossil fuel industry has spent billions of dollars on think tanks, political donations, and recruiting scientists who would produce favorable research for them in an attempt to obfuscate and artificially manufacture public doubt regarding anthropogenic climate change to the extent that climate denial is virtually an entire industry unto itself.
The problem with trying to “both sides” everything is that there aren’t always two reasonable and equitable positions to take. Quite often, one side is just plain wrong.
basically the other side would say the same as you just reversed like a mad lib:
Yes, that’s exactly what the other side says: the reason “climate change alarmism” still exists is all political, not scientific. Since numerous predictions have been made and were incorrect: https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-years-of-predictions-that-the-climate-apocalypse-is-nigh/
Liberals are much more likely to be skeptical of “climate realism” (let’s call the conservative position) because media outlets like CNN and MSNBC and liberal politicians cater to their natural tendency towards concern / precaution towards new development and the desire to make sacrifices for “the cause”.
Following the example of Big Pharma, the green tech industry has spent billions of dollars on groups / individuals who would produce favorable research for them in to artifically manufacture public support for the theory of manmade climate change; “climate alarmism” is virtually an industry unto itself - https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm
So, the question is how to sort out which side is in the right. I think a centrist take is that fossil fuels do pollute, but it’s a trade off many people are willing to make for faster technological progress. Once green tech is good enough, people could just transition to that; green tech is not at present efficient enough to overtake fossil fuel usage. Do you think this is the big thing holding green tech back? You might say it’s just lobbying… I understand that position, however the oil companies are also investing in green tech. I’ve looked in to consumer green tech solutions and… it seemed pretty unclear what a person should do if they wanted to be totally green (like, you might be able to buy costly things but it wasn’t clear if it would scale or be worth it). Like massive deindustrialization… is this the proposed solution of the left? The problem is also countries like China that don’t play by the rules, so I guess it can also be like a “prisoner’s dilemma”, or a game theory problem? What I mean to say is the U.S. could be greener and deindustrialize more and other countries like Russia and China could embrace the fossil fuels and get an edge and get ahead… I suppose that’s probably factored in as a component in considering if it’s worth taking the trade-off of green tech or not (geopolitical concerns).
I mean anyway personally I like green tech that gives me more personal freedom, so while I don’t really embrace it because I am concerned with “climate change” I am in to it for those reasons; I often find self-interest and what’s good for the environment ultimately overlap. Composting is basically making use of free resources that would otherwise be wasted, and so on.
Any thoughts on burning wood, which is renewable but also pollutes?
Any idea how to make progress on the discussion further?
edit: the other belief is that climate change / environmental regulations take away personal freedoms which make people weak and vulnerable; the thought is they’re not being pushed “in good faith” but just by corporations so that the corporations can benefit from these developments. A perhaps similar but distinct view is left and right are owned by the same people politically speaking (so it’s not always simply “fight the oil companies” because the green tech companies are destructive as well).
edit 2: I guess the question is specifically what do you want people to do? Like have you tried to incorporate green tech in to your life? I’ve found it seems costly, has maintenance issues… it doesn’t seem like a no brainer to switch to. Fossil fuels have potential issues but also a lot of positives to them, which is part of why they’re used.