sculptor:
I find it interesting that one can usually predict other's views on global warming/anthropogenic global warming/climate change based on their political leanings.
curious, that.
That's because much of politics these days is not evidence-based. Arguments are made on the basis of emotion and appeals to self interest, or on ideological grounds. Politics would do well to touch base with reality a bit more often.
Real action on climate change requires cooperation and communitarianism. It can come at the expense of individualism and profit. There are many vested interests in play, too, and those have had a very large influence over the political debate about climate change, particularly in the United States. The result has been the political polarisation you mention.
It is precisely because most people are are not equipped to make an independent judgment about climate change that the issue is easily politicised. Instead of a question of evidence, it becomes a question of who you trust.
Yazata:
Indeed.
That's why I'm hugely skeptical about the whole global warming subject.
Which parts of it? That global warming is occuring at all? That humans are contributing to it? That we can do something about it if we act collectively? All of the above?
So we have a situation where, if somebody doesn't sign on unquestioningly and without reservation to a grand political program, then that individual is supposedly a science denier, a moral reprobate and the worst kind of person.
It's not an all-or-nothing proposition, you know. There is much debate about how best to address the problems raised by human-caused climate change. But we should be able to agree on the basic scientific facts - and they are basic when it comes down to it. There's zero scientific doubt that global warming is happening due to human activities. What to do about it is the moral and political question that we need to address urgently.
Unfortunately, many people are currently fiddling while Rome burns. The window in which we can make a meaningful difference is rapidly closing, while we argue back and forth.
It's even worse when you consider that 99+% of the population are in no position to evaluate the factual claims for themselves. They can't judge the accuracy of the raw data, the nature of whatever 'adjustments' that the data is subjected to before it is published, the accuracy of the (almost always untested) models that the data is then plugged into, or the often apocalyptic conclusions that are then derived.
One correction: the models are not "almost always untested".
Of course, we don't need the models to accept the reality of climate change. Just look at the data, watch the news etc.
People are told to just believe, just accept, that we are living in the 'last days'.
That seems dangerously medieval to me, so I've chosen to preserve my intellectual integrity and reserve judgement.
There is some overblown rhetoric out there, no doubt. We're not heading for an apocalypse in which all human beings will die. But if we do not take decisive action, extreme weather events will become more frequent. Some nations will be inundated by the rising sea levels. There will be widespread migrations of climate refugees who are forced to move away from their homes because the climate will no longer allow them to live where they live. In the longer term there will likely be famine and wars. A lot of people will die from the direct or indirect effects of climate change, but not everybody.
We are already on track for all of this. Some of these things are starting to happen now. You only have to open your eyes and look.
I'm not sure what, exactly, you're "reserving judgment" about. I hope you're not sticking your head in the sand and hoping that climate change isn't real, but just some Democrat plot or something.
