Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts

Sunday, July 15, 2012

A climate change grab bag…

 

It’s Time for a Conversation, Climate Change Deniers - Truthdig:
June 2011 to June 2012 was the hottest 12-month period ever recorded in the mainland United States, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The report from the National Climatic Data Center does not even include early July’s scorching temperatures that broke more than 2,000 individual heat records across the nation. The heat wave resulted in the deaths of 22 people and left millions without power for days.

Actor Denis Leary Pillories Selfish Americans in Song: "Kiss My Ass" | AlterNet:
You know how Americans are accused of being apathetic, glued to the couch and entertainment and uninterested in grave social issues, how we're selfish consumers guzzling the world's energy without a shred of moral compunction?

Well, actor Denis Leary has a new video on FunnyorDie that embodies that attitude in three short words.

Related Posts

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Conservative voters: Poorly informed with low IQs & voting against their own best interests?

Occupy Portland - N17: Occupy the Banks!  Portland, Oregon.  11:23 AM

I was just going to throw this link up onto Snip.it & Pinterest, but I really felt some words were necessary here.

First of all, I have known some very intelligent people who have conservative political views.  Not only are they smart, but their political views are smart as well.  Their arguments are usually well developed, informed, and are very intelligent, based on legitimate facts, figures and historical interpretations.

Quite often I disagree with them, but this is because we subscribe to some different historical and philosophical interpretations.  However, when we debate, I hope both of us walk away better informed than when we started. 

These debates usually change no minds, but they can actually make each of our arguments stronger, because through a well-informed conversation on an issue, we both learn some new facts and figures, holes are punched in our weaker arguments, and we have to find support for fuzzy truths we may have thrown out in haste or drop those imperfect arguments from our repertoire.  In the end, each side can make a better informed decision on the point being discussed and, hopefully, takes away stronger arguments in defense of our views.

But what about right and wrong?  What about winning?  Well, in intelligent debates, we are usually arguing sane problems and issues that have multiple, legitimate, intelligent solutions.  There usually is not a right answer or a wrong answer.  Or they are very complex problems that require the best ideas from both the right and the left to be adequately resolved.

Of course, I am not talking about racism, prejudice, discrimination, or science.  I usually find that intelligent conservatives and I pretty much share the same views here.  Because we are not stupid or ignorant.

Which brings us to this…

Conservatism Thrives on Low Intelligence and Poor Information | | AlterNet:

…Canadian study published last month in the journal Psychological Science, which revealed that people with conservative beliefs are likely to be of low intelligence. Paradoxically it was the Daily Mail that brought it to the attention of British readers last week. It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact.


It is by no means the first such paper. There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly "different" others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking.


But, drawing on a sample size of several thousand, correcting for both education and socioeconomic status, the new study looks embarrassingly robust.  Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the "critical pathway" from low intelligence to racism. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to "rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order" and "emphasise the maintenance of the status quo".

Pausing for a second…  I do not equate conservative ideology with intolerance, necessarily.  Social conservatism, perhaps, but not conservatism in general. 

It seems as if a narrow path is being walked here, almost but not quite defining conservatism as racist and intolerant.  That may be problematic.  Further, if these sorts are drawn to the conservative ideology, does that mean conservative ideology is intolerant?  Or does it become intolerant because of the influx of these intolerant people with low IQs?  In the end, does it matter even matter where the causes and effects lay?  Or has it become a self-perpetuating cycle with the chickens shitting all over the eggs they are laying, beyond any identification of cause and effect?

Blah.  From here the article climbs up onto more solid ground…  The problem lies not with a lack of intelligent conservatives, but with the way the intelligent conservatives have been pandering to their side’s “basest, stupidest impulses.” 

This is not to suggest that all conservatives are stupid. There are some very clever people in government, advising politicians, running thinktanks and writing for newspapers, who have acquired power and influence by promoting rightwing ideologies.

But what we now see among their parties – however intelligent their guiding spirits may be – is the abandonment of any pretence of high-minded conservatism. On both sides of the Atlantic, conservative strategists have discovered that there is no pool so shallow that several million people won't drown in it. Whether they are promoting the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the US, that man-made climate change is an eco-fascist-communist-anarchist conspiracy, or that the deficit results from the greed of the poor, they now appeal to the basest, stupidest impulses, and find that it does them no harm in the polls.

…"the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital centre today". The Republican party, with its "prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science" is appealing to what he calls the "low-information voter", or the "misinformation voter". While most office holders probably don't believe the "reactionary and paranoid claptrap" they peddle, "they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base".

This is troubling in so many ways.  But this is why so many poor Americans are fervent Republicans while many of the policies and practices of the GOP act against their own best interests at worst, or have little to do with any issues really effecting the poor at best.

Even more troubling:

In the UK, “the Guardian reported that recipients of disability benefits, scapegoated by the government as scroungers, blamed for the deficit, now find themselves subject to a new level of hostility and threats from other people.”

And even worse, and heading towards my real point here:

These are the perfect conditions for a billionaires' feeding frenzy. Any party elected by misinformed, suggestible voters becomes a vehicle for undisclosed interests. A tax break for the 1% is dressed up as freedom for the 99%. The regulation that prevents big banks and corporations exploiting us becomes an assault on the working man and woman. Those of us who discuss man-made climate change are cast as elitists by people who happily embrace the claims of Lord Monckton, Lord Lawson or thinktanks funded by ExxonMobil or the Koch brothers: now the authentic voices of the working class.

Many of the policies that benefit corporations are acutely harmful to the poor.  Tax policy?  Maybe, maybe not, but the minimum wage?  Expensive workplace safety regulations?  Even more costly environmental protection regulations? 

The people arguing for deregulation will never live where the water supply has been poisoned by carcinogens, so why should they worry?  Guess who gets to live there?  The people voting for the conservative candidates who argue that such regulations kill jobs. 

The real issue is not the IQ of the voters.  I know for a fact that many of the loudest voices on the left should be locked in small rooms and only allowed to talk to rocks.  Both sides have these people. 

But what is so disturbing to me is how so many on the right so callously prey upon the ignorance of many in their voting base. 

Perhaps this is my own prejudice, but what I see so often is the left saying, vote for us and we’ll keep the plant next door to your house from killing you while the right says, vote for us, and we’ll keep the left from putting job killing regulations on the plant next door to you and who really believes in all that science stuff, anyway, that says arsenic is bad for you?  Jobs and superbabies!  You can have it all! 

I used the photo of the class warfare sign at the top of this post because I feel that this really is class warfare.  It is an act of class warfare for the right to use these tactics on their own supporters. 

The right says we cannot have a discussion about income inequality, because that is class warfare and an attack on the capitalist principles of the American Dream.  Those on the right who would actually benefit from having this discussion, those who desperately feel the worsening ache of the dying American Dream every day, turn angry, fearful eyes towards those on the left who are fighting for them, away from those on the right who are actually stealing access to the American Dream from the vast majority of the country’s citizens in the first place.

And that, beyond being reprehensible, is just plain frightening.

Related Posts

Thursday, November 10, 2011

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns | Environment | The Guardian

From 000-FB Photo of the Day

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns | Environment | The Guardian:

The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.
Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this "lock-in" effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the world's foremost authority on energy economics has found. If this is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the results are likely to be disastrous.
"The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. "I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever."

'via Blog this'

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Climate change, media coverage, and The Daily Show

I am trying to use Daily Show clips pretty sparsely on this site.  It would be too easy just to post everything they do and call it good.  I like and agree with most of what they say, but I also want to provide additional sources for myself and others...  We can't get all of our news and analysis from a fake news show!

Today, however, I suspect that I will largely be letting Stewart and company handle the heavy lifting for me.  I am getting caught up with the show and I don't have a lot of time.  It is nice and I actually get to get out of the apartment and have some free time for myself today.

Friday, October 07, 2011

Lewis Black on 2012 Candidates, Obama, and visiting Occupy Wall Street

Actually, I am in complete agreement with him on Obama.  Someone who speaks in paragraphs was definitely all I was expecting out of his presidency (the system is too rigid for real change on the pace most people were hoping for), so I am much less disappointed than many on the left.

Anyway, I love Black.  His host, much less so, but she doesn't talk too much.




Lewis Black Live at Occupy Wall Street from Turnstyle Video on Vimeo.

Wall Street Journal: neutrinos show climate change isn’t real | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Wall Street Journal: neutrinos show climate change isn’t real | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine:


OpEds — editorials expressing opinions in newspapers — are sometimes a source of wry amusement. Especially when they tackle subjects where politics impact science, like evolution, or the Big Bang.
Or climate change.
Enter the OpEd page of the Wall Street Journal, with one of the most head-asplodey antiscience climate change denial pieces I have seen in a while — and I’ve seen a few. The article, written by Robert Bryce of the far-right think tank Manhattan Institute, is almost a textbook case in logical fallacy. He outlays five "truths" about climate change in an attempt to smear the reality of it.
I won’t even bother going into the first four points, where he doesn’t actually deal with science and makes points that aren’t all that salient to the issue, because it’s his last point that really needs to be seen to believe anyone could possibly make it:
The science is not settled, not by a long shot. Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein’s theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Seriously? I mean, seriously?

'via Blog this'

Thursday, September 29, 2011

What do Republicans have against science anyway?

Okay.  I got sucked in by another headline.  Still transferring files, though, so nothing better to do EXCEPT for getting out and enjoying the gorgeous weather!  Probably the last warm day of the fall, so I am keeping this short.  We've got nothing but drizzle and gloom on the horizon for the next ten days.

Erasing false balance: the right is more antiscience than the left | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine"I write quite a bit about how rabidly antiscience the political right in the US has become. From the attacks on science by the Bush Administration (and Newt Gingrich before that) to the political litmus test of needing to denounce evolution and global warming if you’re a candidate, the Republican party has planted its flag firmly in the ground of nonsense. At the bottom of this article is a section called Related Posts that has links to just a handful of the copious examples of this outrageous behavior.

They have also become masters at spinning this, going on the attack against science they don’t like and using the media to sow doubt. One of the most aggravating of these tactics is the one of false equivalency. For example, in a post I might lambaste yet another Republican candidate saying creationism should be taught in schools, and someone in the comments will say, "Well, people on the left are antiscience as well!"

...
And that’s why you need to read an article by my friend Chris Mooney, "Unequivocal: Today’s Right is Overwhelmingly More Anti-Science Than Today’s Left". He lays out just how big this problem is, why the right has gone this way, and why they have solidarity among their candidates.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Chris Mooney | Unequivocal: Today’s Right is Overwhelmingly More Anti-Science Than Today's Left"Last week, I took to task a really poor USA Today op-ed making the following claim:
"In short, for every anti-science Republican that exists, there is at least one anti-science Democrat. Neither party has a monopoly on scientific illiteracy. Indeed, ignorance has reached epidemic proportions inside the Beltway."

I accused the author, Alex Berezow, of constructing a false equivalence between right and left wing science abuse. The latter does occur sometimes, and I’ve given many examples (ionizing radiation risks, vaccines, GMOs, etc). But it has relatively little mainstream influence today—and can hardly compare with the sweeping denial of huge bodies of knowledge (e.g., all climate science, all evolutionary science) that we see on the right."


'via Blog this'

Here is the quote Plait pulled from Mooney's article:  "The chief reason the political right is anti-science is because it contains the Christian Right (and Tea Party, which is kind of the same thing). There is no force in American politics generating anywhere near so much unreality, in science or in other spheres, as this one. It is not just evolution, or the age of the Earth… When it comes to science, it is also anything having anything to do with abortion, reproductive health, and sexuality. Moreover, we are talking here about the willful advancement of dangerous falsehoods, and the clinging to them in the face of all evidence and refutation—because this is about unwavering certainty, and ultimately, about faith."

Full disclosure: I have yet to read the Mooney article.  See note above about the weather.  But I will.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Arctic ice at second-lowest extent since 1979 | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Arctic ice at second-lowest extent since 1979 | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine: "This is simply yet another data point in an increasingly long line of evidence showing global warming is real, along with all the evidence that it’s getting worse, we’re causing it, and the spin against it by the deniers is approaching light speed. The Related Posts links below make all that clear.

I just hope that by talking about this, more and more voters will listen. In a very real sense, what happens next is up to us."

'via Blog this'