From a recent post on GristMill, Miles Grant offers the an opinion in discussing the reason global warming deniers are still denying the preponderance of research data.
But the more I've listened to these speakers, the more I've realized that for most of them, it's not about the science. Panels don't go five minutes without attacking Al Gore or comparing climate activists to socialists who want to destroy capitalism. Deniers are part of a political culture that frames the world in terms of left and right, so they've absorbed global warming into that broader paradigm of partisan politics.
What do you think? Is it possible that he's right and that a large portion of deniers aren't blind to the science but are blinded by their political views?
Posts
2 comments:
I think there is a *lot* to this. Some of it comes down to time...people inundated with information are often willing to just absorb and parrot the talking points and rhetoric of their favorite news sources rather than apply critical thinking to the issues at hand.
That's why you get "we'll have to agree to disagree" when confronting some deniers with stuff from wonderingmind42...it's good, well-presented, well-argued...but it's *long*. And while it's true that the issue is complicated and detailed, it is much easier to stick to your sound bites than make the time investment to understand the opposing argument, especially if your favorite pundits have made it clear that even entertaining the thought is tantamount to sleeping with the enemy.
I guess my advantage is that I really don't identify with any of the political press/pundits to feed me sound bites or, for that matter, pay attention to the media sources for which sound bites are targeted.
And I thought about whether perhaps I too am clouded by my own preconceived notions about the issues attendant with AGW, but then I remembered I actually saw an argument that appeared to be based on science about the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet and examinations of CO2 levels at that time. Really sat and thought about it, it seemed plausible, but justified to myself what was wrong with the argument.
Post a Comment