Join 3,374 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Climategate
April 22, 2011 1:46 PM   Subscribe

Climategate: What Really Happened? How climate science became the target of "the best-funded, best-organized smear campaign by the wealthiest industry that the Earth has ever known." [Via]
posted by homunculus (73 comments total) 26 users marked this as a favorite

 
I've found that the best understanding of the 'Climategate' farce is that it's similar to having a bystander overhear several mechanics arguing over what's wrong with an engine, and then that listener relating selective choice snippets of that conversation to other people while driving home the natural conclusion that cars are a myth and roads are part of the conspiracy.
posted by FatherDagon at 2:33 PM on April 22, 2011 [29 favorites]


Climategate is like a master's lesson in how message discipline and out-of-context shifting focus can completely poison the well and prevent of any kind of rational debate, and once that's been accomplished, point to the "controversy" itself as proof that the evidence is questionable. Then you vilify everyone involved and spend a huge amount of time pillorying them in the press and you've effectively ended the discussion without ever needing to refute their data.

If it weren't such a completely shitty tactic used to an unbelievably loathsome end, it would almost have been an impressive thing to watch.

As it is, I'm glad I'm not having kids because what they'd inherit because of these people is going to be a bit of a mess.
posted by quin at 2:34 PM on April 22, 2011 [15 favorites]


I try and avoid conspiracy theories as much as possible, but this whole thing really feels like it has to have been some sort of HBGary style coordinated cyber attack + PR blitz.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:37 PM on April 22, 2011


It's interesting how often complicated explanations turn to car metaphors. The car is one metaphorical approach everyone is assumed to understand. Is that one of the reasons climate science denial has found such broad acceptance?
posted by telstar at 2:38 PM on April 22, 2011 [2 favorites]


I don't really think it falls under 'conspiracy theory' to combine 'data leak' with 'the exact same coordinated and hyper-funded PR blitz that's been going on, nonstop, for decades'. That might qualify as closer to 'regular ol' theory' or 'very likely fact'.
posted by FatherDagon at 2:40 PM on April 22, 2011 [4 favorites]


It's interesting how often complicated explanations turn to car metaphors. The car is one metaphorical approach everyone is assumed to understand.

I like its function in that metaphor because it speaks to multiple levels - the very basic understanding that most everyone has of what a car is and how to make it go, versus the very specific mechanical engineering knowledge that goes into the mechanical functions underneath the hood that takes a significantly higher amount of expertise to really grok.
posted by FatherDagon at 2:43 PM on April 22, 2011


It seems to me that the researchers' reluctance to share raw data ultimately aggravated the political situation.

Transparency, folks. It's not just for governments, militaries, police, and software companies.
posted by Xoebe at 2:48 PM on April 22, 2011 [3 favorites]


So the "logical libertarians", the Randians etc, and the whole right side of the spectrum basically say that this is all a scheme to raise taxes (carbon taxes?). It makes my mind spin to think how someone can reverse the conspiracy theory here to make it seem as if the enviromentalists and (neutral scientists) are the hoodwinkers.
posted by Liquidwolf at 2:54 PM on April 22, 2011 [1 favorite]


Climategate was coordinated, centrally directed information warfare conducted by professionals.
posted by vibrotronica at 3:01 PM on April 22, 2011 [1 favorite]


The climate performs well over 90 percent of the world's abortions.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:20 PM on April 22, 2011 [14 favorites]


Also - why won't the climate show us its birth certificate? What is it hiding?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:23 PM on April 22, 2011 [5 favorites]


Climategate was coordinated, centrally directed information warfare conducted by professionals.

My gut instinct agrees with you. I just wish we had incontrovertible smoking gun evidence to back it up.
posted by hippybear at 3:32 PM on April 22, 2011


the unit's security wasn't very tight—its server is separate from the rest of the university's.

*facepalm* ...Ah, the hurricane of password change requests by climate researchers all over the world on that lovely warm November morning in 2010.
posted by yoHighness at 3:33 PM on April 22, 2011


"An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly 'telegraphed' across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything 'hockey-stick' shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the 'hoax' has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round...Net effect on lay people? Confusion. Net effect on science? Zip." (My bold)

This is how it is done. Most of us have to rely on scientific facts to be uncovered and then explained to us. It doesn't take that much to confuse the non-scientist, just someone speaking with authority, explaining away the scientific conclusions. I'm reminded of Dr. Semmelweis who had irrefutable evidence that washing his hands in-between obstetrical patients led to a drop in moralities yet he was still unable to convince other doctors to change their habits.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:44 PM on April 22, 2011 [2 favorites]


Oh, yes. That's how science it done, absolutely.

The problem is that scientists aren't the ones who actually are steering policy, and so the confusion which is generated, which doesn't spill over into science at all, completely kills any attempts toward affecting what is actually going on.

Science is going to keep telling us that global warming is real, right up until the point where our food systems collapse and the world becomes unlivable due to climate change. But those who make policy seem, at this point, as though they will still at that point be trying to debate whether it's something we should ever be concerned about, even while the acidic oceans stop supporting the kind of life we've become accustomed to and the oceans begin to lap at the steps in Manhattan.

The problem with this whole thing overall is that by the time we actually see the effects of the change, it's going to be WAY too late to do anything about it other than adapt to the new conditions. Science is great, but if policy isn't based on consensus scientific opinion, then it's based on superstition or fallacious folk observations.

Or it's based on denialism springing from the fertile soil of greed.

Either way, I'm kind of glad I'm not going to have offspring during my lifetime. I can't stand to contemplate the world which today's children's children are going to live in and the struggles they're going to face as they deal with a ruined ecosphere.
posted by hippybear at 3:55 PM on April 22, 2011 [4 favorites]


I've found that the best understanding of the 'Climategate' farce is that it's similar to having a bystander overhear several mechanics arguing over what's wrong with an engine, and then that listener relating selective choice snippets of that conversation to other people while driving home the natural conclusion that cars are a myth and roads are part of the conspiracy.

With this, as with so many things, we do not know enough to be experts but we apparently know enough to choose among them.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 4:06 PM on April 22, 2011 [1 favorite]


It seems to me that the researchers' reluctance to share raw data ultimately aggravated the political situation.

Transparency, folks. It's not just for governments, militaries, police, and software companies.


I think that attitude is part of the PR spin is getting that sort of attitude that "oh, it's the climate scientists job not just to do good science, but to also do good a PR campaign, and spend time you could be doing research figuring out who gave you permission to distribute what data so you can hand to some jackass who spends half his time updating a blog full of political cartoons making fun of them."

Some of the data they used in their study was encumbered by prior agreements not to share it, making things more complicated.

Also, realize that it might take time, perhaps a lot of time, to search for and organize the exact data requested, and that's time and money spent not doing actual research. Using public funds to pay a PhD scientist to effectively be a file clerk is not terribly productive.
posted by Zalzidrax at 4:06 PM on April 22, 2011 [4 favorites]


It's interesting how often complicated explanations turn to car metaphors. The car is one metaphorical approach everyone is assumed to understand. Is that one of the reasons climate science denial has found such broad acceptance?

I don't think so - I was using car metaphors to explain computers to people for years, even though I've never owned a car. They're useful because the basic system is simple enough for almost everyone to understand at an operating level. Same thing with sports - although fully detailed knowledge of the rules is the province of referees and nerds, the broad appeal stems for the rules being simple enough for almost everyone to know what's going on 95% of the time. (In fact, as a Euro it seems significant to me that American Football gives such a prominent role to resource management and rule recitation - all those charts, headphones, and referee lectures - soccer's rules can be summed up as 'no hitting, don't handle the ball, don't try and walk it past the last defender' and seem like a major factor in its global popularity.)

Transparency, folks. It's not just for governments, militaries, police, and software companies.

So true, even when it's a pain in the arse.

Once of the most effective counter-arguments I've discovered for dealing with climate change skeptics (or astroturfers) is to wait for the inevitable assertion that environmental policy will wreck the economy. For years I responded to such assertions with logic, by saying that no, it wouldn't really be that expensive, and anyway if we didn't grapple with the problem then the long-term costs would be much higher. This didn't work very well. What did work well was to use the skeptics' tactics against them: 'are you an economist? why are you so sure this would cause economic doom? where are your models, why should I trust them? why are you preying on people's economic ignorance or acting like a priest of some economic religion?'

Most skeptics have never thought about the economics, they just accept without question that it'll be expensive and that will drive up costs and that probably means we'll all be worse off. But if you ask them exactly how this scenario of economic doom will play out, they don't have a very clear answer, and you can legitimately suggest that maybe they're engaging in economic alarmism and are suffering from a case of religious panic about the market. It's a bit naughty because in the best kind of debate you'd offer a competing explanation, show respect for each others' views and not bring any bogus arguments into play. But if you're talking to a skeptic and they start hitting below the rhetorical belt...well, there's where their own belt line is, and they've already validated questions of that form so they're pretty much bound to take the resulting lumps.
posted by anigbrowl at 4:07 PM on April 22, 2011 [12 favorites]


washing his hands in-between obstetrical patients led to a drop in moralities

Actually, I think it was the rise of the right that led to the drop in moralities.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:09 PM on April 22, 2011 [4 favorites]


Xoebe: "It seems to me that the researchers' reluctance to share raw data ultimately aggravated the political situation.
"

That's not the case here at all. The Climate Research Unit did not generate their own raw data. They used meteorological data from other projects in their models - dat athat was available from the source institutions. The issue in this case was the co-ordinated submission of multiple FOI requests, designed to have the research group spend all of their time answering vexatious questions rather than doing actual climate research. The reluctance of the scientists to answer questions was a result of the fact that the questions were posed in poor faith rather than a desire to keep things close to their chest.

That this fact has also been lost in the media stramash is a further indication of the effectiveness of the FUD campaign.
posted by Jakey at 4:15 PM on April 22, 2011 [8 favorites]


FatherDagon: "and then that listener relating selective choice snippets of that conversation to other people while they are all in the car driving home and leading the listeners to the natural conclusion that cars are a myth and roads are part of the conspiracy."

FTFY
posted by idiopath at 4:36 PM on April 22, 2011


Climate warming = hoax
posted by notned at 4:48 PM on April 22, 2011


That's bold, notned.

Do you have an actual point to make, or are you just trolling?
posted by hippybear at 4:54 PM on April 22, 2011


Well, that's settled then.
posted by gamera at 4:55 PM on April 22, 2011 [2 favorites]


Check your math. I think you have a denied by zero error.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:58 PM on April 22, 2011 [1 favorite]


Climategate was a data breach, pure and simple. This article is damage control spin. There is simply too damn much money involved on all sides to trust any of this crap, for or against.
posted by midnightscout at 5:07 PM on April 22, 2011 [1 favorite]


There is no such thing as notned.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 5:12 PM on April 22, 2011


Yeah, teach the controversy! Science is in the pocket of Big... Weather. Do nothing - that doesn't in any way profit anyone.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:16 PM on April 22, 2011 [6 favorites]


Actually there was another group that just did their own analysis and came to the same conclusions. The work was actually done by 'skeptics' who were not climate scientists (the lead was a physicist) and anyway they came up with the same conclusion.

that's how science is supposed to work. If you don't buy someone's arguments, you don't sit through and read their email and cast aspersions on their data, you do the damn experiment yourself and self and see if the results are the same. That's what happened and it turned out they were.
posted by delmoi at 5:18 PM on April 22, 2011 [6 favorites]


today I learned that spending more money on your experimentation makes all of your conclusions proportionately more suspicious
posted by LogicalDash at 5:43 PM on April 22, 2011


Climategate was a data breach, pure and simple. This article is damage control spin. There is simply too damn much money involved on all sides to trust any of this crap, for or against.

Both sides are bad, so go burn some tires.
posted by dirigibleman at 5:56 PM on April 22, 2011


Climate change denial: a perfect storm of hot air.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:59 PM on April 22, 2011 [1 favorite]


It makes my brain hurt every time I see libertarian/Republican types say they can't trust climate science because of the money involved.

::head explodes::
posted by wildcrdj at 6:34 PM on April 22, 2011 [5 favorites]


> As it is, I'm glad I'm not having kids because what they'd inherit because of these people is going to be a bit of a mess.

What I don't get is, do these people not have kids? If they do, do they a) just not care, b) think their money will shield their children from the consequences of climate change/environmental degradation, or c) honestly believe that EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE JUST FINE THE WAY IT IS?

I suppose d) believe the Rapture is right around the corner is also an option...
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:19 PM on April 22, 2011


Well since some people think it's all up in the air, so to speak. I'd like a "denier' or "skeptic" to explain to me who's likely profiting off the data that climate change is a result of man made circumstances. And then explain who's profiting off the alleged data that it's NOT a phenomenon magnified by man. Looks to me like the biggest lobbyists in the world haver a motive for claiming it's not man made. Anyone care to argue that? Seriously. What the fuck do have to bring to the table?
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:20 PM on April 22, 2011 [2 favorites]


Disappointed how many mefites seem to find solace in false balance.
posted by anarch at 8:41 PM on April 22, 2011 [2 favorites]


I've always found this, among other things, persuasive

Broadly accepted conclusions based on scientific evidence have been wrong in the past, and who knows, this one could be wrong too, but really science is the best we have.

As long as you accept that there is no "conspiracy" going on among hundreds of scientists, what better idea do we have than to follow the conclusions that our scientists come to?

In short, it makes the most sense to me to assume that the conclusions of the scientists are true until it turns out they aren't.
posted by Defenestrator at 8:59 PM on April 22, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well since some people think it's all up in the air, so to speak. I'd like a "denier' or "skeptic" to explain to me who's likely profiting off the data that climate change is a result of man made circumstances.

They need to keep their research funding by writing scary reports! That's the theory anyway... pretty bizarre if you think about it, since wouldn't that apply to all science and medicine? Do they think Astronomers are just spinning elaborate fables about black holes and nebulae in order to keep the government spending money on telescopes? Do they think subatomic particles are all imaginary so people will keep spending (billions) on particle accelerators?

And why don't high energy physicists need to say that if we don't build particle accelerators we are all going to die? How come whale researchers aren't claiming that there's a risk that whales are going to rise up and kill us if we dont spend more money researching them? Why is it only this field that needs to scare people?

Beyond that they also say, like, big solar and big wind are promoting this stuff so people buy their products. Oh and I guess nuclear power companies as well.
posted by delmoi at 9:01 PM on April 22, 2011 [3 favorites]


Defenestrator: that's a pretty dead link you have there.
posted by hippybear at 9:16 PM on April 22, 2011


Shat:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-06/su-sel062510.php
posted by Defenestrator at 9:23 PM on April 22, 2011


Ha, I'm a moron, I copied the title as the link.
posted by Defenestrator at 9:24 PM on April 22, 2011


I guess what I have learned from this is that it's not a conspiracy theory if it's a conspiracy fact.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:54 PM on April 22, 2011


Lays popcorn out on sidewalk, waits for sun to come up. Mopes a bit.
posted by sneebler at 10:36 PM on April 22, 2011


I have actually read the "denial" blogs. The majority of them have a bigger problem with the methodology projecting "catastrophic global warming" than whether or not the earth has actually been warming.
posted by blargerz at 11:05 PM on April 22, 2011


blargerz: "I have actually read the "denial" blogs. The majority of them have a bigger problem with the methodology projecting "catastrophic global warming" than whether or not the earth has actually been warming"

Really, what problems? Be specific, because on the other side we've got the entire climate science community agreeing on their relative accuracy.

It seems to me pretty obvious that when one side is hiring the people who said cigarettes don't cause cancer to make their case they're not particularly interested in anything other than spreading FUD.
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 4:19 AM on April 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


Whether you agree with it outright, or concede the sensibility of making a Pascal's wager of it, it doesn't seem wise to dispute AGW.

Still, one can say this and retain no brief whatever for the leftist solutions. Increasing the cost of carbon output in the US while Asia does not do the same is simply redistribution in favor of our fiercest competitors; definitely hurts us, and probably won't reduce atmospheric carbon in the long run. None of the domestic regulations being discussed would have half the impact of making cities livable for middle class people and attractive for their employers, and yet the left persists in the same tax, crime, education, welfare, and housing subsidy policies that so terribly disadvantage cities over suburbs.
posted by MattD at 6:42 AM on April 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


Burning tires, making brains explode, calling people names... the amazing level of maturity of the AGW camp just impresses the hell out of me. Show us some ACCURATE predictions of climate change, rather than relying on false drama and demonizing anyone who disagrees with the premise, and AGW might get more supporters.
posted by midnightscout at 7:37 AM on April 23, 2011


MattD: "the left persists in the same tax, crime, education, welfare, and housing subsidy policies that so terribly disadvantage cities over suburbs"

Yes, because if there's one thing the US has experienced over the past couple of generations, it's the vast, uncontrolled and subsidised growth of cities at the expense of the suburbs.
posted by meehawl at 8:11 AM on April 23, 2011 [4 favorites]


RE: Who profits from climate change?

The argument made by my libertarian econ101 professor, who was nice enough to devote a full class period to the topic, followed the lines of a larger Hayek-style government-restricting-freedoms view. Basically, climate change is the latest front in a leftist/statist/totalitarian push for big government/world government/planned economy/inefficiency/departing from the One True Path of neoclassical economics. It is driven by elites like Soros and Clinton and Obama and rent-seeking multinationals--basically anything and anyone not held accountable by the market and price signals. They control science and most of the media so they fabricate lies to scare us into accepting their further control, all while profiteering on state handouts in the form of incentives for green investment.

(I do not, incidentally, endorse this argument.)
posted by ropeladder at 8:11 AM on April 23, 2011 [4 favorites]


Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, midnightscout, but there have been decades of predictions of a warming climate. What has happened during those decades? The global climate has warmed. Then there are the very well known and proven properties of gases. If this is all news to you, I suggest some reading. Seriously, was that supposed to be a gotcha? Like no one had thought to look and see whether or not the climate had warmed since it was suggested that an excess of CO₂ would warm the climate? Tell me you are trolling.
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 8:13 AM on April 23, 2011 [3 favorites]


"but there have been decades of predictions of a warming climate."

when i was a kid, about 30 yrs ago, they told us an ice-age was on the way. hmmm.
posted by marienbad at 8:52 AM on April 23, 2011


..... Basically, climate change is the latest front in a leftist/statist/totalitarian push for big government/world government/planned economy/inefficiency/departing from the One True Path of neoclassical economics. It is driven by elites like Soros and Clinton and Obama and rent-seeking multinationals--basically anything and anyone not held accountable by the market and price signals. They control science and most of the media so they fabricate lies to scare us into accepting their further control, all while profiteering on state handouts in the form of incentives for green investment.

Yeah I've heard that argument. But how do they overlook or ignore the more obvious fact that pro oil and mining industries etc. have a clearly vested interest in squashing the Climate Change debate? Logically it's pretty simple to look at both sides and see that the oil industry etc. has more of a motive to distort reality than the leftists/socialists/elitists, etc. So the only conclusion is that the libertarian philosophy is not unbiased or interested in objectivity but instead creating a case against the left no matter what.
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:55 AM on April 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


"when i was a kid, about 30 yrs ago, they told us an ice-age was on the way. hmmm."

Who told you that?
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 9:03 AM on April 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


when i was a kid, about 30 yrs ago, they told us an ice-age was on the way. hmmm.

No, they didn't., but don't let that stop you or anyone else from repeating the same tired old bollocks.
posted by Bangaioh at 9:04 AM on April 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


who told me? the BBC. it was on tomorrows world and elsewhere. I have no idea where the beeb got there info from: i was a fucking kid, i was hardly likely to call up and ask for citations.

so please, tell me where the beeb got it wrong on this one?

and dont accuse me of "repeating the same old tired bollocks". i am telling you what i heard when i was a fucking kid.
posted by marienbad at 9:32 AM on April 23, 2011


Basically, climate change is the latest front in a leftist/statist/totalitarian push for big government/world government/planned economy/inefficiency/departing from the One True Path of neoclassical economics. It is driven by elites like Soros and Clinton and Obama and rent-seeking multinationals--basically anything and anyone not held accountable by the market and price signals. They control science and most of the media so they fabricate lies to scare us into accepting their further control, all while profiteering on state handouts in the form of incentives for green investment.

I could do a Mad-Libs style substitution on a lot of this, putting in words like "war", "Halliburton" "KBR", "Cheney" "Rumsfeld", etc and have it read as a pretty good assessment of the military-industrial complex.

But that might be a bit too obvious.
posted by hippybear at 9:35 AM on April 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


i am telling you what i heard when i was a fucking kid.

Fucking kids hear a lot of fucking stuff. Not all of it is fucking true.
posted by Liquidwolf at 9:37 AM on April 23, 2011 [4 favorites]


There is a difference between a general scientific consensus and the usual media scare stories. I guess the usual media scare stories have contributed to the denialism problem though.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:41 AM on April 23, 2011


Nah, that isn't the point. I heard about possible global cooling and an ice age when I was a kid in the 1970s, too, living on a completely different part of the planet from marienbad. It was a bit of a "thing" at the time, and while it wasn't true, just because it isn't true doesn't mean it's not being talked about in the media.
posted by hippybear at 9:42 AM on April 23, 2011


"The media" are not scientists. "The media" are English majors -- LOL.
posted by JackFlash at 9:49 AM on April 23, 2011


"who told me? the BBC." etc.

There is a plain and easy to see hyperlink in my post. I suggest you go through it then get back to us.
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 9:53 AM on April 23, 2011


who told me? the BBC. it was on tomorrows world and elsewhere. I have no idea where the beeb got there info from

So, literally, the TV told you. That means the world's climate scientists believed it, and that furthermore means the world's climate scientists are wrong today when they say global warming is real.

A hundred years ago the world's geologists believed that the Earth's crust is static. That must mean today's geologists are full of crap when they say plate tectonics is real.

The other day the TV told me that Nostradamus predicted 9/11. That must be the consensus viewpoint of the world's historians.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:09 AM on April 23, 2011 [6 favorites]


When I was a fucking kid (8 or 9), we went to an airshow in BC. One of the displays was a standard pallet-sized cube thing that they could drop by helicopter to troops who needed water. Then there was a transmitter at a nearby water supply, and somehow they were able to transmit the water from another machine to the remote location. I thought this was a totally cool idea, and I never really questioned how they did it.

Later, in high school, I put up my hand and answered the wrong question. Needless to say, the results were embarrassing. Haw haw. UP YOURS Military!!

--------

MattD: "one can say this and retain no brief whatever for the leftist solutions"

What the hell are you talking about? Protecting the environment and the earth's heritage of 3 billion years of evolution is a LEFTIST SOLUTION? Avoiding ravaging THE ONLY HABITABLE PLANET WE KNOW OF is Communism? Because the only way our children can have a future is if we use all the oil... in fact, it's our DUTY to use up ALL of the earth's resources, because if we don't, the Communists have WON!!1!

Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Because I thought environmentalism was fascism all along. Frankly, I could sleep better at night if you'd make up your fucking mind.
posted by sneebler at 10:32 AM on April 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


What the hell are you talking about? Protecting the environment and the earth's heritage of 3 billion years of evolution is a LEFTIST SOLUTION? Avoiding ravaging THE ONLY HABITABLE PLANET WE KNOW OF is Communism?

Yeah, and apparently if you're in favor of protecting land, not bulldozing trees, or throwing up new strip malls you're Anti Industry !

(Personally, I'm fine with being called Anti Industry)
posted by Liquidwolf at 10:49 AM on April 23, 2011


Err... are there any "right wing" solutions to climate change?

The only thing I've seen the right wing do about the problem is spend piles of money on slander and libel so they can stick their heads in the dirt.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:14 AM on April 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


Err... are there any "right wing" solutions to climate change?

There used to be, it was a scheme that harnessed market forces to reduce carbon output and was actually not that bad an idea.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:21 AM on April 23, 2011 [1 favorite]



Err... are there any "right wing" solutions to climate change?


Yeah, more guns , less abortions, no welfare and freedom!
posted by Liquidwolf at 11:31 AM on April 23, 2011


Here's a libertarian who "believes in climate change", so to speak. Admittedly, it would be refreshing if the majoraity of right-wingers/conservatives who make the effort of voicing their opinion on the issue had something more to contribute than denial/"scepticism".
posted by Bangaioh at 11:38 AM on April 23, 2011


Admittedly, it would be refreshing if the majoraity of right-wingers/conservatives who make the effort of voicing their opinion on the issue had something more to contribute than denial/"scepticism".

Well, right now the front-running right-wing presidential candidate is running a campaign based exclusively on offering no policy statements of his own and instead is attacking the eligibility of the current president to even be in office.

So yeah... not too much in the way of offering anything solid coming from that camp all around, and mostly just skepticism.
posted by hippybear at 11:41 AM on April 23, 2011


It makes my brain hurt every time I see libertarian/Republican types say they can't trust climate science because of the money involved.

Or the more elegant variation, where we can't have the incredibly well-funded wind power industry cram such an environmentally unsound solution to a non-problem down our throats.
posted by dhartung at 11:45 AM on April 23, 2011


Right-wing solutions like this one, maybe?

Link is to an interesting infographic of different energy sector subsidies in the US. How did we get here? This is not my beautiful house.
posted by sneebler at 12:11 PM on April 23, 2011


The oil subsidies are even worse when you consider the resources we expend in maintaining our foreign policy in the Mideast to protect our supply. It seems uncountable though so you can't chart it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:25 PM on April 23, 2011


This is such a sad commentary on our current environmental position. At the end of the day, greed and a lack of imagination wins.

Protecting the environment is the good fight.


posted by JessJanes at 1:00 PM on April 25, 2011


« Older High-achieving Asian-American students are being s...  |  Remember interesting music vid... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments