Communicating About Climate Change: What’s Politics Got To Do With It?

This story from Portland State University looks at first like another typical story of social science research on how to get finally get through to those troglodyte climate deniers turns out to be actually be interesting.

It appears that the researchers were honest enough in their study design that they came really close to seeing some truth.

“The most interesting thing to me is that liberals and conservatives are just seeing climate science from a completely different epistemic vantage point,” says Suldovsky about the results.

The study design appears open to multiple points of view instead of just push polling to get the results for which they hope.

To learn more about how liberals and conservatives differ in how they think about climate change, Suldovksy and Taylor-Rodriguez created an online survey that was completed by 1,049 Oregonians. The participants ranged from age 18 to 86 and closely mirrored the demographics of the state in terms of sex, race, age and education. There was also ample representation from different political groups; 43% of participants were moderates, 30% were liberals and 27% were conservatives. 

The survey asked participants questions about how they thought about climate change, and included questions about how certain they were that climate change is happening; how complicated or complex they think climate science is; and who they rely on to give them knowledge about climate change — their own direct lived experience or experts. The survey also measured how participants prefer to engage with climate science. The researchers then used a statistical tool called multivariate regression to figure out what factors predicted engagement preferences. 

Liberals appeared eager to defer to perceived authority while Conservatives appeared lean toward being natural skeptics according to the research although the study authors don’t phrase it that way, emphasis mine.

The survey showed that liberals see climate science and climate change as certain and simple. They don’t think it’s very complicated to understand, and they also don’t think it’s going to be refuted in the future. Liberals also defer to scientific experts about climate change to such an extent that they reported that they would defer to what a scientist says about climate change even if it contradicts their own experience. 

“That’s a pretty bold thing to agree with,” says Suldovsky. “That was pretty shocking to me.” 

By contrast, conservatives saw climate science completely differently. “They see it as far less certain and far more complex, [the latter] is super interesting because in that way conservatives are more in line with climate scientists,” says Suldovsky. Conservatives also rely more on their own direct lived experience to give them knowledge about the world and knowledge about climate change.

Here is a link to the paper.

The Abstract

Abstract

Engaging politically polarized publics surrounding climate science is a vital element in the effort to enact climate mitigation policy. Science communication experts have identified several models of public engagement with science, including the deficit, dialogue, participation, and lay expertise model. Existing research suggests that the deficit model in particular is a largely ineffective model of engagement for controversial science like climate change. There is very little research, however, regarding the engagement preferences of political groups, or how those preferences differ. This study assesses preferences for climate change engagement in the state of Oregon in the United States and examines the relationship between those preferences and epistemic beliefs about climate science. Overall, we find that liberals are significantly more likely than moderates or conservatives to view climate science as certain and simple and to rely on expert knowledge more than their own direct experience. By contrast, conservatives are significantly more likely than liberals or moderates to view climate science as uncertain and complex and to rely on their own direct experience over the knowledge of content experts. We also find that perceived certainty and simplicity are positive predictors of a preference for the deficit model of science communication. Implications for public engagement with climate change and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Read the original article here.

4.9 13 votes
Article Rating
197 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gordo
July 21, 2021 6:11 pm

Wow – but not a surprise!
Simply put, this paper highlights the principle difference between the right and the left, ie, the use of logic and skepticism (sounds like science!) vs a naive belief in authority.

niceguy
Reply to  Gordo
July 21, 2021 8:02 pm

Yet many on the so called “right” sided with the Trump admin who sided with Oracle against Google on so called “intellectual” “property”[sic]. So much for independent thoughts.

Also many on the “right” (notably in France) insist that the principle of net neutrality is unsound and bad and would have prevented… the competition between DSL and bz-bz-dring net access.

BobM
Reply to  niceguy
July 21, 2021 8:22 pm

Most tech folks I know think Oracle was robbed and Google is the thief, and the Supreme Court is clueless. It was 11,000 lines of code, to my knowledge, that Google embedded into their products without license, acknowledgement, or permission… Even people inside Google thought they had stolen the code.

Archer
Reply to  BobM
July 21, 2021 11:24 pm

11000 lines of function names and header definitions is not “code”. An API should not be copyrightable any more than a phone book or a list of ingredients. What oracle tried to pull would have decimated the tech industry, stifled completion and put up an impenetrable barrier to new entrants.

That aside, trump allegedly siding with oracle isn’t remotely relevant to the topic of the article and feels more like an attempt by niceguy to poison the well.

Last edited 1 month ago by Archer
Old Cocky
Reply to  Archer
July 22, 2021 12:19 am

Agreed on all points.

Way off-topic reminiscences follow.

Groklaw covered this in the early stages, in between eviscerating “The SCO Group” for trying to claim that Linux infringed its UNIX “Intellectual Property” which was actually owned by Novell.

Sun Microsystems wrote Java to be a universally portable and universally used language, and published the full set of function and type definition. From memory, the only constraint was that an implementation had to pass Sun’s validation suite to be allowed to be called “Java”.

Unfortunately, Oracle had a different approach after buying Sun.
As one of our Solaris reps said (off the record of course), “I’ve gone from working for the most respected and loved IT company to one of the most hated”

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Archer
July 22, 2021 2:06 pm

As a “tech folk” who once actually worked on an in-house, non-Sun/Oracle Java Virtual Machine implementation I can tell you that Google used more than”function names and header definitions” and in any case that “function names and header definitions” are an important part of the “code”.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Jim Whelan
July 22, 2021 3:13 pm

This is way ot, but interesting nonetheless.

I wasn’t following this closely later in the piece, but in the early stages most of the action centred on headers (largely global definitions) and function specifications.

At the most basic level, Sun published a Standard for Java, and anybody who wanted to implement Java had to comply with the Standard. This differs from public computer language standards such as C, COBOL or FORTRAN only in that Sun set the standard rather than a committee comprising multiple organisations.
The type, global and function specifications comprise the bulk of that Standard, so Oracle was essentially complaining that somebody complied with a Standard it acquired from Sun Microsystems.

If Google also used Sun’s code within those functions, then that may well constitute copyright infringement.
Bear in mind, though, that a lot of functionality will be implemented in a similar manner by most developers, and that there are long-standing conventions in naming internal variables (e.g. loop counters are almost always i, j, k, …, dating back to FORTRAN)

Some of the “copyright infringement” examples shown by “The SCO Group” (Caldera) were very obviously just examples of the same functionality implemented by developers with similar K&R / Stroustrup approaches.
That may or may not be the case with Java and Android.

I provided some minor code analysis to Groklaw on the Linux/Unix side, so I’d be interested i seeing references to the examples of Android copyright infringement, leaving aside the definitions which comprise the Java Standard

Alan Robertson
Reply to  niceguy
July 21, 2021 8:29 pm

So what?

MarkW
Reply to  niceguy
July 22, 2021 7:42 am

Once again, the left declares that unless you agree with them, you are evil.
Net neutrality is a complex issue and people of good will come down on both sides of it. I don’t wish to relitigate the issue yet again.

However your apparent belief that only you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is a potential totalitarian just goes to show how ignorant and intolerant you are.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  niceguy
July 22, 2021 12:06 pm

Oh nice guy! This article must have struck close to the bone, chipping your worldview a tad. Jumping immediately into an arcane Trump derangement tantrum is very revealing. You know that this research was done by liberal researchers so you can’t simply dismiss it as the work of ‘flat earthers’. I’m happy to see research from the woke that reports unexpected, maybe even unwanted conclusions. You know that you wouldn’t have seen this if you hadn’t been trolling WUWT.

griff
Reply to  Gordo
July 22, 2021 12:48 am

Only in the US is climate science labelled by part of society as ‘left wing’

Loydo
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 1:01 am

No, it includes all of Rupertland.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 2:11 am

By real scientists it is labelled as “junk science”.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 2:41 am

Gee, Griffy, maybe it is because of percieved correlation between Climate Alarmism and Progressive policies….causation?

MarkW
Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 22, 2021 7:45 am

griff doesn’t agree with causation.
If he did, he wouldn’t be a global warming alarmist in the first place.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 3:46 am

Yes, isn’t it glorious, griff! In this, God only blesses the USA for some reason. It is as if He wants to give you benighted foreigners a sign that you have your head up your Guardiarse!

Say, in which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1674-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025

John Swallow
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 4:31 am

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen Global warming alarmist such as yourself. He said: “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. – Ecclesiastes 10:2

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Swallow
July 22, 2021 9:56 am

I have a book written by Marcus Aurelius named “Meditations” that I haven’t read yet. 🙂

michel
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 5:31 am

No, its not climate science. That isn’t left or right.

It is some policy recommendations allegedly based on hypotheses allegedly established by some climate scientists that are left wing.

IanE
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 5:57 am

Wrong: it is certainly labelled that way in the UK.

M Courtney
Reply to  IanE
July 22, 2021 6:17 am

Living in the UK, it is definitely not the case that David Cameron and the current PM are considered left-wingers.
Yet more ardent Greenies are not to be found anywhere in the world.

Cameron did photoshoots with huskies, put a windmill on his own house and had the party logo changed to a tree.

The current PM is even more active in destroying British industry on the altar of Climate Change.

But that does not make them left-wing.

MarkW
Reply to  IanE
July 22, 2021 7:46 am

In Europe, only full on communists get the left wing label.
Everyone else is some kind of right wing nut case.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 7:44 am

The mere fact that only liberals support this nonsense and that the leaders of the movement are all quite vocal about their desire to use global warming as a vehicle to get rid of capitalism doesn’t matter.

establ
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 10:48 am

From the article:

Christiana Figueres, with the lumpy title of executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), came right out and said it: Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. The really good model is communist China.

China is “doing it right,” she told Bloomberg News Tuesday. “They actually want to breathe air they don’t have to look at,” she said with a straight face.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-a-back-door-to-communism-and-the-united-nations-admits-it/

Bill Powers
Reply to  establ
July 23, 2021 8:51 am

And no one corrected her on her obvious conflation of pollution with the invisible CO2? Which begs the question: what are the necessary qualifications and duties of an Executive Secretary in a massive global bureaucracy anyway?

Obviously it does not require a working knowledge of the issue which created your bloat to begin with. Talk about making it up as you go.

Drake
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 2:55 pm

No, they don’t want to get rid of “capitalism”, they use that quite well with their cronies. They want to eliminate FREE ENTERPRISE, but eliminating all FREEDOM will be good enough for them.

You will wear a mask and like it!!

Kenji
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 8:48 am

Because the remainder of the world … IS … left wing? Only. That’s a sad, sad, world.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 12:13 pm

That’s because the rest of the world is left wing. All you have is choices with no difference. How does BoJo differ from the others. He certainly isn’t Conservative except in name.

Reply to  Gordo
July 22, 2021 4:28 am

Indicates a bias toward science on the part of the scientists conducting the survey. Oregonians don’t lean that way.

Tom Halla
July 21, 2021 6:14 pm

Having the experience of 50 odd years of ecological panic porn leads one to a certain level of doubt. If the claims from the late 1960’s had been accurate, I would probably be dead.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 21, 2021 7:26 pm

My experience is the same. I have 50 years of reading thousands of hilariously overconfident predictions of disaster in newspapers and magazines and TV shows and news programs as well as books and science fiction – according to 50 years of expert knowledge I should have been dead dozens of times over, yet here I stand in the modern age of Babylon where I continue to do my best to tune out the fear mongers yet still I try to understand what exactly it is that they are mongering…

spangled drongo
Reply to  Dave Stephens
July 21, 2021 9:13 pm

“…yet here I stand in the modern age of Babylon”

And billions of us as well.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 21, 2021 9:18 pm

According to Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren, we all died of starvation about 20 years ago.

griff
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 22, 2021 12:49 am

And you aren’t because people acted on the warnings of science

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 2:03 am

Hence the Paris accord was needed, because the people already acted on the ‘warnings of science’ over the past 50 years.

Archer
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 3:43 am

The warnings from the 1960s were that if population growth was not immediately curtailed, and measures introduced to reduce the world population by mass government intervention, most people in the western world would be starving by the late 90s. Population growth was not curtailed. The government did not engage in mass population reduction interventions. Instead, as these warnings were being made, the world was undergoing a mass agricultural revolution that resulted in the ability to produce far more food on far less land. This was entirely unpredicted by “the science” behind these warnings and was even opposed by the people making the warnings, because it ruined their grift.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Archer
July 22, 2021 4:09 am

The Cinese heeded the too many people not enough food warnings. They implemented a one child family policy. The cure was worse than the problem, apart from too many male children there are now not enough people of any gender in that age group.
Wealth creates health and happiness and small families, many nations are finding too small families

Tom Halla
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 3:52 am

When the “remedy” for a prospective ice age is very much the same as for global warming, the “scientists” obviously are pulling things out of thin air. Nice try.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 23, 2021 9:20 am

Pulling things out of thin air or a dark smelly place that follows them wherever they go, Tom.

I Came out of the Coast Guard in 1974, served on an Ice Breaker, to avoid getting my arse shot off in the jungles of Southeast Asia, thanks to another Democrat President reinstituting the Selective Service System to fight a war that the media managed to blame on Nixon.

Went back to college and discovered that we were facing another ice age. Only to be told a brief 2 decades latter that we were, in fact, facing irreversible catastrophic Global Warming. This time, with a lot of possibly, could be, Likely, they were certain.

These end of days events where sandwiched around the destruction of the Ozone and a good half dozen other events that threatened the planet unless we just gave total control of our lives over to the bureaucrats who existed for the sole purpose of saving us from ourselves.

I am constantly reminded of the old Reagan quote about the 9 most terrifying words in the English language “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.”

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 3:56 am

Oh, I see, griff. And here I thought we were burning more fossil fuels than ever. Stupid foolish right-winger extremist that I am.

In which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1674-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025

Derg
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 4:56 am

A Sphincter says what?

starzmom
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 5:52 am

What warnings? “Too many people”?–> there are more than ever now.
“Not enough food”?–>Plenty of food, so much that we convert some to fuel.
“Acid rain”?–>No change in acidity despite emissions reductions.
I could go on.

paul courtney
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 6:04 am

Mr. griff: “people acted”??!! We did?? Better not say that in front of Greta, she will give you such a scowl!!
In the US, we sure did act on the science, the science of economics. When the War on Coal drove the price up and at the same time fracking NG dropped the price, we got all scientific about it. You English should try it, NG means elctricity all the time and….oh, why waste keystrokes.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 7:46 am

Models are not science.

July 21, 2021 6:16 pm

The “climate change” movement is just a cover for the main agenda. The climate dialog and associated alarmism was contrived by the Left as just an excuse for their Agenda 21 program. The “alarmism” is not about global warming — it’s about global politics … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvzmHLCIyPc

Last edited 1 month ago by John Shewchuk
markl
Reply to  John Shewchuk
July 21, 2021 7:19 pm

+1 There’s an old debate on this site about science vs. politics guiding AGW and I don’t think it’s been agreed to. Personally I think it’s all political at the core.

Reply to  markl
July 21, 2021 7:49 pm

Of course it’s all politics at the core. The IPCC even told us; but at the same time they continue to rattle scientist cages just to keep the alarmism dialog going as a distraction from their main agenda, and unfortunately, it’s working.

x1a.jpg
Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Shewchuk
July 21, 2021 10:17 pm

I can’t count the number of times I’ve quoted Edenhofer’s definition of the purpose of the IPCC process and have some alarmist doing a tap dance about its true meaning. It requires a considerable degree of anal cranial compaction to misunderstand his words.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 21, 2021 10:59 pm

Assuming that it was fairly translated.

John Phillips
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 22, 2021 3:10 am

It is far from a fair translation. Even the sentence order is reversed.

All the outlets using the Edenhofer quote have relied on Google Translate to tell them what Edenhofer might have said, as the original interview was in German.

A spokesperson for Edenhofer told me the quote was used “to imply that Prof. Edenhofer ‘admits’ that there is some kind of ‘hidden agenda’ behind climate policy.“

The spokesperson added: “Of course, this is not what he was saying. These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.

Source.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 4:01 am

Well John, here is the original text from the Neue Zuercher Zeitung, 13 November 2010:

‘Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.’

German was my grandpa’s mother tongue and that rubs off. And I can assure you that this translation is not bad at all, rather accurate in fact:

‘But one must be clear: we are de facto redistributing the world’s wealth through climate policy. It is obvious that the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about it. One has to free oneself of the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. It has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dieback or the ozone hole.’

establ
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 22, 2021 11:04 am

Both my parents are immigrants from Germany. I can speak German pretty good and can read ok. That translation is accurate.

The meme is not word for word but the message is still the same. So what’s you problem with it John?

Rich Davis
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 4:22 am

How about a link to the original quote?

https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227

I would have to concur that Edenhofer was not confessing a true hidden motivation but rather spelling out the logical consequences of his fallacious premises.

It’s not enough that they clearly understand what the implication is and they still think it’s the way to go?

It’s the distinction between the architects and engineers who designed Auschwitz and the SS troops who carried it out.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 4:47 am

Haha. That source is about as dishonnest as you can get. It was the devaluing of fossil fuel reserves that constitute a kind of wealth redistribution. Is what he actually meant. Well, you can’t deny them a certain origionality. But seriously what fools do they take us for?

John Phillips
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 22, 2021 6:18 am

It is just classic quote mining, if you read the whole interview, Edenhofer’s theme is that thinking of climate policy in the same way as ‘traditional’ or localised environmental problems such as deforestation is incorrect and and that considering climate policy as separate from economic policy makes no sense, the de facto consequence of proposed climate policy will be to strand some major fossil fuel assets. You should really read the whole interview, but here’s a snippet

None of this sounds like the climate policy that we are familiar with.

Basically, it is a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major issues of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we still have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet – and we can only deposit 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11,000 to 400 – there is no way around the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the ground.

In fact, this is an expropriation of the countries with their natural resources. This leads to a completely different development than that which has been initiated with development policy up to now.

First of all, we industrialized countries have practically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must be clear: we are de facto redistributing world wealth through climate policy. It is obvious that the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about it. One has to get rid of the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. That has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dieback or the ozone hole.

Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change – especially in the south.

There will also be a lot of customization to do. But that goes far beyond classic development policy: We will see a decline in agricultural yields in Africa with climate change. But you can deal with this if the efficiency of production is increased – and above all if African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But then we have to see that successful climate policy needs a different global trade and financial policy.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  John Phillips
July 26, 2021 8:58 am

Yeah, and I had no sexual relations with that woman. (That was also a quote taken out of context, I remember)

MarkW
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 7:49 am

You go on and on about how it isn’t a fair translation. So what do you consider a fair translation to be, and why should we trust you over the other translators?

John Phillips
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 9:37 am

It may be a good literal translation but it has been carefully lifted out of context to make it appear that Edenhofer was tacitly admitting that the purpose of climate policy was wealth distribution. If you look at the whole article – and what his spokesman said subsequently – it is clear that interpretation is a complete distortion.

A translation in line with the rest of the article would be something like 

But one must be clear: climate policy will de facto distribute some wealth. It is obvious that the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this. One has to get rid of the illusion that international climate policy is traditional green policy. That has almost nothing to do with green policies such as forest dieback or the ozone hole.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 9:50 am

The spokesperson added: “Of course, this is not what he was saying. These quotes are taken out of context to be misused

LOL a “spokesperson” “out of context”. You people are so consistent … even the plainest messages are “out of context” and you love to turn them into straw men. Hell, even thousands of very clear, sequential email conversations were called “out of context”. You people are either the world’s worst readers or pathological liars.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 22, 2021 4:42 am

Maybe the architect of the Paris Accord can help clarify the true agenda.

x2.jpg
John Phillips
Reply to  John Shewchuk
July 22, 2021 6:22 am

Equally, her praise of China’s rapid investments in green technologies and critique of the damaging aspects of unregulated markets have drawn sharp criticism from right wing media commentators.

“I do know I have been called a communist,” she says, laughing down the phone line from Bonn.

“I think maybe there are a couple of reasons… part of my commitment to the public good is through common goals that can only be best reached by working together – if that’s called communism so be it.”

Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 8:18 am

The “left” continually informs us of their ultimate agenda — but we continue to ignore the obvious — at our peril. And regarding the “china” connection — no wonder why Joe and the Dems say nothing about China’s efforts to become the world energy leader.. China smartly adapts to climate change while we foolishly fear it … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1Iu9D5RhqQ

Drake
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 3:08 pm

Love the communist speaking of “working together”.

That would be the productive working together in the gulag to do whatever the party wants done, as in China with the CCP.

You can try to spin this any way you want John, but you just provided the proof that you are just spinning, and that you are, too, a communist.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 22, 2021 5:11 am

It was !

Loydo
Reply to  John Shewchuk
July 22, 2021 12:39 am

“their main agenda.” As in wealth redistribution?

Um try and keep up John. Wealth redistribution has been overdrive for years.

comment image

Loydo
Reply to  Loydo
July 22, 2021 12:55 am

I wonder how the 7500 individuals who make up the 0.0001% are doing? If you own everything including the politicians and control the media, your doing ok and you’d be mad to want any change to the BAU status quo. They’ve got you believing this is all partisan. It’s not, its just a way to keep that graph going in the same direction.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Loydo
July 22, 2021 5:13 am

Where you go wrong is that a basic premise of your thinking is wrong Loy.

Why should wealth be “redistributed” at all? Now I realize that distribution has a statistical meaning, but I am referring to your implicit assumption that the “ethical” distribution would have every individual equal. Logically this outcome could only result from government redistribution of wealth, since it is contrary to the natural order.

How is it ethical that those who invent and risk their savings should make no more than those who owe their ability to feed their families to the risk-taker? And not only those who work hard to implement others’ ideas and justly deserve some reward, but also, in the memorable phrase of that brilliant statesperson AOC, those who are unable or unwilling to work? Even those “unwilling-to-work” parasites should have an equal share doled out?

The proper complaint is that many who acquire great wealth, do so by manipulating government power rather than serving others through the production of goods or provision of services.

MarkW
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 22, 2021 7:56 am

Loydo and the other liberals want wealth to be re-distributed from those who have earned it to them. Because they know that they are worth more than their current salary, and this proves the world is corrupt and only an all powerful one world government can correct this inequity.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Loydo
July 22, 2021 6:06 am

You may be too thick to see it, but the 0.0001% generally get to, and stay where they are by taking advantage of “sure things” exactly like the government produces by cramming inferior technology down the throats of the public at large by putting its foot on the economic “scale” in the name of “saving us” from the latest imaginary “crisis.”

Take this perfect example from Warren Buffett: “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate. For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

Of course, it goes even further then what Mr. Buffett specifically mentions; government mandates and subsidies are also heaped on to create an illusion of wind energy (along with solar, for that matter) being a small fraction as expensive as it actually is, and to force utilities to buy it when they would seldom voluntarily do so.

“Getting in on the ground floor” is generally something done at considerable risk, since the success of the venture being invested in is not assured. When the government stomps on the economic scale to force-feed something into the market, the “rent seekers” all “invest” to get richer at taxpayer expense. After all, who do you think is benefiting economically from wind farms and solar farms? The poor? The working class? The middle class? Nope – it is those that already have hoards of money that can afford to sink it into such government promoted boondoggles, enriching themselves at everyone else’s expense.

BAU doesn’t make the rich richer – it is government promoted “market” (NOT) disruptions that provide the “easy money” for those who already have plenty.

Loydo
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 23, 2021 3:49 am

the 0.0001% generally get to, and stay where they are by taking advantage of “sure things”

Not only have the 0.0001% convinced you and Mark their theft is justified, but gulled you into being apologists for them. Talk about useful idiots.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
July 23, 2021 9:58 am

You have yet to demonstrate any theft whatsoever.

Having more money than a non-government socialist is not evidence that something evil has occurred.
The reason why most everyone has more than you do poor Loydo, is because you are and have always been, a loser.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
July 22, 2021 7:53 am

As Loydo proves, liberalism is a philosophy based solely on greed and envy.

All that matters is that there are people out there who make more than Loydo does.

Drake
Reply to  Loydo
July 22, 2021 3:21 pm

Loydo,

But you HATE TRUMP! and love that what he has said cannot be seen on twitter or facebook or youtube, all controlled by the mega rich in your 0.0001%. CNN continues to lie about just about everything to do with TRUMP!, Hunter, Hillbillary, RUSSIA!!, CAGW, etc.and is controlled by one of your 0.0001% cronies.

You are working here to support the blocking of the spread of TRUTH, which could begin to cause harm to the oligarchs who control the DEEP STATE. The same DEEP STATE you want to empower to control the rest of the economy, and our lives.

Look at what the Democrat party is trying to do, spend 3.5 TRILLION $ to spread it around among their cronies, because of the $ that gets back to their campaign coffers. And to Joe through Hunter through “art” sales.

You truly are a “useful idiot”.

Loydo
Reply to  Drake
July 23, 2021 4:43 pm

TRUMP? he is the 0.0001% you useful moron. I don’t hate anyone and I’m not even American so your weird, uber-polarized, partisan zealotry means very little to me.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
July 24, 2021 3:03 pm

Unlike you, Trump has earned what he has.
Why is it that leftists hate it when other people are successful?

TeddyLee
Reply to  Loydo
July 22, 2021 1:31 am

So, the rise of co2 has helped create a more equitable world!
OK by me!

Loydo
Reply to  TeddyLee
July 22, 2021 1:42 am

That graph shows less equity not more.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
July 22, 2021 7:58 am

People earning what they are capable of earning is the very definition of equitable.

TonyG
Reply to  Loydo
July 22, 2021 11:07 am

“equity”

“And the Trees were all made equal by hatchet, axe, and saw”

Reply to  Loydo
July 22, 2021 4:47 am

The main purpose of the Paris Accord is stated by the architect of the Paris Accord …

x2.jpg
MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
July 22, 2021 7:52 am

Typical lefty, always convinced that other people are making too much money, and that government needs to seize that money and give it to those the lefty considers to be more righteous.

Who cares who actually earned it. There’s a lefty somewhere who isn’t being paid what he wants to earn.

John Swallow
Reply to  John Shewchuk
July 22, 2021 5:04 am

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart,  former Canadian Minister of the Environment 

Reply to  John Swallow
July 22, 2021 5:15 am

Exactly. It was never about science — but just a false excuse by the governing elite to rule the world — just like it has ever been since humanity began.

x3.jpg
griff
Reply to  markl
July 22, 2021 12:51 am

I agree its all political – but only on the skeptic side.

There isn’t any left wing global plot to bring down the West by climate science. Is there?

Steve Case
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 1:17 am

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – 
Maurice Strong, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” – 
Christiana Figueres, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary

“We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it. 
George Monbiot April 12, 2019

There are probably more quotes than that, and most probably don’t specifically single out Climate Change as the means to overthrow capitalism but if you apply the Duck Test, that’s what it looks like.

John Phillips
Reply to  Steve Case
July 22, 2021 3:31 am

Well, the first is Strong quoting the plot of a novel he one day intended to write, not his own views.. from this 1990 interview (towards the end)

The Monbiot quote is fabricated, it appears to derive from this TV appearance

Source for the Figueres quote? I can only find it repeated on various conservative news sites, none of which give a source, which given the other two are bogus means it is almost certainly out of context.

John Phillips
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 3:40 am

My mistake, Monbiot did use those words right at the end, I stand corrected. But listen to the context behind the hyperbole. He is making the point that the policy of endless growth in GDP – doubling every 24 years is unsustainable both economically and ecologically. Some economists are starting to say the same thing.

John Phillips
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 3:46 am

If anyone is interested in George Monbiot’s actual position (I know, a longshot), rather than a hyperbolic one-liner lifted from an appearance on a TV show, he lays it out here:

https://www.monbiot.com/2019/04/30/the-problem-is-capitalism/

Plenty more mine-able quotes there, I’m sure.

MarkW
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 8:03 am

Anyone who believes that the problem is capitalism, has shown himself to be a complete idiot.

MarkW
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 8:02 am

Just because MoonBat believes something, doesn’t mean it’s true.
MoonBat, just like you, have no idea what you are talking about.
Doubling the economy doesn’t mean that the amount of stuff being made doubles, it means the value of the stuff being made doubles.

For example, compare a modern cell phone with a standard house phone from 40 years ago? There is just no comparison in terms of ability or worth, yet the modern phone uses maybe 1% as much material as did the phone from 40 years ago.
Let go of the Marxist nonsense you’ve been taught to believe in and rejoin the real world.

Drake
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 3:34 pm

Communist economists truly believe it is unsustainable, and under socialism or communism it is, truly!!

Under FREE ENTERPRISE, it i wholly sustainable.

Reminds me of an old joke:

Only one coach was able to keep Michael Jordan under 20 points a game, Dean Smith.

As is reality, only one entity can stop an economic recovery, government. Obama and his house full of academics held back the natural cyclic recovery for 8 years, and now OBiden and his FAR LEFTIST appointees will do the same for 4 years.

The only hope, 2024, TRUMP! as President, Republican House and Senate, then SCRAP the IRS, FBI, DOE, DOJ, DEA, EPA, and go to a national sales tax, The Fair Tax.

No one should be able to get to MY financial information. The leftist in the IRS leak what benefits the Democrats continually, and harass any right of center non-profit.

Steve Case
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 8:04 am

Hi John, thanks for the reply.

Same link from years ago that I’ve got in my files, where Strong also says, “I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this”

From my search years ago, and a lost link, that quoted the free lance author, Daniel Wood, as saying, “I realized that he was talking about himself.”

Here’s the quote and link for the Figueres quote:

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”

Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
February 3rd 2015

Internet Archives Way Back Machine

Scratch the average liberal and they will curl their lip and talk about “These Corporations” When pointed out that just about everything they need to live their lives are produced by corporations and not governments, they have nothing to say.

Tom
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 2:32 am

Groupthink is not a conspiracy. The political left obviously has an agenda that goes well beyond solving alleged climate problems. If you cannot see this then, you just might be a groupthihker yourself.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 5:25 am

Thanks for buttressing my claim that the Left is shamelessly politicizing the debate, griff. Every day you astound with new ways to exceed your prior heights of inanity. You and The Guarniad, victims of partisan vitriol, putting forth nothing but Pure Reason, unappreciated.

In which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 6:51 am

“I agree its all political – but only on the skeptic side.”

Ba-hahahahahahahahha!
Probably the funniest thing Griffie-poo has ever said. But anyway, the truth is that all of the political hand-waving on both sides is just a sideshow. The true Skeptic/Climate Realist has to be able to set aside politics, and let the chips fall where they may. Few have the cajones to do that though, due to tribalism. For the True Believers/Alarmists though, there is little hope. They simply aren’t interested in the truth.

Last edited 1 month ago by Bruce Cobb
MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 22, 2021 8:04 am

The left has managed to convince themselves that they are the reasonable ones and that everyone actually agrees with them.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 7:58 am

Who cares what the leaders say, griff disagrees and that settles it.

John Hultquist
Reply to  John Shewchuk
July 21, 2021 9:52 pm

 At the Earth Summit conference (Rio, 1992) the year 2021 was thought to be where to place the goal posts. As that became unlikely, then impossible, they changed the wording. Now the emphasis is on “sustainable development” (from 2015), but the goal was moved to 2030. That terminology – Agenda 2030 – is used but without much traction.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 21, 2021 10:21 pm

There are a substantial number of warmunists who deny the very existence of Agenda 21/30. When provided with the actual wordings and Maurice Strong’s arguments for its utilization, they just try to obfuscate the intentions.

paul courtney
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 22, 2021 6:19 am

Mr. Forbes: And on cue, above today Mr. Phillips is trying to convince us that the quotes we rely on are unreliable, proving himself to be the unreliable warmista. Thanks, John, we conservatives will keep observing as you bend your knee to false authority. Again.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  paul courtney
July 22, 2021 10:06 am

It’s their specialty. Since they have no valid science to support themselves, they turn to various logical fallacies … ‘bandwagon’ effect, appeals to authority, population, ignorance, emotions, equivocation, straw men and causal fallacies. Or they gas light and “fact check” their opponent. These are all tactics used in political (not scientific) debate.

John Phillips
Reply to  paul courtney
July 22, 2021 11:53 am

Well, the only Maurice Strong quote provided was lifted from a long article, and while it was presented as his own views, he was actually describing the plot of a work of fiction he planned to write.

Not much to ‘rely’ on.

griff
Reply to  John Shewchuk
July 22, 2021 12:50 am

sigh. Proves my point made above (below)…

This post is just, unfortunately, conspiracy theory.

Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 4:44 am

The IPCC leaders know exactly what they are doing — and why … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36cyEt5JfRA

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 5:55 am

Look griff, I concede that “my side” can be overly certain about the motives of the leaders on “your side”. That’s unfortunate in that it hands partisans like you an opportunity to deflect and deny what has been openly stated.

Never mind whether the authors of UN sustainable development documents are building a disingenuous rationale for implementing global socialism because they want to be the elite overlords of a new global socialism; or they are spelling out their conclusion that things they sincerely believe to be true necessitate global socialism.

Either way, their clear message is that we need global socialism. Either way, the average American or Brit must reckon with a far lower standard of living if we accept that prescription for an at best mistaken, at worst contrived problem statement.

In which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 8:05 am

Interesting, how showing the facts is just proof that it’s all a conspiracy theory.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 10:16 am

No it is actual conspiracy … or collusion to defraud. Take your pick.

TeddyLee
Reply to  John Shewchuk
July 22, 2021 1:26 am

It’s part of the “Long Walk” through the Institutions. Communist totalitarianism has been patient.
Their only virtue.

BlueDevil
Reply to  TeddyLee
July 22, 2021 4:54 am

Lenin was part of it long before when locked out of Russia during the Great War. He read a book on destruction of then fledgling electrical grids via environmental policy (in Scandinavia I believe it was). Realizing Communism could not compete with capitalism (ergo have successful deep interdiction strategic bombing tauted by Giulio Douhet and Billy Mitchell…), the Bolsheviks began the subterfudge of promoting environmentalists policies in Capitalist countries to destroy or increase costs of their industrial production.

Steve Case
July 21, 2021 6:16 pm

Overall, we find that liberals are significantly more likely than moderates or conservatives to view climate science as certain and simple and to rely on expert knowledge more than their own direct experience.

By contrast, conservatives are significantly more likely than liberals or moderates to view climate science as uncertain and complex and to rely on their own direct experience over the knowledge of content experts. 

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman

DMA
Reply to  Steve Case
July 21, 2021 8:26 pm

So why don’t they choose Lindzen or Happer for their experts instead of Gore or Kerry? The true believers get their view from The View or Huffington Post, accept it as authoritative and have likely never heard of Happer and Lindzen and possibly have never heard the skeptical position discussed where the point of the article wasn’t to denigrate the author.

Steve Case
Reply to  DMA
July 22, 2021 2:01 am

Because the politics they follow tells them who the experts are.

John Phillips
Reply to  DMA
July 22, 2021 4:02 am

Well, Dr Happer is a atomic physicist rather than a climate scientist and indeed his arguments on climate were comprehensively dismantled some time ago.

And we have not forgotten the sting operation that revealed he was happy to be hired to write pro-fossil fuel articles without revealing his conflict of interest. That’s a big no-no.

I cannot improve on this description of Dr Lindzen

Richard Lindzen is a very special character in the climate debate – very smart, high profile, and with a solid background in atmospheric dynamics. He has, in times past, raised interesting critiques of the mainstream science. None of them, however, have stood the test of time – but exploring the issues was useful. More recently though, and especially in his more public outings, he spends most of his time misrepresenting the science and is a master at leading people to believe things that are not true without him ever saying them explicitly.”

Gavin Schmidt.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/

Jim Gorman
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 6:14 am

I read both of these and they are not scientific refutations of anything. Pure puff pieces repeating talking points. You may believe the talking points are valid, however, folks believing they are not valid have just as legitimate opinions.

George Daddis
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 7:34 am

There is a bit of the “begging the question” fallacy if you use a spokesperson for the alarmist position as your authority to “debunk” someone critical of alarmism.

MarkW
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 8:06 am

Only in climate science does screaming “you’re wrong” over and over again, constitute a refutation.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 10:16 am

“Shut up!”, she explained.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 4:39 pm

But Happer’s physics seems correct, while the “comprehensive dismantlement” doesn’t even have any numbers to check.

Rory Forbes
July 21, 2021 6:35 pm

Simply put, conservatives tend towards empirical evidence and scientific methodology, while liberals and moderates rely on hearsay, group belief and appeal to authority. Sounds to me the liberals regard climate “science” as some sort of religious experience where the priesthood determine the entire narrative. Hmmm. it was Oregon, after all.

Rah
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 21, 2021 7:49 pm

First off, they are not “Liberals”. There nothing liberal in their policies or their implementation or enforcement of them.

Secondly, the problem with the majority of the leftist masses in regard to the subject under discussion I believe can be summed up in four words: LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING!

They seem to be unable to think through a problem to reach a logical conclusion if their cognition is leading to a conclusion they don’t like because it conflicts with their current beliefs. This why so many of them deflect when a point of fact is made they are unable to refute or resolve.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rah
July 21, 2021 10:09 pm

Apart from your disagreement on what a liberal is, you pretty much reiterated what I said using different vocabulary. I merely adopted the classifications of the author.

I suppose the author should have used ‘radicals and progressives’.

MarkW
Reply to  Rah
July 22, 2021 8:07 am

Leftists tend to believe that if it sounds good to them, it must be good.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 21, 2021 11:01 pm

You left out “feelings”.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 22, 2021 10:01 am

Good catch. “Feelings” are perhaps their most compelling “argument” … combined with their ‘personal truth’.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 22, 2021 10:54 am

Please change “liberals” to “Leftists.” Liberals mistrust centralized authority over the individual. Leftists glorify authority over the individual.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 22, 2021 12:52 pm

One could argue this for days. Do you mean ‘classical’ liberals or today’s progressive “liberals”? There are few classical liberals around. It’s all really quite complex. Authoritarian vs. libertarian … and Left vs. Right. I know all sorts of modern “Liberals” who practically can’t wait to wear masks … one, two three at a time. If the rule is 2 meter distancing they do 3 meters. They love authority. Here in Canada the Liberals have been the dominant party for most of our history. It is now almost completely socialist. Our language is being altered.

Chris Hanley
July 21, 2021 6:37 pm

The most notable conclusion is the need for future research, of course.

Dean
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 22, 2021 2:32 am

Takes me back about a decade ago when the CSIRO was trumpeting how the science was settled. And the Australian Federal Government promptly cut their funding for climate science.

Ah the howls of indignation when suddenly there was a lot of science still to do!

George Daddis
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 22, 2021 7:40 am

This touches on the meaning of the Feynman quote (re the ignorance of experts) as he went on to explain:

 “science – a.k.a. research – is in the making, belongs to the (unknown, yet to be discovered) future, while expertise is based on the past, with in-built obsolescence”

Last edited 1 month ago by George Daddis
Johne Morton
July 21, 2021 7:04 pm

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but everything the leftists do and say is political. Ninety-nine percent of late night “comedy” is political. Forgive me also for throwing the flag whenever there’s a flood on a flood plain, tornadoes in tornado alley, hurricanes forming in and north of the ITCZ, severe cold snaps in winter, or fires in the Mediterranean and Pacific climate regions, because that means everything is perfectly normal. Zzzzzzz…..

John the Econ
July 21, 2021 7:38 pm

Liberals appeared eager to defer to perceived authority while Conservatives appeared lean toward be natural skeptics…

This thought occurred to me last year when engaging with Progressives after it had been revealed that Fauci lied about the efficacy of masks in order not to create a run on them by the general public. In a discussion with Progressive friend about the integrity of Fauci as a scientific source, the friend responded with “Well, who DO YOU refer to for such advice?”.

This initially caught me off guard because I don’t have a single “go-to guy” for advice regarding COVID-19, or any particular topic. But then I realized that this was a large part of the problem and the divide in America.

People like myself do not outsource our thinking to a single authority figure for conclusions on any particular topic. I read many different sources, educate myself as much as practicable, and come to my own conclusions. But modern Progressives are lazy. It’s easier to outsource your thinking to politically correct experts than to do any thinking for themselves. This is why they refuse to debate honestly on practically any topic; Because they can’t. “Because Fauci says so” or “Orange mad bad” is not an argument.

The other aspect of this problem is that since millions of people have invested their decision making on Fauci, they now need him to be right just to justify their faith in him.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  John the Econ
July 21, 2021 9:14 pm

Scientists who are paid to know the answers are loath to admit they don’t and that equally applies in climate science.
The only useful pursuit for a so-called climate scientist at this point is the diligent unbiased collection of data.

Last edited 1 month ago by Chris Hanley
Peta of Newark
Reply to  John the Econ
July 21, 2021 9:32 pm

Quote:”But modern Progressives are lazy. It’s easier to outsource your thinking to politically correct experts than to do any thinking for themselves. This is why they refuse to debate honestly on practically any topic; Because they can’t.”

Sums up what dawned o me a few years ago.
Also, simply swap out the word ‘Progressive’ for ‘people’

It applies perfectly to both sides of the debate, especially when we see/hear anyone trying to explain the GHGE

So I wondered why.

  • Why are they lazy.
  • Why all the buck passing.
  • Why the appeals to authority.
  • Why no original thinking.
  • Why no self confidence (Do not confuse self-confidence with ‘lack of inhibition’)
  • Why is it so difficult to change people’s minds
  • Why does it so quickly end in Ad-Homs (violence)

To my mind they are all (yes you, the one in the mirror, included) behaving like drunks.

OK I sez to myself. lets check out Global Booze consumption and yes, with notable exception of ‘USSR’, places where warming hysteria is rife corresponds to places with high alcohol consumption.

I feel the vibes already, the hackles are rising, the:

  • Oh, I can handle booze,
  • I’m only a social drinker
  • I only drink the ‘recommended’ amount (see the appeal to authority?)
  • me me me me me me…..

No matter. no matter at all. Do Not perjure yourself any more than you have already.

I discounted the booze as the primary cause..
Why?

I give 3 examples:

  • The afternoon ‘power nap’ – always occasioned after a ‘large lunch’
  • That widely used remedies for insomnia is highly processed sugary drinks
  • That UK police now recognise that folks coming away from their Christmas lunches ## are quite unfit to drive – their driving is worse than that of drunks

## Look at what’s in a Xmas lunch/dinner and you will find that it is a very low-fat meal – the calories in there are almost all coming from carbohydrate..

Now, go figure…………

Something else that ‘got me’ was reading about one of the convicted Watergate burglars (I forget the name)

But one of them actually admitted he did wrong and tried to puzzle out how he got into such a jam. Because as a youngster/newbie, he’d started work in the security service/government with such high ideals and standards – so just What Happened?
He tried to understand how he became a Watergate Burglar without, at the time, seeing anything wrong with it.

Again, that’s beside the point although it is the topic of this essay – ‘Communication’ and how burglary was communicated as ‘good/normal behaviour’
The Real Point is that he tried to understand himself and The System AND, be honest and open about what dawned upon him.

IOW: he changed his mind – even though he was fully confessing to the crime.

And because of that, he earned epic respect all across the board. Almost everybody he talked with admitted that:
They would never have had the guts

There’s another Go Figure – Orange Man had guts didn’t he..so What Happened there?
I see it as the machinery of Government itself, the Yes Minister part of it, is actually what created the Watergate Burglars.

Honesty Amongst Thieves, anyone?

Contemporary Western Governments are the story of The Godfather/Mafia innit – complete with coercion (as Boris mentioned recently) plus endless grasping for money, protection rackets and money laundering – although is now legit and called Quantitative Easing
aka: Printing Money

Interesting times…………

Editor
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 22, 2021 5:33 am

Intriguing take.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  John the Econ
July 22, 2021 6:18 am

I agree, this does seem to be the divide between Progressive thinking and skeptical thinking. They do tend to rely on a single person or source for all their information about any and everything. While the skeptical mind tends to want a lot more input, including personal observation, before making a decision.

TonyG
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
July 22, 2021 11:12 am

In many debates, I’ve encountered “this person says”, with regard to opinions, not even facts. There are people who need to be told what to think, and once they settle on who their “experts” are, there is no changing their minds, regardless of the facts.

July 21, 2021 7:48 pm

Despite their best efforts, the Climate continues to fail to conform to the Agenda that the Alarmists had set out for it, for over 50 years

Doonman
July 21, 2021 7:55 pm

Liberals think there is an endless supply of wealth and good luck that will always arrive just in time to support their pet projects. But then again, they will all tell you that the earth is not sustainable because humans ruined it.

Of course, both cannot be true, but that never seems to occur to them.

MarkW
Reply to  Doonman
July 22, 2021 8:11 am

When discussing the issues surrounding the problems of selecting candidates based on race, one young socialist assured me that there was no way choosing candidates by race rather than ability would be a problem.
In his words there was no such thing as a best candidate for a job. Every candidate was either qualified or not qualified. So as long as you picked your candidate from the pool of qualified candidates, there could be no problem.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 11:01 am

Having hired and managed people ranging from the janitor to chief financial officer, I can assert without a doubt that your socialist acquaintance has no concept of the real world of people.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 22, 2021 11:40 am

I’m pretty sure that he was a grad student who had never had a paying job in his life. I wouldn’t be surprised if, years later, that was still true.

Rah
July 21, 2021 8:02 pm

BTW as far as I’m concerned a high proportion of political “moderates” are nothing more than people who are always wetting their finger and sticking it up to see which way the wind is blowing before they decide what their opinion will be. IOW they go along to get along.

Tom
July 21, 2021 8:02 pm

I think that is right as far as it goes. Conservatives are more skeptical and for good reasons, but there is also the throng of clapping monkeys who, in an epistemological vacuum, oppose anything remotely supportive of climate alarmism.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom
July 22, 2021 6:18 am

There is an immensely larger throng of clapping monkeys who accept climate alarmism with nary a spark of logical thought and do so with religious fervor.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom
July 22, 2021 8:12 am

Who might these people be?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom
July 22, 2021 11:05 am

While that is true of some, the article concludes conservatives are more knowledgeable and asses facts as opposed to Leftists and “moderates.” By “moderates” I mean the mushy middle that awaits someone to tell them what to think or do.

Rod Evans
July 21, 2021 8:09 pm

The “liberal” non thinkers are a constant reminder of Mark Twain’s statement.
“It is easier to con people, than to convince people they have been conned”.

July 21, 2021 9:15 pm

There is no denying the established fact (a fact confirmed by surveys of course) that Conservative skeptics of climate science doomsters claims are much more likely to actually know the hard CO2 GHG effect science, paleo-climate facts, and various issues related to IPCC Climate Change claims than most Liberals.

Most Liberals simply spew Climate alarmism nonsense talking points based on tribal allegiance with little understanding of the science of GHE or knowledge of the facts surrounding Earth’s climate changes during the last 14,000 years. That’s why debates, if they happen at all, never go well for Libs when faced with a fact-informed climate skeptic.

Last edited 1 month ago by joelobryan
John Hultquist
July 21, 2021 9:38 pm

 lean toward be (sic) natural skeptics”

Ageing will do that.

Insufficiently Sensitive
July 21, 2021 10:27 pm

Liberals appeared eager to defer to perceived authority while Conservatives appeared lean toward being natural skeptics according to the research

Delicious. Liberals like Great Leaders (they call ’em Experts) to whom they can defer, and all they need is the one who sounds the most confident, who therefore must be right and should win the most research grants, and who can be quoted as the very last word on any topic. The Voice of Authority!

Whereas, as mentioned above, conservatives are indeed skeptical – as is the scientific method itself. Accept nothing without full support, and keep testing it no matter how sound it seems. If only our politicians had such sense, but no. As Barbie says, math is hard, and so is science, and you can’t bullshit your way through those studies as you can the social ‘sciences’. So those who wish to manipulate their fellow humans, instead of understand the principles that make the world tick, all study to acquire their own Voice of Authority in hopes of becoming Great Leaders themselves, whether they know anything or not.

MarkW
Reply to  Insufficiently Sensitive
July 22, 2021 8:14 am

Thinking for yourself is hard work. So much easier to just let other people tell you what to do.
What, those people who still think for themselves are more successful in life compared to you?
That’s unfair, better have government take what they’ve earned and give it to me.

July 21, 2021 11:29 pm

Not only politics but religion too

https://wp.me/pTN8Y-7OY

James Snook
July 22, 2021 12:47 am

Conservatives also rely more on their own direct lived experience to give them knowledge about the world and knowledge about climate change.”

Yup and they have more ‘lived experience’.

As Churchill said:
”Anyone who isn’t a Liberal by the time they are twenty hasn’t got s heart. Anyone who isn’t a Conservative by forty hadn’t got a brain.”

griff
July 22, 2021 12:48 am

It seems to me most climate skepticism is an offshoot of the rightward end of US Republican politics, with an unfortunate dash of conspiracy theory. In other words, this is a political, not a scientific opinion.

I expect to have my position verified by any replies to this comment

Chris Hanley
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 1:08 am

‘Climate skepticism’ like ‘climate denial’ is a nonsense absurdity and utterly meaningless term.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 2:01 am

Words are the expression of thoughts, if you can’t express yourself clearly you can’t think clearly.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 3:05 am

Good grief, griff, are you gullible, or just plain goofy?

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 22, 2021 5:01 am

Griff has a very special set of glasses. They show him (or her) the world, not in black and white but in the complementory colours. I almost wish I had such glasses; it could be great fun.

John Phillips
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 4:13 am

I am afraid you just do not get it Griff.

There are, in fact, a large number of scientists who know that AGW is not actually a cause for concern. But they do not speak up, instead they have remained silent while every single National Academy of Sciences and 100% of professional scientific associations worldwide was hi-jacked by a minority cabal of leftist alarmists whose ultimate aim is the imposition of a World Socialist Government.

And I’ve got a bunch of made up quotes to prove it.

MarkW
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 8:17 am

There is one quote that you claim to be a bad translation, though others have proven you wrong.

From that you jump to the position that all the quotes that disagree you are made up.

And to think, you actually believe you are following the science.

PS: This from the guy who agrees with Moonbat that the problem is capitalism.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
John Phillips
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 1:37 pm

There is one quote that you claim to be a bad translation, though others have proven you wrong.
From that you jump to the position that all the quotes that disagree you are made up.

I said it was not a fair translation, which it is not, it is one tiny section of a longer article, removed of context and given a dubious translation to attribute a position to the author that is a distortion of what he actually wrote.
 
I pointed out that the opinion attributed to Maurice Strong has been lifted from an interview in which he was sketching out the plot of a proposed work of fiction, and this was misrepresented as his actual views.
 
I pointed out that if you restore the text before the quote, it is clear that when Christiana Figueres made the remark about communism, she was joking.
 
Seems that all people have to support the theory that AGW is all a liberal plot is a handful of usually short, usually unsourced and a lot of the time fabricated quotes.
 
Scepticism ain’t what it used to be.

MarkW
Reply to  John Phillips
July 22, 2021 6:59 pm

It’s not bad, it’s just not fair.

On such tiny pin heads do your angels dance.
I’m sure you are impressing your self with your linguistic cleverness, but you are the only one so impressed.

It’s a joke, it’s the plot of a book, etc.
I’m sure you are managing to convince yourself.

John Phillips
Reply to  MarkW
July 23, 2021 2:14 am

Well, the source of the Strong quote is here. It is lifted from the section that starts
 

Strong tells me he has often wished he could write. He has a novel he’d like to do. lt’s something he has been thinking about for a decade. It would be a cautionary tale about the future ….

 
Every time I see this quote it is presented as if he was expressing his own view, nobody mentions he is musing about the plot of a work of fiction. Some unkind people (not me you understand) might form the view that if you have to resort to this level of dishonesty, you probably don’t have much of a case…

MarkW
Reply to  John Phillips
July 23, 2021 9:56 am

It’s a cautionary tale about the future, but it has nothing to do with his personal opinions.

Is that the tale you really want to try and sell?

Richard Page
Reply to  John Phillips
July 23, 2021 1:17 pm

In the link YOU provided – page 30, 1st column, 2/3rds through the 3rd para. Nothing whatsoever about a novel, but an acknowledgement that this is Strong’s motive. I suggest you may want to re-read your source.

John Phillips
Reply to  Richard Page
July 23, 2021 2:03 pm

Mark and Richard.

You both miss the point, you can speculate all you want about what Strong’s motivations were all those decades ago, but quoting his novel synopsis, without mentioning that it is a novel synopsis is fundamentally dishonest.

No?

MarkW
Reply to  John Phillips
July 23, 2021 2:09 pm

The only one doing any speculating is you.
We just go by what the man said, and what he said about why he said it.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 4:17 am

It is very political. Leftists believe the climate alarmist bullcrap. People with intelligence and critical thinking skills, including liberals, can see that there is no “climate emergency”. Just because you say you are correct and anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy nut, it doesn’t mean that you are correct. It probably points more in the direction of you being a paid troll or at least an anti-social little toad.

Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 5:24 am

It’s both, scientific and political.

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
Rich Davis
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 22, 2021 6:15 am

Unsinn!

How can anything have more than one characteristic or be influenced by more than one factor?

The climate is controlled by CO2. Opposition to climate policy is only politics. Everything is simple.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 6:26 am

“Climate skepticism” implies that the skepticism is being applied to something firmly established, which does not apply to so-called “climate science.”

Real science is open, transparent, objective, based on empirical observation and/or experiment, and above all is falsifiable.

So-called “climate science” is closed, secret, opaque, based on assumptions and “models” that simply codify the baseless assumptions, heavily biased and pre-determined, and is not falsifiable. It is therefore not “science” at all but a political agenda tarted up to look like science.

Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 7:55 am

Pope Griff The First Who Speaks Infallibly,

Do you know the difference between a dipole moment and an induced dipole moment, and why this is so important to the so-called “Greenhouse Effect?” Did you know that the Atmosphere radiates in all directions all the time? Did you know that an absorbed photon at 15 microns is thermalized low in the atmosphere but re-radiated high in the atmosphere? If you did not and do not, you merely quote those you believe to be Authority Figures.

Unless you are quoting God Himself, get off your high horse and study some science. You add no new knowledge nor philosophy to these discusions.

And about those polar bears…

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 8:16 am

Most liberals agree with the global warming scams.
Most conservatives disagree with the global warming scams.

This proves that the liberals believe in science and conservatives hate science.

That’s what griff has been told to believe.

garboard
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 5:30 pm

im sure im in a small minority here but I am a congenital liberal , big fan of Obama , wished I could have voted for Bernie . nevertheless I am a sceptic , a lukewarmer , a denier according to alarmists , doomists , warmists . I find people like Koonin , schellenberger , curry , bill gray , Dyson , happer , lindzen, lomborg , morner and their ilk way more rational and persuasive than the tsunami of junk science that dominates the media and comes from people like Mann , rahmstorf and hausfather . I don’t for the life of me see how anyone who looks closely at Manns oeuvre , the hockey stick , can respect the guy . just look at what Richard muller points out about him / it on you tube . the ultimate justification is that , ok his statistical methods may have been junk and his proxy data doesn’t stand up to scrutiny but other , later studies show he was right . meanwhile he has continued his career in the same vein and shown himself to be an attack dog ,knee cap artist and media whore . and the MSM love him . then there is the kerfuffle between Kevin trenberth and Chris landsea that led to land seas resignation from the ipcc because after chairing the ipcc group that found no changes in hurricanes , trenberth went on a public speaking tour saying the exact opposite . when landsea objected to the ipcc they said , ” meh ? ” rahmstorf is an incessant pusher of the slowing Gulf Stream nonsense , when there is one actual oceanographer [ not a modeler and activist } tom Rossby { son of Rossby waves Rossby ] who has been making actual physical measurements of the gulf stream velocity for more than 30 years who says that’s patent junk and who is Never mentioned . then there is how all the ridiculous sea level rise articles switch from tide gauge data to satellite [ approximation ] data without telling you [ like Manns switcheroo in the hockey stick graph ]. and then there’s Peter ridd.and Peter gleick . the endless smears and ad hominems against sceptics reminds me of 50’s mccarthyism . anyway , you get the idea . and try to find things that contradict climate science doom on google or wikipedia . fuggedaboutit . the deck is stacked . so actually im proud to be an old fashioned liberal who doubts everything the powers that be want me to believe .

Last edited 1 month ago by garboard
MarkW
Reply to  garboard
July 22, 2021 7:00 pm

old fashioned liberal who doubts everything the powers that be want me to believe

Yet you swallow hook, line and sinker the lie that only the powers that be are capable of running the economy fairly.

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 22, 2021 2:00 am

‘they would defer to what a scientist says about climate change even if it contradicts their own experience’.

It means they look at climate scientist as priests who reveal an invisible truth to them.

That would be funny if not for the fact that also the ‘scientists’ see themselves as the new Priest Class above scrutiny.

Gregory Woods
July 22, 2021 2:38 am

Overall, we find that liberals are significantly more likely than moderates or conservatives to view climate science as certain and simple and to rely on expert knowledge more than their own direct experience. By contrast, conservatives are significantly more likely than liberals or moderates to view climate science as uncertain and complex and to rely on their own direct experience over the knowledge of content experts.

In other words, Children vs Adults….

Michael in Dublin
July 22, 2021 3:08 am

A big thank you to Charles for this article

liberals
see climate science and climate change as certain and simple. . . . .
(they) defer to what a scientist says about climate change even if it contradicts their own experience.

conservatives
see (climate science) as far less certain and far more complex . . . . .
(they) rely more on their own direct lived experience to give them knowledge about the world and knowledge about climate change.

These researchers have clearly identified the differences. Charles sums up their positions: “Liberals appeared eager to defer to perceived authority while Conservatives appeared (to) lean toward being natural skeptics.” This needs a qualification. On certain matters liberals are skeptics while on these same matters conservatives defer to authority. Liberals cannot give a carefully reasoned explanation of why they are selectively skeptical but conservatives are more likely to be able to explain why in certain circumstances they defer to authority.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 22, 2021 4:19 am

That’s an interesting thought and probably true. Do you have an example of a topic where the roles are reversed?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 22, 2021 11:30 am

While certainly not exhaustive, some of the dichotomy is based in conservative thought on Federalism in the U.S. Our Constitution was devised to place limits on Federal power, giving all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government to “the States or the people.” In our Republic, States have the power to act and therefore their authority is recognized by conservatives. Leftist believe the bureaucratized (Deep State) Federal government should have all the authority. While some states (CA, NY, etc.) have gone off the deep end, other states serve as a balance and a bulwark against extremism. Actual outcomes of the individual States’ “experiments” will eventually guide the way for thinking adult citizens.

Foreigners commenting on WUWT almost universally misunderstand the operations of the U.S.’s unique form of government. The tension is not simply Democrat vs Republican or Right vs Left, but the differences between those believing in a strong, central, leftist Federal government and those believing in individual rights and the legitimacy of individual State authorities, constantly competing to establish the best way forward of the grand “experiment” in representative government.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 23, 2021 12:04 pm

One example is the way orthodox (small letter) Christians tend to be conservative and accept the authority of the natural linguistic sense of their Scriptures while liberal Christians are skeptical and want to make the Scriptures fit their ideology. Giving this more thought I believe there are other examples.

July 22, 2021 4:23 am

How the heck did the survey find so many conservatives in Oregon? Do do so may show a bias leaning to the right. Response group does not accurately reflect the (un-?)reality of Oregon.

Neville
July 22, 2021 4:24 am

So why not follow proper DATA and EVIDENCE, like Dr Rosling’s 200 countries over 200 years?
Or check out Willis’s proper ANALYSIS of their so called climate EMERGENCY? See his detailed reply at the link.
Obviously they are both correct and Dr Rosling relied on 120,000 data points to come to his conclusion.
Only clueless fools would rely on so called scientists like “Michael upside down Mann.” Thanks again to the wonderful Steve McIntyre for his quote.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/

John Swallow
July 22, 2021 4:48 am

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

John Swallow
July 22, 2021 5:00 am

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” – Bertrand Russel

It appears that Bertrand Russel wrote that just for this article; “Communicating About Climate Change: What’s Politics Got To Do With It?”.
 “Overall, we find that liberals are significantly more likely than moderates or conservatives to view climate science as certain and simple and to rely on expert knowledge more than their own direct experience. By contrast, conservatives are significantly more likely than liberals or moderates to view climate science as uncertain and complex and to rely on their own direct experience over the knowledge of content experts.” 

Dave Fair
Reply to  John Swallow
July 22, 2021 11:35 am

The scary part was where Leftists said they would trust authority over their own lived experience.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 22, 2021 11:42 am

Why do I envision a sea of raised hands with everyone yelling Seig Heil in unison.

TonyG
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 22, 2021 11:46 am

It’s an attitude I’ve seen up close. And it’s beyond scary, it’s downright terrifying. Especially when you realize how many hold that position.

observa
July 22, 2021 5:49 am

We all see climate change alright. It’s just that you need a very liberal outlook to see CAGW in it along with the help of computer models-
Russia’s permafrost is thawing and revealing ancient secrets beneath (msn.com)

paul courtney
July 22, 2021 7:13 am

Mr. Rotter: This is a very good find, the authors may not see what they’ve wrought.
Putting aside labels, some people will follow an authority because it’s easier than doing their own thinking. Others will not go along and be hard-headed about it (I call us “the Irish”). There are fools on both sides of this divide, but the folks who think for themselves are clearly gonna fall into the latter group because the former group has chosen NOT to do their own thinking.
So, yeah, I’m a conservative. The folks who follow authority probably have some good points, but based on observation, I’d rather be governed by a hard-headed fool than a progressive (can’t put aside labels forever).

AGW is Not Science
July 22, 2021 8:40 am

Engaging politically polarized publics surrounding climate science is a vital element in the effort to enact climate mitigation policy. Science communication experts have identified several models of public engagement with science, including the deficit, dialogue, participation, and lay expertise model. Existing research suggests that the deficit model in particular is a largely ineffective model of engagement for controversial science like climate change.

Ugh!

This is NOT a “communication” or “engagement” issue – it’s a “the so-called “science” is a steaming pile of manure” issue. Until you have empirical evidence showing CO2 to be the all-powerful climate driver you suppose it is (which you won’t because IT ISN’T), no reasonable, intelligent person who actually bothers to look at the so-called “scientific basis” for the ridiculous claims of a “climate catastrophe” being caused by human fossil fuel use will ever be “convinced” to pursue the idiotic, economically destructive, pointless, hopeless, worse than useless and downright destructive non-solutions to the imaginary problem.

TonyG
July 22, 2021 9:49 am

“would defer to what a scientist says about climate change even if it contradicts their own experience.”

What are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

That says it all I think.

Tom Abbott
July 22, 2021 9:49 am

From the article: “Liberals appeared eager to defer to perceived authority while Conservatives appeared lean toward being natural skeptics”

I think that sums it up nicely. Liberals are eager to be led by others, and conservatives question authority.

Liberals don’t think for themselves, they let others think for them, which sometimes leads them astray. Conservatives don’t put their trust in authority, instead they say “Show Me”.

Gary Pearse
July 22, 2021 11:43 am

“Liberals appeared eager to defer to perceived authority while Conservatives appeared lean toward being natural skeptics according to the research …”

Indeed, since consensus scientists are probably in the main liberals, they lack a commitment to the necessary scepticism that scientists are supposed to have. Since liberals tend to accept authority for what they believe in, this leads to deep hubris that is virtually a defining attribute of “The Team”.

A reasonable hypothesis is that much vilified sceptics have served science admirably by filling in the the missing scepticism that is needed to keep a science on the rails. A few papers (several thousands too few) that wandered too far from rigorous science were retracted through the efforts of sceptics.

It can be said also that the directions climate science has taken in at least the last two decades has been largely reactive to a handful of sceptics who have pointed out deep flaws in the science. Unfortunately, clinging to the debunked control knob theory, the science has not derived much benefit from the major contributions made by sceptics. Yet!

%d bloggers like this: