How Did an Entire Political Party Decide to Reject Climate Change Science?

[n2doc]

Ron Brownstein notes in a terrific new National Journal column just how striking it is to see a major American political party decide, all at once, to reject climate science in its entirety. (via Jay Rosen)

British Foreign Secretary William Hague, a prominent conservative leader in the U.K., was in the U.S. last week, and described climate change as perhaps the 21st century’s biggest foreign-policy challenge,” He added, “An effective response to climate change underpins our security and prosperity.”


His strong words make it easier to recognize that Republicans in this country are coalescing around a uniquely dismissive position on climate change. The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones. <...>

Just for the record, when the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences last reviewed the data this spring, it concluded: “A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.” Not only William Hague but such other prominent European conservatives as French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have embraced that widespread scientific conviction and supported vigorous action.

Indeed, it is difficult to identify another major political party in any democracy as thoroughly dismissive of climate science as is the GOP here. Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, says that although other parties may contain pockets of climate skepticism, there is “no party-wide view like this anywhere in the world that I am aware of.”


more

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/10/10/how-did-an-entire-political-party-decide-to-reject-climate-change-science/

[rocktivity]

1. $$$$$$$$ (Well, duh)

Rethugs don't like anything that takes money out of the corporate person donor friends' pockets. Regulation cuts into their profit margins.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[begin_within]

2. They only think what they are told to think.

[OHdem10]

3. For the GOP to accept Climate Science, it would mean they turn

on Business. The Party of Big Business turning on Business????
Using "Jobs" as the threat, they bring rank and file along.

[txlibdem]

7. American businesses are sitting on 1.8 Trillion Dollars

That's enough money to pay 20 million workers an average salary of $50,000 a year.

Wouldn't the economy take off if there were suddenly 20 million more well paid workers? Even if they paid them to sit at home on the couch - they'd spend it on clothing, entertainment, gadgets, cars, etc. Consumers drive this economy and this would put the consumer into overdrive.

[phantom power]

4. I assume this is partly a tribal, hippie-punching thing.

Part of the GOP "If It Pisses Off Liberals, We're For It" brand.

[One_Life_To_Give]

5. Greens = Reds and religion

People dismissive of Climate Change will give a variety of reasons.

One centers around a belief that when the Red's/Commies disappeared they re-emerged as the greens. Therefor those traditionally opposed to Communism are lined up in opposition to any Green initiative. Academia has long been seen by them as a home for Socialists etc. So anything coming from academia is likewise suspect.

The second common argument is that the Earth is so big and Human's so insignificant. That it's not possible for humans to screw up more than an isolated area. This argument in my experience takes on a life similar to "I refuse to believe my Grandfather was a monkey". Where the fundamental belief is so strong that challenging positions are dismissed without any more thought than claiming the sky is Green.

[kristopher]

6. Because many of the party's supporters hold "traditional values"

That causes them to trust authoritative sources, and they've used a decades long media campaign to de-legitimize all established sources of authority such as the academic community and the (bygone) practice of objective journalism.

This ensures that this group respects only Fox and right-wing radio as "legitimate" sources of information. Once those beliefs have been established their traditional values tend to make them accept anything said without question.

[Strelnikov_]

8. Because . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q

[XemaSab]

9. I think a lot of conservative egos (and liberal egos too) are tied up in lifestyle

By which I mean that for many conservatives, saying "I'm a logger and I drive a big truck and I go four-wheeling and I hunt deer and I own guns," is a major statement about themselves, their identity, and their worldview.

(The liberal equivalent of this being "I work for a non-profit and I drive a Prius and I buy organic vegetables from the farmer's market and I have solar panels on the roof and I'm a vegan and I smoke dope.")

I think that conservatives suspect (and rightly, in some cases) that environmental laws are out to get them.

I will say that if I had a hobby or a career that was subject to increasingly stringent rules and regulations then I would feel persecuted.

But I'm not a dumb hick, so I don't have that experience.

[Nihil]

10. That's true enough ...

> I think a lot of conservative egos (and liberal egos too) are tied up in lifestyle

In addition, Americans (of most flavours) have also been brought up in an environment
that has glorified the "Just do it, we're American!" attitude:

Want more land? Go West young man and tame it yourself!

Want more freedom? Throw off the shackles of Empire and declare independence!

Want more (dirt-cheap) oil? Invade another country to get it!

:shrug:

It is very telling that the Republican publicity is wrapped up with this image
of the "Nobody can tell ME what to do!" pseudo-independence and that maps directly
to the denial of climate issues, the hunger for ever-cheaper fuel and the stubborn
refusal to listen to contrary reasoning.