Philosophical Vegan Forum

And you wanna know what really pisses me off to no end? Aside from the fact that a truly large amount of lives are at risk? What angers me is that this is an issue divided by politics. Not science, politics. Politics has a rather poor track record as far as science and the truth are concerned, and has a pretty good one in terms of ideology and rhetoric. Among scientists, climate change is a well entrenched, rigourously tested consensus. But within the political sphere, this nearly unanimous agreement disappears. Typically in politics, it’s the left that believes that climate change is real, manmade, and an imminent and serious issue, while for the right it is the opposite (and it isn’t just in America; Nigel Farage of the Brexit party referred to Climate change as a ‘scam’). Think about it; How many conservative people do you know believe in climate change (or don’t think it’s a serious problem or manmade) and how many progressive people do you know that don’t? You’ll be pretty hard pressed, because now, it’s all a matter of politics. (I’m not going to get into a tirade about this, you should look into Jonathan Haidt, since he explains this phenomenon quite eloquently). Now, if both sides acknowledged climate change, and just had different ways of going about solving it, this would be… tolerable. Even if you get everyone to acknowledge climate change, you still have another issue to get into science issue that is divided by politics; Energy. Now I’ve already made a comprehensive video about the benefits of nuclear energy, and compared it to other energy sources, and I did touch on the political divide, but put simply, the left supports renewables, and the right supports fossil fuels. As I explained, Nuclear Energy is the only real way to fighting climate change, so even though the right denies it, they are inadvertently better for the environment than Anti-Nuclear Democrats. Nuclear Energy is the only real thing that can compete with oil, so when you come out in unfettering support for renewables and none for Nuclear, you might as well be supporting the fossil fuel industries. Sure, the right supports fossil fuels directly, but their support for Nuclear Energy helps make up for that, as counterintuitive as that might be. Back to the political divide. Do I think that the people who deny climate change are stupid? No, not necessarily. I think they’re just biased, and have been fed misinformation. Intelligent people can believe wrong things when their bias is strong enough. But again, this is not a social psychology video, read Johnathan Haidt.

Red wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:50 pm I'm working on my Climate Change script, and I'm thinking of removing this entire paragraph:

And you wanna know what really pisses me off to no end? Aside from the fact that a truly large amount of lives are at risk? What angers me is that this is an issue divided by politics. Not science, politics. Politics has a rather poor track record as far as science and the truth are concerned, and has a pretty good one in terms of ideology and rhetoric. Among scientists, climate change is a well entrenched, rigourously tested consensus. But within the political sphere, this nearly unanimous agreement disappears. Typically in politics, it’s the left that believes that climate change is real, manmade, and an imminent and serious issue, while for the right it is the opposite (and it isn’t just in America; Nigel Farage of the Brexit party referred to Climate change as a ‘scam’). Think about it; How many conservative people do you know believe in climate change (or don’t think it’s a serious problem or manmade) and how many progressive people do you know that don’t? You’ll be pretty hard pressed, because now, it’s all a matter of politics. (I’m not going to get into a tirade about this, you should look into Jonathan Haidt, since he explains this phenomenon quite eloquently). Now, if both sides acknowledged climate change, and just had different ways of going about solving it, this would be… tolerable. Even if you get everyone to acknowledge climate change, you still have another issue to get into science issue that is divided by politics; Energy. Now I’ve already made a comprehensive video about the benefits of nuclear energy, and compared it to other energy sources, and I did touch on the political divide, but put simply, the left supports renewables, and the right supports fossil fuels. As I explained, Nuclear Energy is the only real way to fighting climate change, so even though the right denies it, they are inadvertently better for the environment than Anti-Nuclear Democrats. Nuclear Energy is the only real thing that can compete with oil, so when you come out in unfettering support for renewables and none for Nuclear, you might as well be supporting the fossil fuel industries. Sure, the right supports fossil fuels directly, but their support for Nuclear Energy helps make up for that, as counterintuitive as that might be. Back to the political divide. Do I think that the people who deny climate change are stupid? No, not necessarily. I think they’re just biased, and have been fed misinformation. Intelligent people can believe wrong things when their bias is strong enough. But again, this is not a social psychology video, read Johnathan Haidt.

A part of me feels as though it interrupts the flow of the entire video, which is mostly science and activist based, but a big reason why I want to get rid of it is because people are going to come out in waves about how the reason why Republican Politicians deny climate change is because they are being bought off by big oil et al, which I just don't think is true. Are they being given money? Yes. Does this mean they deny climate change because of that? No. I think we have to get to the root of the matter of why it's a matter of politics; Why is it that Republicans deny climate change but the Democrats believe in it (I would get into a rant about energy policy, and while that's connected, it's a headache of its own as I outlined). I think the issue is far more complicated than just simply 'money.'

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:48 am Well, libertarians often deny climate change because the socialists allegedly use it as a "proof" that things done by capitalists can have hidden costs, and that the government has to intervene to make the prices reflect that costs. That is, they are trying to deny that hidden costs don't always come from the government. Of course, a much better thing to do is to ask whether the government really is the solution to those hidden costs.

Red wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:09 pm

teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:48 am Well, libertarians often deny climate change because the socialists allegedly use it as a "proof" that things done by capitalists can have hidden costs, and that the government has to intervene to make the prices reflect that costs. That is, they are trying to deny that hidden costs don't always come from the government. Of course, a much better thing to do is to ask whether the government really is the solution to those hidden costs.

Do you deny climate change?