Why are disagreements between conservatives and liberals about climate change often so vicious?
Aaron Kuhlman, Intern at National Archives and Records Administration (2019-present)
Answered Tue · Upvoted by Carter Moore, Degree in Political Science, former Congressional aide and Federal employee
Because both sides are wrong. They just are. They then take the approach of “the other side is wrong, therefore I’m right.” This comic describes the discussion in the US (I assume that’s what you’re talking about) to a scaringly accurate degree:
Since you said conservatives first, let’s address some of the claims made by conservatives that are blatantly false (as a quick disclaimer, I know that not all American conservatives deny climate change, but conservatives deny it much more than liberals,[1] and they all use different arguments. I know not every single person uses every single one of these arguments either, but these are the most frequent of the provided sub-set):
The climate changing is just part of a natural cycle.[2]
This is technically right… and there are a variety of arguments that go with it. Such as the Milankovich cycle[3]or el Nino and la Nina[4]or a plethora of other naturally occurring events. Our climate is constantly changing and will continue to constantly change. However, what is alarming is the rate of change. This is something that is not documented anywhere in the earth’s history or anything near it. In a footnote, I will provide access to a study (freely available, I think).[5]Do note that the graph provided below is labeled in million years before present, then thousands of years before present, then 1–2005AD, then further projections.
CO2 isn’t even a greenhouse gas[6]
This is entirely not true. There are multiple studies done that have proven that co2 is a greenhouse gas. We’ve done studies about this since 1827[7]and have been able to conclude that co2 is a greenhouse gas and does affect the temperature of the planet. We also know how greenhouse gases affect the atmosphere and temperature.[8]
The Planet is Greening[9]
There are two overall problems first is that this doesn’t take into account that more co2 will be bad or plants in the long term. Part of this is that with the assumption of continued greening assumes a rise in nitrogen levels to correspond, of which there is no data to back it.[10] Plants will also start to suffocate if there is too much higher levels of co2.[11]The other part of that is, as the NASA article at the beginning states, most of the greening is from the efforts of countries to plant more trees or grow more ocean algae. Though the current rise in CO2 is good, it is unsustainable long-term for overall greening (see citation 10).
CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere[12]
Yes, however, I would refer you to the previous source that I provided. I would also like to provide another source.[13]The quickest way to explain it is that yes, while it is a small part of the atmosphere and isn’t that powerful of a gas, it sets in motion a cycle called the greenhouse effect[14]which puts much more of a gas called methane into the atmosphere which is much stronger and causes much more warming,[15]which increases the greenhouse effect, etc. it snowballs (pun intended). Here is a more thorough explanation of it.[16]
Human CO2 output doesn’t affect the overall amount of CO2[17]
This is where I am going to quickly note the sliding goalposts here, the next one will also continue to slide the goalposts. This is where I am going to point out some credibility within the source, even though it is mostly wrong. Here are the co2 levels over the years[18]
As you can see, there is some truth to what people are saying. There is a cyclical nature to climate (as stated earlier), but this is not the norm as part of the cycle. There is very clearly something influencing the levels of co2, there is a quick explanation as to how provided here.[19]The short version of it is, we had a balance, and human output has tipped it. This is seen by comparing co2 levels with human co2 output as shown here.[20]You can also show the human activity of co2 and compare it to the net activity of the environment and compare it to the total amount of co2 as done in this source.[21]
It’s the sun that’s causing it, not greenhouse gases[22]
The thing is that despite this claim it is quite well documented not just by NASA[23] but by others that have confirmed that solar output levels have been trending down the last 35 years, but the average temperature of the earth is still increasing.[24]
Datasets have been wrong[25]
The basic premise comes from this guy’s dataset used by Dr. Roy Spencer[26]to then show that all datasets used by IPCC are wrong, as stated by the UN climate models (which, claimed in the article in the footnote should be 1.4 degrees over a century). Yet Dr. Spencer’s model which runs from 1979–2019 (a 40-year model) has an increase of around 0.7 degrees I am rounding to make the math easy over 2/5s of a century. If we expand that out to be a century (assuming linear growth, though that’s a conservative thing to do)[27]you will get about 1.75 degrees of warmth, which is within the range of what the UN actually claims somewhere between 1.5 and 2 degrees (all temperatures in Centigrade).[28]So Dr. Roy Spencer’s data, which is the data oft pointed to when claiming datasets are wrong, actually shows the UN models to be right.
The Earth isn’t getting warmer (graph below)
This is a graph Ted Cruz used to show all of the time to show that there is, in fact, no warming. Yet, the actual data shows….
Even the data by Dr. Roy Spencer, controversial though it may be, also completely disproves this point. As stated earlier, his data also shows that the earth is getting warmer and warmer.
Enough about why conservatives are wrong, let’s talk about the more dangerous ones in the United States on this topic, liberals and how they are wrong. They’re the more dangerous ones because they continue to project that the earth is about to end when they are so entirely and completely wrong. It isn’t, it just plain isn’t. You get articles like this[29]showing time and time again where predictions made by people exaggerating claims were wrong. This is because the claims were not based in science, I’ll tackle a few here and try to show how they get out of hand.
The world is going to end in 12 years.[30]
Upon seeing that, the first thing that enters your mind is “Which time when that was claimed?” Which makes dealing with this the frustration that it is as I stated above. Which of course, is not true, no matter how many times it is claimed, and has never been the stance of scientific research. AOC spokespeople reference a study put out by the IPCC[31]which actually gives the timeframe of 2030–2052 to reach the 1.5-degree mark. This also isn’t the end of the world either, but it makes it hard to stop it from getting to 2, and then we start having more troubles but that still isn’t the end of the world, it’s just probably irreversible in the long term.
Florida will be underwater[32]
This one is a prediction that Florida will be underwater by 2025. This is most certainly not true. The current rate is at 3.4 millimeters a year of sea-level rise.[33]The rate is increasing though, and sea levels will probably be about 1.5 meters higher in 2100 than it was in 2000. Florida’s highest point is 95 meters above the water, so this will take thousands of years to happen because when all sea ice is melted (which, will also take thousands of years) it will only raise oceans by 70 meters.[34]This means that even after all of the sea ice melts, still, all of Florida will not be underwater. So… why would you push this? All it does is serve to confuse the masses.
NYC will be underwater[35]
This one was a prediction that New York City will be underwater by 2015. We know that this did not happen. I’m using one that we know failed last. This has never been a prediction found in the scientific literature. At least, not that I’ve been able to find. NYC though is at least 10 meters above Sea Level. This means at the current rate of 1.5 meters/century, it will be a coastal city (like, right on the coast, instead of half on the coast) in a few hundred years because keep in mind this is an accelerating rate.[36]So it very well might be, but not for at least 1,000 years. This is something that is very often pushed by celebrities such as Al Gore, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who claim time and time again that NYC will be underwater shortly, or the most recent claim that we will need to dam the airports by 2080.[37]Which is completely untrue with predicted levels of sea rise. [38]
So this brings me to why is it so vicious? It’s because they’re both right just enough that they can both argue with facts, logic, and reason, and even back up their statements with peer-reviewed science (to an extent, if they nitpick and don’t look too closely) that you can make the other appear to be scientifically illiterate. That is the real danger behind all of this. Both people are enough right, but neither is “right enough” to have the other side be completely wrong. With the liberals, you have these wild and asinine predictions that are completely untrue when the truth is scary enough. The truth is, over a period of hundreds and thousands of years, global warming will lead to increased average temperature, increased extreme temperatures, more extreme weather events, ice melting (for as long as there is ice), Sea level rise, ocean acidification, deaths of species by the thousands, a severe weakening of our agriculture systems, and I’m just getting started![39]So the need to exaggerate when these are already known consequences feels… self-defeating. For conservatives, they see these exaggerations and accept them to be the reality without double-checking them. They then find out that these predictions were wrong and assume that the whole thing is bunk and then find things that agree with them, like the blog wattsupwiththat, or talking heads like Richard Lindzen or Christopher Monkton.
What we have then, is a case where neither side is technically right, and are both appallingly wrong. It’s easy to just think “well, the other side is wrong, so the opposite must be right.” So we stick to showing how the other side is wrong, instead of showing what’s right. I’ve seen it happen over and over again - someone states that the other side is very clearly wrong and that the side they believe in is right. Yet they completely fail to cite any relevant science or research. Which, while calling out the exact problem, they only propagate it.
This is the sad reality. Identification of the problem, and lack of willingness to correct either yourself or the other side, in favor of scoring points, further promotes the problem. The solution should be to subsidize the free market and let economies of scale take over, there are already plenty of solutions, we just need to make them economically viable, and I’m sure most of us agree the best way to do that is through the free market.
Edit: Updated a wrong citation reference
Footnotes
Comments
Post a Comment