5 ms·
Climate discussion now seems to come from Yes, Prime Minister. (1986). We appear to be at stage 3. I don't understand US politics.. Most UK voters, of both pol
by NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Climate discussion now seems to come from Yes, Prime Minister. (1986). We appear to be at stage 3.
I don't understand US politics.. Most UK voters, of both political sides, agree there is an issue, and want constructive solutions[0]. Some more US-like differences at the margins, and differences in urgency, but there appears to be a broad consensus among the public. Less so amongst politicians themselves.
Does political consensus no longer exist on any issues in the US any more? Is all science politicised?
Sir Richard Wharton: "In stage one we say nothing is going to happen."
Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it."
Sir Richard Wharton: "In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do."
Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now."
[0] http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-public-supports-uk-climate-leadership/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-public-suppo...
- jibal 8y agoIn the U.S. and apparently also in Australia, it's all politicized by the right wing climate science deniers, who have swallowed petrol industry propaganda, who view the embrace of basic science by anyone, regardless of their actual place on the political spectrum, as an Obama/Clinton/"libtard" hoax aimed at taxing their precious wallets and taking away their freedom. You can see it in the comments here denying climate science and making false claims about the existence of "many scientists" who disagree with the consensus and think there are other causes of climate change, ignorant nonsense about coming ice ages, and so on.