4 ms·

I'm not a denier of AGW. However, I think you're wrong to lump all those people in with anti-Darwinists. AGW comes freighted with Green baggage, and some of t

I'm not a denier of AGW. However, I think you're wrong to lump all those people in with anti-Darwinists. AGW comes freighted with Green baggage, and some of the people who reject it are largely rejecting the Green baggage. They suspect, not without good reason, that the "cures" for AGW are measures that Greens wanted anyway. And calling them "denialists" just insures that they'll never listen to you. Some of them are, of course, religious objectors who think the world was created in 6 days. The task is to separate those people from the rest.

Aloha 4y ago
Some of the solutions are things the greens have largely rejected, like nuclear energy. The largest rejectors of nuclear energy are the environmentalists, some of which are very anti-climate change.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
I just want to point out that there are many shades of "Green" (though today, unlike in the 70s(?), perhaps none of them are critical of the AGW concept) : https://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-10-09/what-shade-of-green-are-you/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-10-09/what-shade-of-...
ggm 4y ago
Yes. I would agree my pejorative language doesn't help. But if I can draw an analogy, this is also a function of polarised debate in the wider sense: it's impossible for anyone now to express views positive of Palestinian self-determination because the 'overton window' of tolerance for the idea, is consumed by the meme of 'you must be a self hating jew' for anyone who is jewish, and 'you must hate jews' for anyone else. So, 'because you are green I oppose all the things you believe in because I hate the green/left agenda' is a form of denialism of the legitemacy of the underlying concern. Finding the bridge to "I agree it exists, I just disagree about solutions, like I want nuclear and you don't but we agree the problem exists' is now almost unsayable for some people. An observation I've made to others is that old school feminism is really tainted now for a younger cohort. They reject all the achievements of their aunts, mothers, grandmothers, because of a disagreement over the non-binary status in gender/sex. The language used here is (to me at least) comparable to the language used in the 'hate the greens' thing.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  Yeah. The objective in politics, though, is to divide the other side, not unite them. But of course, if their own side won't let them even try, most people won't bother.

Aloha 4y ago

Some of the solutions are things the greens have largely rejected, like nuclear energy. The largest rejectors of nuclear energy are the environmentalists, some of which are very anti-climate change.

BlueTemplar 4y ago

I just want to point out that there are many shades of "Green" (though today, unlike in the 70s(?), perhaps none of them are critical of the AGW concept) : https://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-10-09/what-shade-of-green-are-you/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-10-09/what-shade-of-...

ggm 4y ago

Yes. I would agree my pejorative language doesn't help. But if I can draw an analogy, this is also a function of polarised debate in the wider sense: it's impossible for anyone now to express views positive of Palestinian self-determination because the 'overton window' of tolerance for the idea, is consumed by the meme of 'you must be a self hating jew' for anyone who is jewish, and 'you must hate jews' for anyone else. So, 'because you are green I oppose all the things you believe in because I hate the green/left agenda' is a form of denialism of the legitemacy of the underlying concern. Finding the bridge to "I agree it exists, I just disagree about solutions, like I want nuclear and you don't but we agree the problem exists' is now almost unsayable for some people. An observation I've made to others is that old school feminism is really tainted now for a younger cohort. They reject all the achievements of their aunts, mothers, grandmothers, because of a disagreement over the non-binary status in gender/sex. The language used here is (to me at least) comparable to the language used in the 'hate the greens' thing.

UIUC_06 4y ago
Yeah. The objective in politics, though, is to divide the other side, not unite them. But of course, if their own side won't let them even try, most people won't bother.