How the left lost the argument about global warming--climate change

NY Times:
There are several elements in how the left lost the argumetn about climate change with many voters.  

First off, they failed to engage.  Instead. they resorted to name calling by labeling skeptics as "deniers" or worse.  Then there is their exaggeration of what they see as the dire consequences of climate change.  These exaggerations have led them to falsely predict that New York City would be under water and that the polls would be ice free.  When that did not happen people like Al Gore lost credibility.

Fundamentally their "scientific" projections have been deeply flawed grossly overestimating the consequences of increased CO2.  One of the principals of projections is that when they failed to be realized it is because they relied on invalid assumptions.  This is true of financial projections and scientific projections.

In the case of the projections of the consequences of climate change, I suspect that they are overestimating the impact of CO2 on global temperatures.  One reason I believe that is because they struggle to explain why they got it wrong and they do not want to admit which of their assumptions is invalid.

There is also the hysteria on the left when their beliefs are rejected.  It is almost like the response of radical Islamist to the rejection of Islam.  They act like the rejection of their point of view is blasphemy rather than an argument to overcome.

I think there is also the suspicion that the real objective of the left is to institute control freak government and climate change is their latest excuse for doing so since communism has been rejected.

Comments

  1. The science behind all this stuff can definitely be confusing and even manipulated. Everyone should want to curtail pollution and have clean air and water for generations to come. My biggest concern is that many corporations who claim to be in favor of saving our planet have really just found a way to make money off "green marketing". I'm told Elon Musk flies around in a private jet that pollutes more than 12 tractor trailers combined. Plus he was benefiting financially when traditional automakers got saddled with harsh regulations. Kind of hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are two reasons why one might "fail to engage" in a discussion of science:

    The person who fails to engage may be wrong, or he may be right.
    It's quite possible to be right and forget that "we're educating a parade". If you let the fact that there's always a next person in the parade provoke a tantrum rather than a discussion, you lose, even if you're dead right.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Iraq says civilian casualties in Mosul caused by ISIS booby trap, not US air strike

Liberal fascists strike against Trump supporters in Berkeley

OPEC reduces production again in price maintenance program