Global Climate DisruptionTM Left/Right Divide

Posted On: Wednesday - July 25th 2018 6:56PM MST
In Topics: 
  Global Climate Stupidity  ctrl-left  Bible/Religion

Look at yourselves! You don't even belong on Planet A, and no, you don't have a Plan-B, but your ctrl-left Commie leaders have one - it doesn't involve you.

Some comments made under that that Steve Sailer post on Global Climate DisruptionTM, actually written by one of the commenter on another thread, bring up this short(er) post on the subject. Basically, I read that conservatives (that means, I guess, real ones, not GOP, Conservative, Inc., etc.) are stubbornly sticking to the wrong side and the left is on the smart side of this "issue". The line, in the otherwise decent short post, was:
It does drive me crazy how doctrinaire conservatives are about climate change.
Doctrinaire, my ass, it's the left that treats this hoax like a freakin' religion. Is there, in general, a conservative/left-wing divide on the issue of how the earth's climate changes, and why?

The political aspects of this GCD business have been detailed specifically in this 5-part series - separate from the math-modeling stuff - way back in the beginning of 2017 --- Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5. Additionally, the entire thing is highly political, so most of the rest Peak Stupidity blog's articles on the topic are political in nature.

Why does a scientific question have to be political? Yeah, lots of science questions get religious, and beliefs tends toward the conservatives. However, this is ostensibly about the climate of the Earth. There's not much religion involved, that I can think of. Do we see big discussions on CNN and in Congress about the temperature and consistency of the earth's mantle? How about the rings of Saturn? Do we all get bent out of shape discussing quasars, quarks and black holes, even those of us who DO know what the heck those are? What about material science? I haven't seen any protests out in the street about creep in reinforced plastics. Why not, dammit?

This adjective "doctrinaire", coming from "doctrine", is used to describe conservatives only from some memories of 50-100 years ago or more, I guess, because otherwise it doesn't apply. If you go back to atheism vs. religion or more specifically evolution vs. creationism, yeah, the conservatives were the ones believing in the doctrine, the Bible, while the left wanted nothing to do with it. The ctrl-left, however, has painted the conservatives with this doctrinaire brush unfairly for many years, right up through 2000. I can remember them still talking about the conservatives wanted to make the US into a Theocracy during the G.W. Bush election, when the only Theocracy coming will likely be that of Islam, if we don't nip that in the bud.

Conservatives' religious beliefs don't lead to very conservative political beliefs, at least at the Church level, nowadays, anyway, as the Conservatives really just would rather be left alone by the ctrl-left and governments. The problem really is that, though they don't want to be involved in the political world, the political world wants to be involved with them.

Nowadays, as described in yesterday's post (linked-to above, and I may need to add more to that yesterday's one), it's the left who have chosen Global Climate DisruptionTM as their religion. Their beliefs in whatever scientists, journalists, and politicians spout out about the matter are pretty damn doctrinaire, the doctrine being the sacred hockey-stick temperature graphs, the barely-understood conclusions of climatology papers (maybe they should have a priest who can read graphs and calculus for them!), oh, and that one tree ring from some forest somewhere. The issue may be breaking left/right in a reverse manner of the long-ago religious arguments and conflicts. That is one part that causes the divide.

I suspect another reason brought up by my questions above regarding why the other science questions have not been politicized. On this GCD issue, is it possibly the fact that, if one can make use of (dissipation of) energy via combustion something that must be controlled, then one may control a whole lot of the economies of the world? Hmmm, maybe that's it ... more control of the world. What leftist wouldn't want that? The conservatives have seen the massive amount of politicking on the issue, and are smart enough to wonder why the ctrl-left is on about this stuff so vehemently. That puts the left and right at odds on the once-staid field of climatology.

Finally, the 3rd reason for the divide is simply that the conservatives in general are just plain not as stupid as the left, so GCD politics break on a left/right divide on stupidity levels ... as in high/medium.

Yeah, there's a divide alright. I don't think you can settle this one with a little reasonable scientific logical discussion anymore. It's gotten to be a religion for the left, and they freak out and cry when our karma runs over their dogma (I kinda always liked that bumper sticker).

No comments

WHAT SAY YOU? : (PLEASE NOTE: You must type capital PS as the 1st TWO characters in your comment body - for spam avoidance - or the comment will be lost!)