Belief / Politics

“Yes, we’re all individuals…!”

I’m always curious about the way opinions tend to come in matching sets.

You know what I mean?

Some sort of fashionista somewhere seems to dictate that you can’t wear the wrong viewpoints together and if you do you’re socially invisible. For example, you can’t care about deforestation and not believe in manmade global warming, or you can’t support public healthcare and not accept Big Government is good. You can’t be ‘skeptical’ about climate change without also thinking nuclear power and GM food are just great and bashing the establishment as ‘stupid lefties’.

Why is this? is it good? is it even sane? I mean whatever happened to taking each case on its merits?

Are there any people out there who don’t think centralised government is great, but also don’t want to see everyone toting a gun?

Anyone who is an oldstyle leftie but still thinks Manmade Global Warming could be junk science?

Anyone who’s a climate skeptic who doesn’t have insanely reactionary and out of date politics and an atavistic idea that Socialists actually have power and run things?

Anyone? If not, then I truly despair….

Advertisements

2 thoughts on ““Yes, we’re all individuals…!”

  1. I think I may have prompted your comment about climate and GM, which is my own fault for trying to make a snappy remark rather than offering a nuanced essay about the two subjects. On climate, to summarise: I know Briffa and Mann’s paleo reconstructions are rubbish; I believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, although I would not consider the theory proven; on what evidence there is, I suspect that the rise in global temperatures is slightly overstated as a result of UHI, but that it is real and probably partly caused by AGW and part natural. From there I surmise that if the underlying theory about CO2’s potency as a greenhouse gas is correct, feedbacks are neutral or slightly negative, and that CO2 emissions control is not therefore an end to which we should sacrifice prosperity. I think all these are reasonable positions to take based on available data, unlike the catastrophist crap spouted by the BBC’s favourite greenies.

    On GM, I am concerned that this is an open-ended experiment and that there may be unexpected and unintended consequences, but I do not think this means we should applaud people who go round destroying property and inviting confrontation in my local park. Shouting slogans is not debate.

    Politically I used to think I was on the left, but was more of an old-fashioned liberal. I think the state is too intrusive and generally ineffectual, based on my direct experience of it in various guises. Does this make me insanely reactionary?

    You really can’t tell what people’s opinions are from comments on blog sites, so maybe you are worrying unnecessarily. We are all individuals after all.

    Like

    • David – hello, no it wasn’t aimed solely – or even at all – at you. It’s more a cumulative response to the general level of political awareness/sophistication displayed by too many in the climate skeptic world, who seem determined to believe world governments are somehow in the control of a bunch of old hippies who want to make us all wear homespun and make pots. It pretty much reduces their ability to adequately deal with the AGW issue effective to zero, IMO.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s