Are non-US climate change denialists strongly correlated to political parties?

[Rhythmdvl]

In the US, there is a strong correlation between climate change denialists (or cloaked denialists; the ‘just asking questions’, ‘not sure yets’, etc.) and the Republican Party (superficial claims of ‘libertarianism’ or ‘independent’ notwithstanding). Given the primary information outlets for the right (talk radio, Fox, Brietbart, etc.), accepting the obfuscation is understandable.

What’s it like in other countries? Are denialists roundly mocked and the debate focuses on what to do about it? Given the financial incentives and corporate wealth behind denial, do other countries see the same general schism between political parties? Do other countries limit the oil/interested corporations' outreach? Do other countries laugh (or hang their head in shame) at the continuing "debate" within the US? What’s it like?




(Oh, if you’re an ultra-liberal who really has honest doubts about climate change, start another thread. For the purposes of this thread, just accept the premise that cc is happening and that there is a strong correlation between political affiliation (however loose) and cc denialism.)

[GIGObuster]

In Australia there is a reported correlation, although not as hard as in the USA

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/australian_politicians_overest.php

August 14, 2010 6:10 AM, by Tim Lambert

The University of Queensland has surveyed Australian politicians (press release here, results here) on their attitude to climate change:

"Labor politicians are more influenced by scientists than Liberal/National politicians - 85 per cent of Labor politicians are highly influenced by this group compared to 44 per cent of Liberal/National politicians," Dr Fielding said.

Note this poll was conducted in October last year when Liberal Party policy was to adopt an emissions trading scheme and before the media beat up of anti-IPCC stories.

But Table 26 shows that when the general population was asked question 3, the mean score was 7.58. Now question asked about the politician's own electorate rather than the general public, so this could account for some of the difference, but all parties rated their electorates as more skeptical than the general public actually is. It seems that the opinions of a noisy minority have been amplified by the media because of a love of conflict, the need to promote a false balance and partisan zealotry (the last one refers to you, Mr The Australian).

[GIGObuster]

One clarification, The Australian is an important newspaper of Australia, and it was founded by Rupert Murdoch of FOX news infamy.

I got to know a lot of the extreme anti scientific tone of that newspaper and the politics of the issue in Australia, because a couple of the most reliable scientific blogs on the issue are from Australia (Skeptical Science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) and Tim Lambert's Deltoid (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/)) and have to deal with the nonsense coming from that newspaper in their neck of the woods.

[John DiFool]

I guess their "Liberal" party is liberal in the sense that The German Democratic Republic was "democratic."

[Rhythmdvl]

So a related question--are all of Murdoch's publications as slanted as Fox, and are they all equally pushing a denialist agenda?

[Polycarp]

I guess their "Liberal" party is liberal in the sense that The German Democratic Republic was "democratic."

"Liberal" in the 19th and early 20th centuries meant a Laissez Faire, egalitarian economic stance, sometimes coupled with a social safety net for emergency situations and the severely disadvantaged. It was contrasted wsith the Conservatives who supported the hegemony of the old aristocracy, and laws which would serve to reinforce their political and economic power. It has to some extent retained that meaning in Europe, leading to the idea that parties using "Liberal" as an element of their name are moderately rightist. The idea that it means "extremely leftist" is a mid to late 20th Century Americanism.

[Kobal2]

So a related question--are all of Murdoch's publications as slanted as Fox, and are they all equally pushing a denialist agenda?

They are, but they're not pushing the same agenda everywhere. They push whatever the dumbest of proles care about locally or can be made to believe to make them vote right wing - in the UK for example, the Sun is more interested in bashing the royals, the EU and so forth. And page 3 knockers of course.

Same journalistic integrity, different editorial lines.

[GIGObuster]

They are, but they're not pushing the same agenda everywhere. They push whatever the dumbest of proles care about locally or can be made to believe to make them vote right wing - in the UK for example, the Sun is more interested in bashing the royals, the EU and so forth. And page 3 knockers of course.

Same journalistic integrity, different editorial lines.

I can't resist, that reminded me of the classic newspaper sketch from "Yes, Prime Minister" :)


Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

[Blake]

Denialist?

Really? :rolleyes:

[GIGObuster]

Denialist?

Really? :rolleyes:
Yes, really. Even New Scientist is calling them that.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial

And others in academia use the term, but there is a reason why:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=155&&n=161
The authors define denialism as "the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists". They go on to identify 5 characteristics common to most forms of denialism:

Conspiracy theories
...
Fake experts
...
Cherry picking
...
Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
...
Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
...
Why is it important to define the tactics of denialism? Good faith discussion requires consideration of the full body of scientific evidence. This is difficult when confronted with rhetorical techniques which are designed to distort and distract. Identifying and publicly exposing these tactics are the first step in redirecting discussion back to a focus on the science.

This is not to say all global warming skeptic arguments employ denialist tactics. And it's certainly not advocating attacking peoples' motives. On the contrary, in most cases, focus on motives rather than methods is counterproductive.

And lets be clear, in the last article, it is the methods that climate change deniers use that point to denialism, rather than their motives.

[Cunctator]

I guess their "Liberal" party is liberal in the sense that The German Democratic Republic was "democratic."The Liberal Party of Australia was formed in 1944 after the merger of a number of non-Labor political parties, under the leadership of the then former non-Labor PM Robert Menzies. There's a link here (http://www.liberal.org.au/The-Party/Our-History.aspx) to the 'History' section of the Liberal Party's website. Menzies' opening address at the formation meeting provided a backdrop to the title 'Liberal':"...what we must look for, and it is a matter of desperate importance to our society, is a true revival of liberal thought which will work for social justice and security, for national power and national progress, and for the full development of the individual citizen, though not through the dull and deadening process of socialism."

So the name 'Liberal' was chosen for the new party to reflect the nineteenth century position (as Polycarp notes):The name Liberal was chosen deliberately for its associations with progressive nineteenth century free enterprise and social equality.The Liberal Party's founders also wanted to stress themselves as the defenders of free enterprise and private property ownership, in contrast with the Australian Labor Party (ALP), which at that time was much more left-wing in its positions than it is today:They shared a common belief that Australians should have greater personal freedom and choice than that offered under Labor’s post-war socialist plans.

[John DiFool]

Ignorance fought-thanks.