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.)
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 and Tim Lambert’s Deltoid) and have to deal with the nonsense coming from that newspaper in their neck of the woods.
“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.
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.
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 to the ‘History’ section of the Liberal Party’s website. Menzies’ opening address at the formation meeting provided a backdrop to the title ‘Liberal’:
So the name ‘Liberal’ was chosen for the new party to reflect the nineteenth century position (as **Polycarp **notes):
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:
