I am not sure that I agree with about Sass about environmentalism not necessarily splitting among left/right lines. To the extent that environmental issues have large economic impacts on business (and most of the current issues do), I suspect there will be a left/right split

That hasn't always been the case though. Nixon was the most environmentally conscious President in American history. He set up the EPA and introduced all kinds of other legislation such as the Clean Air Act. The left/right split in American environmentalism is a more recent phenomenon. When you consider how many conservative voters live in rural areas you'd think there'd be a natural constituency there with a vested interest in protecting their environment, so there's no reason to suppose that the current left/right split is always going to exist.

Also, if you look around the world you see plenty of right-leaning parties that have accepted the concept of manmade climate change and are pushing for action against it. It's certainly true that environmentalism is more commonly associated with the left atm, but it's not obvious that this state of affairs will continue into the future.

I should point out that the people in Balcombe, West Sussex, who are opposed to fracking in their area are not usually known for their left wing credentials. It's a village in a leafy rural area in one of the safest Tory seats in the country (Mid-Sussex - the MP is one of W Churchill's grandsons).

It is unfortunately the case that the environmental debate is also starting to divide along party lines here, too though. Margaret Thatcher, no lefty but a double science graduate, was actually quite good on global environmental issues. Nowadays, her fanboys like Delingpole tend to be empty-headed hoorahs.

Yes we fondly recall when some Republicans were pro-environment...given the utter selfishness espoused by the current Republican Party I find it hard to believe that their views on the environment willl become more pro-environment, but of course the views of the electorate may dictate that they become less hostile... And of course, as perhaps may be true of the example provided by Danivon, one becomes more environmentally conscious when one may be personally affected
But certainly I hope that environmental issues will become less politicized

freeman2 wrote:And of course, as perhaps may be true of the example provided by Danivon, one becomes more environmentally conscious when one may be personally affected

Of course, it may be more than a hint of NIMBYism, rather than true consciousness.

Sass's assessment is pretty accurate. There is no
doubt that the left is not immune to questioning science when it suits them; however, right-wing bias tends to be rooted in the fact that science has had results (evolution, textual analysis, etc) that undermine religious belief. So someone not thrilled with scientific pronouncements about evolution is going to have a ready scepticism towards Global Warming. There really is no parallel motivation on the left to be against science.

I think the main opponents of Frakkiing are NIMBY types.When your water supply is threatened, then you become more sceptical and oppositional.
The other problem is that much of the testing and science came from research funded by the oil and gas companies. Scepticism will be higher regarding this research, because of experience with this kind of research in other areas.
As third party and government agency research rolls out there will be greater acceptance. Provided results are as advertised., There are all kinds of dangerous short cuts that companies can take in frakking, as in deep water drilling. Some of the scepticism over the safety of frakking is also a result of the recent deep water drilling problems. That was supposed to be safe and fool proof too. Those failures affect the credibility of oil and gas companies majorly.
I also think its ironic that much of the AGW denialist flack was found to be funded by oil and gas companies. 20 years of publishing rot that was designed to question AGW has fed a anti science message. Indeed when one considers that religious fundamentalists already fail to understand the scientific method and its value - the US with its large percentage of fundamentalists was easy pickings for that campaign.
Now, oil and gas companies are trying to prove that Frakking is safe using science.... And finding it strange that their science is met with scepticism by a certain segment...
irony.

Pretty good analysis Ricky.

I live near a big potential frakking area, Nearby in Pennsylvania they have done very well with it yet just over the border in New York it is met with great alarm. Myself, I'm a bit torn. I want the gas, I want the lower prices, I want energy independence, I want my "neighbors" (only a county away) to reap the rewards. I understand it is the lefty wackos pushing the dangers but I just can't help wonder how pushing toxic chemicals into the ground can't harm the aquifer? The "earthquake" scare is slight, it's more a minor tremor here and there and our area is stable as far as fault lines (though we do have a few small faults like most areas do). Overall, I come out only slightly in favor but I understand the concern and worry!

Regarding the science angle, I think Ricky is all wrong and he see's things the way he wishes to see them. Oil companies = bad, scientists = good (and I agree when the science is pure). But the science is not exact, it is not settled, it also is being performed by those who rely on finding warming exists in order to keep a roof over their heads. Science embraces questioning and sharing of data, it simply is not the case here as has been proven over and over, just look at the climategate email scandal and the effort to keep data from "denilaists", it simply is not good science. Question any and all who have a "side" science should have no "side" they pull for. I understand why oil companies have scientists and I understand they have an agenda, they should be questioned no doubt, the polar opposite position exists on the warming side and that should make their position also be questioned ...funny how it is not!

GMTom wrote:I live near a big potential frakking area, Nearby in Pennsylvania they have done very well with it yet just over the border in New York it is met with great alarm. Myself, I'm a bit torn. I want the gas, I want the lower prices, I want energy independence, I want my "neighbors" (only a county away) to reap the rewards. I understand it is the lefty wackos pushing the dangers but I just can't help wonder how pushing toxic chemicals into the ground can't harm the aquifer? The "earthquake" scare is slight, it's more a minor tremor here and there and our area is stable as far as fault lines (though we do have a few small faults like most areas do). Overall, I come out only slightly in favor but I understand the concern and worry!

Regarding the science angle, I think Ricky is all wrong and he see's things the way he wishes to see them. Oil companies = bad, scientists = good (and I agree when the science is pure). But the science is not exact, it is not settled, it also is being performed by those who rely on finding warming exists in order to keep a roof over their heads. Science embraces questioning and sharing of data, it simply is not the case here as has been proven over and over, just look at the climategate email scandal and the effort to keep data from "denilaists", it simply is not good science. Question any and all who have a "side" science should have no "side" they pull for. I understand why oil companies have scientists and I understand they have an agenda, they should be questioned no doubt, the polar opposite position exists on the warming side and that should make their position also be questioned ...funny how it is not!

Your 1st paragraph sounds just right to me. The only nuance that I would add is that upstate New York has been having relatively hard times for many years and could really benefit from fracking; however, because of demographics, these decisions are largely being made by NYC and liberal environmentalists. But I'm with you -- on the weight of the evidence I am in favor of fracking, but I would proceed cautiously and introduce many environmental safeguards.

Re your 2nd paragraph, I agree that all sides have to be questioned and that there are biases galore. But I think there are qualitative differences that you shouldn't ignore. When Exxon funds a study, they are providing big money and driving the research results. However, when NOAA funds a university study, there is much more room for the individual authors to take a view. Although there have been inaccuracies by the climate change crowd, and there have certainly been over-heated discussions by the media, on the whole I think that these researchers have tried to call it like they see it even though they suffer from normal human biases.

By the way, I still think talking about record temperatures in the continental US is silly. That land makes up 1.6% of the total surface area of the world. I don't think that can provide any evidence of a global phenomenon.

RJ - it's true that the US alone doesn't make up a lot of the total surface area of the planet. So such information needs to be taken in context with global data.

The thing that most winds people up about environmentalists is their annoying habit of blaming every freak weather condition on global warming while dismissing every counter example as being irrelevant in the bigger picture. I personally think this behaviour goes a long way toward explaining why a lot of people still don't trust them. We had hurricanes, floods, droughts, bushfires and all the rest before we had anthropogenic climate change and people know that. Sometimes people seem too keen to jump on these phenomena to make a political point about climate change, and it's become obvious to the rest of us what they're doing.

sass

The thing that most winds people up about environmentalists is their annoying habit of blaming every freak weather condition on global warming while dismissing every counter example as being irrelevant in the bigger picture. I personally think this behaviour goes a long way toward explaining why a lot of people still don't trust them. We had hurricanes, floods, droughts, bushfires and all the rest before we had anthropogenic climate change and people know that. Sometimes people seem too keen to jump on these phenomena to make a political point about climate change, and it's become obvious to the rest of us what they're doing.

I don't know where you get the impression that environmental scientists are blaming every freak weather condition on climate change...However, whats particularly interesting is its really only the big events that most people notice. And yet climate change is affecting us already, in a large number of ways. And usually only people directly affected, take note.
One example: In Alaska oil drilling is made more expensive. Why? The end of permafrost means roads must be rebuilt and repaired. Something like 1 and half billion $ is required. And yet, the oil drilling season has been cut in half because of warming conditions...
There's a US government report out a few days ago (240 scientists) that illustrates some of the observable changes and anticipated changes.
http://ncadac.globalchange.gov./

It might be annoying to hear about the change.... And maybe its harder for people who hate change. But it is happening.

It isn't necessarily the climate scientists, more the activists. Every time you get a hurricane or a bushfire these days you see people trying to explain it as clear and irrefutable evidence of climate change. Every time you get a cold snap the same people grumble about how you can't read anything into isolated weather events. I'm not trying to say that I don't believe claimate change is happening, but that kind of behaviour is obvious bulshit and it pisses people off. Your attempt to use a largely pointless stat about record temps in the continental US was a great example of this kind of thing. When other people point out isolated examples of cold weather you're the first to jump on them for using inappropriate data and missing the big picture.

freeman2 wrote:Sass's assessment is pretty accurate. There is no
doubt that the left is not immune to questioning science when it suits them; however, right-wing bias tends to be rooted in the fact that science has had results (evolution, textual analysis, etc) that undermine religious belief. So someone not thrilled with scientific pronouncements about evolution is going to have a ready scepticism towards Global Warming. There really is no parallel motivation on the left to be against science

I am sorry but I have to disagree with you guys. The left's anti-science is just a rabid in some instances. The differences you see I think is more attributed to bias. You don't like the right's anti-science stances so you ascribe a greater maliciousness to it. However, you are generally supportive of left issues so you are more willing to excuse their anti-science stances.

That's clearly untrue in my case. I'm quite srongly pro frakking and GM food, and while I do believe in manmade global warming I'm far from being sold on the proposed remedies for it and remain sceptical about many aspects.