does Politicizing Global Warming - hurt the cause?

Question

what do you think - do you think that making this a political issue - has that hurt this cause - like it's become a Democrat issue and now the Republicans think it's a smokescreen and a waste and the Republicans aren't taking is seriously because the Democrats are and on and on. It's really stupid how grown men and women are acting these days.

Answer 1

Politicizing the issue is very damaging because we have cartoonish responses to good quality scientific work.

The cartoonish responses destroy the credibility of the science in the minds of the members of the public.

My colleages complain that the members of the general public do not believe the science behind the issue of Global Warming..

However when you have a media that creates ridiculous exaggerations and outright fabrications, the inevitable result is that the members of the public do not believe anything connected with this issue.

This is not all that unusual. When I was in college back in the 1960's there was a cult classic movie that was produced back in the 1930's designed to scare the daylights out of anyone who was thinking of trying Marijuana.

The title of the movie was "Reefer Madness" Some of you may recognize the name.

The movie used actiors who did a very poor job of acting as if they had just contracted the symptoms of Paranoid Scizophrenia and a number of other psychiatric disorders after smoking Marijuana.

The movie was so ridiculously out of touch with the behavior of people who had really smoked marijuana that it had absolutely no credibility and was essentially shown as a joke around most college campuses.

It appears to me that the techniques used in the movie "Reefer Madness" are remarkably similar to the techniques used in Al Gore's movie.

The problem with the movie "Reefer Madness" is that it destroyed the credibility of all anti drug information, even that based on solid science.

That is what I suspect the ultimate effect of Al Gore's movie will be. The result will be, and I am already seeing it is that the solid science becomes suspect as well.

Answer 2

Hurting the cause, not just efforts to stop Global Warming, but all environmental protections, was the point of politicizing it. Nixon, Ford and Carter were all strong supporters of tough environmental laws. It had been a bi-partisan issue ever since Teddy Roosevelt got the ball rolling.

Ronald Reagan, as the point man for an enormous lobbying and PR blitz, turned it into a single party issue, making the weakening of Environmental Regulations a litmus test for regulators and candidates.

Democrats fell into the trap by running with the issue by themselves, which didn't work--and by not supporting pro-environmental Republican candidates and sharing credit for the victories.

It was probably the most successful case of Corporate Special Pleading in American History.

Answer 3

I don't know if I am going to be able to explain how I feel about this, so that it comes out right, but I am going to try my best. I believe that there are serious environmental issues that have to be addressed, and if they are not addressed we will eventually cause this planet to be uninhabitable, and we may even cause our own species to become extinct.

However, I do not trust the motives of Al Gore. I do not believe his motives are noble. I do believe that he wants to convince the majority of the people on this planet that his motives are noble, but it would take a lot for him to convince me. He is a globalist/elitist, and I do not trust the motives of globalist/elitists. I believe that he is a selective conservationist. I believe that he will champion only those environmental issues that he can use to line his pockets, as well as the pockets of the rest of the so called elite....and I believe that he will ignore even more important and serious environmental concerns if he cannot find a way of exploiting them. It scares me because I believe that only the so called common people will have to pay the costs, while the elite will actually get richer from these so called solutions, and sacrifice nothing. Yes, these issues need to be taken seriously.....but they should not be exploited. *sm*

Answer 4

Since it is a global issue, it is inherently political. Individual action is useless, we need the combined actions of the world, and that means political action.

Actually, I want the change that statement. One person or small group of people could possibly invent some new power source that would allow us to stop burning most coal and oil. That would be individual action that would be useful. But conservation isn't like that. And conservation seems to be what the politicians are talking about 99% of the time. Conservation has to be done by EVERYONE to be of significant benefit.

Answer 5

No, that is not necessarily true... I have Republican friends who Recycle... yaddita, yaddita, yaddita.

I just want to be clear that it was George Bush Sr. who made Global Warming a partisan political issue long before Al Gore did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOo_rjrhhHY

Also, somewhere (maybe in Gore's film) you can see Bush Senior making fun of Environmentalists by saying flippantly that "If you listen to them, you'll be up to your ears in hoot owls!"

The issue will be political for as long as oil is political.
And as long as American Workers are political.
We need cars to get to work or we need public transportation.
We need jobs that won't be outsourced to a clear-cut forest in Brazil.

Global Warming IS a political issue. I don't think there's any other way to see it, really.

Answer 6

It's political, but goes WAY beyond the politics of America. Kyoto could not garner one vote of support from either party in the late 90s. Politicians will always tap into a cause if they think that it will garner votes. And if it is something built more on emotions than reality, so much the better...

Answer 7

Politicizing tends to hurt any issue.

Answer 8

I think a poltican might use that against their opponent and the cause is losing the real meaning.

Answer 9

I agree-and that was the intent. Remember--it was the neoconservatives, theBush administration, and the religious right that politicized gloval warming.

Answer 10

We have to work politically. Too bad politicians are so childish.