I was away camping so just caught wind of this encouraging column in the National Post, which was published on Thursday. Jonathan Kay, a managing editor at Canada’s conservative/libertarian paper, takes a shot at “impressionable conservatives” who cling to every bit of “fringe opinion” or “any stray piece of junk science” that comes from the extremes of climate-change denialism. Kay warns that this is hurting the conservative movement by painting conservatives (which Kay most certainly is himself) as conspiricists and cranks who are unwilling to accept what 97 per cent of climate scientists believe: that the planet is warming and we’re partly responsible. Why are many conservatives inclined to behave this way? “Too many of us treat science as subjective — something we customize to reduce cognitive dissonance between what we think and how we live,” writes Kay. “In the case of global warming, this dissonance is especially traumatic for many conservatives, because they have based their whole worldview on the idea that unfettered capitalism — and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture it has spawned — is synonymous with both personal fulfillment and human advancement. The global-warming hypothesis challenges that fundamental dogma, perhaps fatally.”

He goes on to write that “rants and slogans” help some conservatives deal with this cognitive dissonance. It’s an impulse that must be fought, he adds, “if conservatism is to prosper in a century when environmental issues will assume an ever greater profile on this increasingly hot, parched, crowded planet.” Kay, it should be pointed out, is also critical of fellow Post columnists (without naming them) for their “fine-sounding” but ultimately “nonesense” rhetoric. He refers to one conservative columnist, a woman, who became a skeptic by listening to testimonials from author Michael Crichton. I wonder who that might be?

Really, you should just read Kay’s commentary in full. He does a commendable job, and I applaud him for getting this view in a paper that has gathered favour in climate-denier/skeptic circles. It’s refreshing.

UPDATE: On another note, Neil Reynolds over at the Globe and Mail just wrote one of the most ludicrous columns I’ve ever read on the topic, based on the theoretical bumblings of Stanford U physicist Robert Laughlin. He seems to equate the earth’s ability to handle climate change with the ability of humanity to cope. Yes Mr. Laughlin, the earth will be just fine with what we throw at it. Humans, on the other hand, won’t do so well.

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 18th, 2010 at 9:04 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.