$wpsc_version = 169; {"id":385,"date":"2012-02-15T20:16:26","date_gmt":"2012-02-15T20:16:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/christophergully.com\/?p=385"},"modified":"2013-04-05T18:26:50","modified_gmt":"2013-04-05T18:26:50","slug":"doing-away-with-pointless-partisanship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christophergully.com\/2012\/02\/doing-away-with-pointless-partisanship\/","title":{"rendered":"Doing Away With Pointless Partisanship"},"content":{"rendered":"
The big news today is the leak of documents<\/a> from the Heartland Institute, an American conservative think tank that is proudly skeptical of climate change. Whether the leaked documents are authentic is yet to be determined, so we should reserve judgement for now. However it underscores the continued attention we give to the us vs. them climate change paradigm, a way of thinking that ignores what both sides actually have in common.<\/p>\n As climate change continues to be used as a political wedge issue, garnering support based on ideology rather than science, the public is becoming increasingly partisan. That the percentage of Canadians who believe there is evidence for climate change is a full 22% higher<\/a> than Americans reinforces that politics, media, and ideologies have a significant effect on our perceptions – after all, if we were basing our opinions on scientific evidence, then we would expect numbers north and south of the border to be comparable. Science does not care much for borders. The same study notes that in Canada, public opinion is also divided along political lines; 64% of Conservative voters recognize evidence of climate change, compared to 84% of New Democrat voters and a full 91% for the Liberals. All of this points to an urgent need to reframe the discussion of climate change along non-partisan lines. By demonizing the opposition, and using rhetoric like \u201canti-science\u201d and \u201cwillful ignorance\u201d, those of us on the opposite end of the argument alienate potentially powerful partners.<\/p>\n Similarly, what international climate change negotiations have shown us is that a top-down political process relying on consensus among players with widely varying interests is extremely unlikely to bring the necessary results<\/a>. And even if we were successful in negotiating a treaty and severely reducing our emissions, according the IPCC<\/a>, the effects of the current levels of emissions on sea level and atmospheric temperatures will be continued to be felt for a timeframe beyond comprehension.<\/p>\n