Is global warming denialism primarily based on free market fundamentalism?

[dana1981]

Free market fundamentalism is an ideology that rejects the idea that government regulation is ever appropriate, and also describes the belief that an unfettered free market will solve all of our social and economic problems.

There are many examples of industrial activities over the past half century damaging the natural environment and to human health. For example, tobacco, DDT, acid rain, ozone depletion, and the burning of fossil fuels.

Perhaps not coincidentally, many of the people who deny the dangers of anthropogenic global warming also deny that DDT, acid rain, ozone depletion, and tobacco use caused significant public and environmental damage. Certain individuals attempt to rewrite history to create a revisionist version in which these examples disproving the beliefs of free market fundamentalism never happened. We've seen attempts to rewrite history in this fashion many times on this very site, and Oreskes and Conway have documented them in their book 'Merchants of Doubt'.

Do you think these issues are linked, and global warming denialism is primarily based on free market fundamentalism? Or are there other motivations behind these attempts to rewrite history and the laws of science?
kathy, I suggest you educate yourself regarding the realities of DDT.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...200AApjD4h
As a somewhat relevant example, California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman seems to be a free market fundamentalist. She wants to deregulate, fire state govnerment workers, cut taxes on the super-rich, and delay the implementation of state's climate bill. Economic analysis demonstrates that her plans would damage the state economy and increase unemployment even further.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/is...letter.pdf
Sheesh I'm tempted to give David best answer for providing us with such a perfect example.

[eric c]

No. Global warming denialism is based on not having a heard mentality, and not having an eco religious fervor.

Liberal. When alarmist say global warming is real because there is a consensus of self appointed expert climatologist who say so, that is a heard mentality.

[kathy_is_a_nurse]

"...many of the people who deny the dangers of anthropogenic global warming also deny that DDT...caused significant public and environmental damage..."

Wonderful example... And let's look at the public damage that occurred because of knee-jerk reaction to a minimal POTENTIAL problem identified in lab RATS only. After the worldwide ban on DDT, the results have been disastrous for developing countries. At least 1-2 million people continue to die from malaria each year. Over 60 million lives have been lost needlessly since the ban took effect.

So if making similar knee-jerk reactions over similar unproven potential problems without knowing the unforeseen consequences of those actions is free market fundamentalism in your mind... I'm OK with that.

Edit:

You're correct about the partial reversal in Stockholm. But that was certainly done under duress. The international pressure to phase out DDT continues despite it's tremendous value in underdeveloped countries. It has become a common international practice to offer developing countries funds with the stipulation that they cannot be used to purchase or use DDT which makes the Stockholm Convention authorization to use it rather moot... doesn't it. They say on paper that DDT can be used, but they make it virtually impossible for impoverished nations to get it.

[088]

Certainly, the vast majority of those who deny AGW are free market fundamentalists, but I think there's more to it than that. I'm not qualified to analyze the denial, that's why if I come across a psychological study of denial, I'll post it. I read another last week that showed, in short, that those in denial fealt important that they believed they found something that others had missed. That can be seen on this board every day. Someone will ask a question, which is not really a question, but a statement, about the sun causing the recent warming. We all know, based on current scientific findings, that the sun cannot be the cause, but we see this debunked argument time and time again. Granted, some of it is part of a misinformation campaign, but others are just plain denial.

[David]

Most skeptics do seem to be strong advocates of free-market capitalism.

Most of the true believers in the junk science of GHG-driven AGW (the so-called consensus) seem to be Enviromarxists, or at least steady state economy advocates (the same thing as Enviromarxists).

Correlation does not equal causation... But it sure does seem to be a strong correlation.

Acid rain - A fraud.
Ozone holes - Another fraud.

At least those two frauds didn't kill anybody.

DDT - A genocidal fraud. Rachel Carson might just be responsible for more deaths than that really bad German guy with the silly moustache. The guy who gave us Godwin's Law.

[liberal_60]

I was doubtful of your premise when I read your question, but the answers seem to confirm that you are on to something.

I especially like it when Eric tells us that he does not have a "heard mentality." Does that confirm for us that he never listens? :-) There are some people who can learn from others, and there are other people who have to touch the electric fence for themselves.

[082]

That certainly seems to be the case. Most denialists hold corporate entities in high regard and believe that all the corruption in the world is nurtured solely within government. Of course that is an example of denial all it's own since I think most would agree that government corruption stems from corporate involvement with politicians. Of course when presented with that, denialists would point to Wall Street and blame everything on them. That's silly of course, since Wall Street serves corporate interests, behind their own, of course.
Anyway, it's a very dangerous thing that is happening. Having any financial interest in charge of government would be the worst possible thing for citizens..

_

[endpov]

Yes, it appears that denialism in order to protect a free market at all cost is a primary reason, although I am sure there are other reasons at work, such as simple stubborn resistence and inability to change to meet the apparent challenge of the reality of global warming and climate change. And to me, this is ironic, because you would think that large corporations and governments with sovereignty and trillions of dollars would understand the meaning of the word opportunity and then fully go about the necessary steps to avoid, if possible, the disasters that are soon predicted to plague the very industries and commercial enterprises that they love so dearly !

[Earl Grey]

Mostly people in the general public listening to free market fundamentalists on radio and t.v. pushing very fringe opinions with exhuberant passion as if they were certainly true (and as if anyone who disagrees with them must be insane). The public thinks there must be some sort of reality behind such strong passionate displays, so they go on the internet where they do "research" on global warming which usually consists of a string of blogs and links put up by free market fundamentalists trying to cast doubt on the concensus of 97-98% of climate scientists. Once they have the misinformation laden denialist talking points firmly established in their minds, they ridicule, ignore and deny any information that contradicts what they have filled their minds with. Having no personal understanding of the issue, they simply adopt the viewpoint from the political source of their choosing.

[Paul B]

Yes.

Eric, Kathy, David; keep the examples coming.

And dana, you can add whale oil lubricants and leaded gasoline to your list.

Here is the logic (although I hesitate to improve on the examples already displayed here):

AGW would require government action
But government action is wicked, Marxist, liberal, socialist, and a scam to raise taxes
Therefore AGW does not exist