About the 1500 scientists from around the world...
From https://www.desmog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel/
https://youtu.be/3n3Hq7XSBjA
What are you trying to say?
Are only the lefty parties in the Netherlands right about what is happening with the climate?
Is the statement about scepticism about how we are tackling the climate situation bad because it is from a right-wing party?
No, it's not a matter of left or right. It's a matter of science vs. political groups funded by corporations with vested interests. These 'influencing groups' are using a facade of scientific plausibility to basically just shill for billionaires. Not that much different from those doctors that a few decades ago were 'convinced' that cigarettes were not that bad for your lungs.
Are you saying only climate scientists may have a say? Is expertise from other sciences not allowed?
Well, when it comes to climate science, it would help to heed the warnings of... climate scientists, yes.
Just like when I suspect I might have an inflamed appendix, I very much prefer to hear the opinion of a medical doctor, and not a biologist, or a botanist. Go figure.
What exactly is wrong with "have connections to libertarian free-market groups"?
The Latins said "
cui prodest?", so since ancient times it was clear that it is always better to ask who is going to gain from this? I would add, "
nihil novi sub solem". Rich/powerful people trying to influence the masses in order to retain their wealth/power.
And yes, in this case there is a slant toward the right, because in general billionaires, in a capitalistic market, tend to lean towards the right. So they are the ones who have to money to fund think tanks that will churn out these constructed news and disseminate them to the press (and to the newspapers/news station/media outlets they own or control). I am pretty sure one can find examples of these sort of behavior founded by left parties or left leaning billionaires, and that does not make them any better than the ones funded by the right. They just defend their own interests, and that's not science.
To make an example of a left leaning individual, not a group, that might be considered an 'influencer': during the pandemic Bill Maher has always been pushing for removing lock downs and go back to normal. On his show, he invited several guests, doctors, researchers that agreed with him on this. At first I thought... "look at Bill, he pushes for the lifting of restrictions on public assemblies because he wants to earn money with his gigs in Vegas and around the US..."
But I was wrong. The real reason, I believe, came out during an interview with Jimmy Kimmel in one of his podcasts: apparently Maher had bought a considerable portion of shares in a baseball team and was LOSING
a lot of money because of the lockdowns. No wonder he was inviting 'experts' sharing his view that lockdowns were bad, and useless. Can we say that his was an impartial view? I don't think so.
Can you imagine that free-market groups can develop better ideas for climate adaptation (if needed) than the government?
In order to pay for the climate plans, you need money, and money comes from economic growth, or are you propagating more and more state debts?
So, now you are shifting from science to politics and to how to implement solution to a problem. But these climate deniers group (who have a vested interest in keeping up with the pollution) are saying the the problem does not exist and therefore no solution is needed. Again,
cui prodest?