Poll: Only A Bare Majority Of Republicans Believes In Global Warming
The polling unit of The Washington Post graciously sends over the crosstabs of the paper’s new polling on environmental issues, and they’re fascinating:
They show that only a bare majority of Republicans believe in global warming, and that GOPers are surprisingly out of step with the rest of the electorate (independents included) on the issue. The crosstabs reveal:
* Only 54% of Republicans believe “the world’s temperature may have been going up slowly over the past 100 years,” versus 43% who don’t believe it. By contrast, 71% of independents say it’s been happening — almost exactly the same at the 72% overall who believe this. Obviously, an even higher number of Dems (86%) believe it.
* Only a quarter of Republicans believe global warming is a “very serious” problem, versus 43% of independents who believe this, nearly a 20-point difference. Overall, 44% believe it’s a very serious problem.
* Republicans are the only group where a minority (43%) believes that the United States should take action on global warming “even if other countries do less.” Majorities of independents (52%) and Democrats (66%) believe the U.S. should take action despite the actions of other countries.
In fairness, however, when it comes to the cap and trade legislation, Republican opinion, which is running against the measure, is in fact more in line with that of independents. Only a minority of indys, 49%, support it, versus 46% who oppose it.
So in practical political terms, the schism between GOPers and the rest of the electorate on global warming doesn’t mean cap and trade isn’t politically treacherous for Dems. But the divide is pretty striking on its own terms.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
That would go right along with their meme of not believing in any of that there book learnin’; only over-educated elites beleive in global warning, ya know.
AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaarghghghghgh! And if you point out a Repug that this is proof that they think in lockstep without any regard to reality, they will tell you that you’re the one who does that.
Trying to live in the same country as these crazy people are making me crazy, too. No, crazier.
Tena, if living in the same country as us drives you crazy, feel free to leave.
“Tena, if living in the same country as us drives you crazy, feel free to leave”
No, I’d rather see you get sane.
But if you insist on staying insane and getting more so, you can count on being in the minority for the forseeable future.
So whatever – it’s still a winwin for me and I can self-medicate.
@Greg
“The polling unit of The Washington Post graciously sends over the crosstabs of the paper’s new polling on environmental issues…”
Graciously? Really?
Any poll worth it’s salt should be willing to publicly release it’s cross-tabs to the public. They shouldn’t even have to be sent to you…they should be up and online with the rest of the poll numbers.
Greg, what is so surprising or “newsy” about that poll results ?
Okay, NOW we’re gettin’ somewhere.
We need to shine the spotlight of TRUTH and FACTS on the folks who simply do not know better, do not understand the issues, are told to distrust science and the science community.
It is NOT their fault that they are being deceived.
I want science education ramped up in rural areas. Broadband, teachers, community colleges, experiential learning, local sustainability projects, local farm projects.
These climate change/global warming issues dramatically effect industries from rural areas. The more these folks are exposed to the fact that their livelihoods are in danger from ecological changes, the more they realize that climate change isn’t about saving the whales, it’s about saving US and our way of life.
A Timely Bit Of Shopping Advice.
The five worst shopping Gotchas that people should avoid.
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/108213/worst-holiday-gotchas
Speaking of which:
What the hell is the deal with giving People Gift Cards?
Isn’t that just giving people cash with an ankle bracelet on it, so it stays confined to just one store. Also, in order to use the full amount of the card, at the specific store, people almost always have to spend some of their own money, or let the store keep the small remaining balance on the card.
Also, many billions of dollars in Gift Cards, never get used, and the Stores get to keep your money.
You are not fooling anyone, when you give Gift Cards, instead of cash. All you are doing is forcing the person to go shop at a specific store. That is worse that handing them cash, that they can spend where ever the wish.
Do not insult people with Gift Cards.
Liam’s Observation Of The Day.
Never poll Morons about Global Warming during a cold spell, or during the Winter.
Liam – lol.
@Ethan
See, science is hard work. You have to actually think. And, even more important, you need to be able to analyze. That requires using a brain, and we all know that they think with their guts (h/t Stephen Colbert).
the divide is pretty striking on its own terms
As I noted yesterday, as time passes the GOP becomes more and more a fantasy-based political party.
“in practical political terms, the schism between GOPers and the rest of the electorate on global warming doesn’t mean cap and trade isn’t politically treacherous for Dems. But the divide is pretty striking on its own terms.”
That’s a very good point. But don’t discount the fact that many conservative states have a high portion of wilderness and rural areas. And that means hunters and outdoorsmen and women. Maine, for example. Two GOP Senators, trying to be conservative on the issues, but represent a state with considerable environmental enthusiasm. So this could be a little trickier than just run of the mill politics for Republicans, imho. The potential trouble for Dems imho are Dems in coal states and big ag states, but I doubt those hurdles will prevent a bill from moving forward. But this is a really interesting thread to me, so I would love to see lots of follow up on this issue.
“As I noted yesterday, as time passes the GOP becomes more and more a fantasy-based political party.”
Yeppers. It’s hard to live with, but it’s still the best of all possible worlds for the Democrats.
I mean – everyone is seeing the same pictures of glaciers dropping off the ice shelf into the sea; of polar bears stranded on floes; of the top of Mt. Kilimajaro – where there is no snow for the first time in 11,000 years.
Everyone is looking at the same things and about 25% of us are seeing something altogether different from what the other 75% see.
But we should all leave and let the 25% have it – Riiiiiight.
“See, science is hard work. You have to actually think.”
True, but re-developing rural economies is even harder work. That is why I believe the science points to local sustainability. The roots of sustainable agriculture are all over our country. All we have to do is tap into what used to exist before big ag bought all the land and consolidated family farms into an unsustainable industrial behemoth.
Back up a sec: Only a bare majority?
Sounds like progress to me.
And the craziest thing of all is that all these Creationists suddenly turn into proponents of geological time to support their argument that global warming isn’t our fault.
This fight is going to be truly amazing.
As a refugee from a rural economy I can tell you that (while I agree with your point whole-heartedly), the vast majority of people in those “real America” places don’t want anything to do with science. Small, sustainable agriculture is being driven by city dwellers (like me) who remember what it was like to grow up on a farm and eat off of your family’s own land, but had to leave. Your statement about people living in rural areas not trusting scientists and science is right on point but it will take generations (if ever) to change that mindset. We can’t impose it from afar or above, but if we can encourage the largely urban, educated Democratic demographic to invest in it, we’ll have the same effect.
The scary thing is that the heavy duty warming influences haven’t kicked in yet. Once they do we aren’t going to be able to stop them by making adjustments in how we live.
I don’t for a moment think life will come to an end, but I’m not convinced our civilization will be that resilient. We’ve never lived in a world as warm as the dinosaurs’ world was, but we’re headed that way.
That’s for certain Tena, and it’s true.
Imho, success really does depend on making the case about two things: jobsjobsjobs and local impacts on the economy and environment. If Dems can prove that the bill will create local jobs that will sustain local economies, it should win out over the Bible thumpers. The trick is establishing that burden of proof in 15-30 second sound-bytes, which is obviously hard to do on complex issues.
Kelley – That’s what Dr. Dean’s 50 state strategy was about. I wish he were the DNC chair now instead of ineffective tim kaine.
Damn, good convo. Would love to hang more, but have to go. See ya’ll round a little later
Kelley – since you grew up on a family farm, you surely know that individual farming was not fun and games. Nobody worked as hard as the individual farmer and that’s one reason it died out.
People have been doing the same thing with ranching and I’ve watched families sell homesteads they’ve held since 1875 rather than continue ranching.
I hate the demise of the family company in this country, too. Hate it – it’s totally skewed everything that everything is run from some remote corporate headquarters.
I just don’t know how you go back to those things once you’ve moved beyond them to a place where you aren’t required to do as much manual labor.
@amk
You and me both!
I’d do anything to have Howard Dean back. Mr Tena is more impressed with Howard Dean than he is with anyone else in the entire Democratic Party besides Obama – he is a big fan of the prez.
Republicans are a drag on our economic well being, global competitiveness and our work standards.
They are the enemy from within that will eventually be the downfall of this country if they ever gain super majorities.
Tena–you’re so right, and we weren’t even a working farm. Just a few steers, chickens and pork along with a 10-acre garden. . . which was more than enough! The problem is that even when the farms are sold, the people who stay in area have the same insular, anti-education mindset. While my family all admit that I’m the “smart one”, they don’t see any value in education for its own sake. “Common sense” is all you need.
Happy Thanksgiving, Ethan.
I need to go bake, but I’m stalling.
Tho the eggs do need to sit out for at least an hour since they’re fresh and I want egg whites out of them.
Just saw a headline on msnbc that the Prez is going to Copenhagen for the talks–yea! (Just another reason for the Repubs to dismiss the whole issue, though
)
“he people who stay in area have the same insular, anti-education mindset. While my family all admit that I’m the “smart one”, they don’t see any value in education for its own sake. “Common sense” is all you need.”
And that’s unfortunate and I think somewhat recent. My mother’s people were all farmers in northern Kansas. My great uncle was still on a farm straight out of a movie. But they all respected education. None of them were religious fanatics or anti-intellectual at all and they were absolutely from another generation altogether.
My parents were older when they had me. My mother was born in 1911. We used to go back to Kansas when I was a kid and it was definitely out of another century, then. Tiny town with brick streets; silos in people’s backyards, practically; county fair grounds; the whole magillah.
They never impressed me as backwards at all – just old fashioned, which they were even then.
Anyone have a poll showing how few Republicans (and conservatives) believe in evolution?
Or a poll of how old most Republicans (and conservatives) believe the planet is?
It’s the: Anti-Science Republican Party.
Kelley – Woo Hoo!
New US Home Sales Rise 6.2 Percent- AP
U.S. consumer mood improves a tad late November- Reuters
Consumers log stronger-than-expected rebound- AP
Weekly jobless claims drop below 500,000, first time since January- AP
Rates on 30-year mortgages match record low – AP
U.S. Existing Home Sales Rise 10%, More Than Forecast – Bloomberg
CBS News – June 12, 2007
“Poll: Most Republicans Reject Evolution.” … “Gallup Survey Finds 68% Of Republicans Disbelieve Scientific Explanation Of Creation.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/12/politics/main2917719.shtml
Have those numbers changed much?
“President Barack Obama is to pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the US in several stages, beginning with a 17% cut by 2020, US officials say.
The offer will be made at December’s UN climate talks in Copenhagen, which Mr Obama will attend. He does not plan to be there for the crucial last days.
The talks will try to draw up a new global climate treaty to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said his attendance could be vital for a deal.
“It’s critical that President Obama attends the climate change summit in Copenhagen,” he told journalists.
So far more than 60 world leaders have said they will attend the summit.
Observers say the attendance of such figures as Mr Obama will raise hopes for action on climate change, although the talks are not expected to result in a new treaty.
Mr Obama will be in the Danish capital on 9 December before travelling to Oslo to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize, but does not plan to return for the key last stages of the summit, which runs from 7-18 December.
The decision, which is expected to be formally announced later in the day, follows intense speculation about whether the US president would go to Copenhagen.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/8378890.stm
Let the repugs outrage begin. (or may be the libruls will start the poutage race saying it ain’t enough or some such crapp – two p’s to beat Greg’s silly moderation).
We are not going to be able to stop climate change, mostly because Political Leaders are all caught up in the short term gain, versus the long term future.
Lots of Gab about taking preventive measures, but almost nothing being done. That is not going to change. The Planet will change, and it may shrug off most of us.
Anyone watch the PBS series on how we came to be? It made a strong case for the view that we probably emerged out of a very turbulent period, when frequent dramatic climate shifts, in a region of Africa, created conditions where survival of the fittest meant that only those with a lot of generalized skills, survived, and passed on their genes to us.
We do not have the global leadership in place to head off the coming climate catastrophes. Staying in power requires catering to the instant gratification whims of the great unwashed.
By the end of this century, most of our technological dependent societies will be wiped out. Vast numbers of coastal populations, and populations from drought ravaged regions will become nomadic, and will be flooding the more hospitable regions of all nations. That will provoke so much social unrest, that local militias and warlords will spring up, to fight the invading hordes of displaced people. Famine will be widespread, and we will see a global population collapse.
The USA is likely to break apart, with armed militias and warlords controlling many regions of the country, and race wars wills become commonplace.
We are a species that can not help or save ourselves from ourselves. We have already over populated our planet, especially in the regions of the earth where life is hard to sustain. We are running out of resources, at the same time that we have lunatics dressed in flowing robes, doing everything they can to make sure that we do not start to control the size of our future populations. It is a recipe for disaster, and it will happen.
Perhaps, a few thousand years from now, some small remnants of our species will reemerge, with a new genetic endowment that allowed them to adapt and survive the era of great climatic changes, or some other species will emerge, and dominate.
“Have those numbers changed much?”
I doubt it.
It’s one of America’s deep and abiding shames that we have these people who will not allow themselves to think.
“Never poll Morons about Global Warming during a cold spell, or during the Winter.”
LOL — or during a decade of no warming and likely cooling.
Or right after revelation of scandalous corruption of science by AGW advocates.
Conservatives respect and support science. Liberals hype faith-based, politicized science.
That was a hilarious parody, Liam. Or was it a sci fi book proposal?
“Liberals hype faith-based, politicized science”
Are you serious with that comment?
OT – Al-Qaeda link to Iraq ‘rejected’
“The UK investigated claims of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda but decided they were not “natural allies”, the Iraq inquiry has been told.
Despite “sporadic” contacts between al-Qaeda members and Iraq in the 1990s, there was no “serious collaboration”, Foreign Office officials said.
They also said it was a “surprise” that no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq after the invasion.
“It was not what we had expected” said ex-defence director Sir William Ehrman.
Asked to explain the absence of WMD and why the UK government had got this wrong, Sir William noted a “great deal” of the intelligence about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production provided before the war had been withdrawn afterwards as false. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/politics/8377492.stm
I pray that the Iraq war criminals are brought to justice.
Ethan – Please don’t waste your time with that lying troll idjit qb.
“Are you serious with that comment?”
Ahem.
The troll will say anything at all for the sake of an argument. Anything at all – don’t expect an honest argument.
Ugh, thank you amk + Tena haha
The anti-science right wing has rejected even the idea of “science”.
Right wingers overwhelmingly reject the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.
An astonishing number of right wingers think the planet is less than 7,000 years old.
And right wing leaders are repelled by even the idea of a ‘liberal education’ where a person examines their assumptions and builds an empirically verifiable understanding of what exists.
It’s far from certain. Is the planet getting warmer? Maybe, do we have much to do with it? I don’t know. I sure am for keeping things green and being good stewards of the planet. .
But AGW is all political – and the science behind it is now suspect.
As I understand it, East Anglia and NASA are the two sources of global climate data. NASA refuses to release its method, and was found by complete outsiders to have messed up and overestimated post-2000 temperatures. Now we find that East Anglia is tainted. This casts into doubt *everything*. Are temperatures really higher now than in 1980? Look at individual weather station data and it’s hard to tell— we rely on the East Anglia and NASA data.
GW alarmists have claimed the moral high ground because they’re supposedly objective and only interested in the truth, while they call everyone who disagrees with them an industry shill. But, now that the very source of information has been found to be corrupt and some of the leading proponents shown to be actively working to falsify their own data…while at the same time working to discredit (get fired) people that disagreed with thier views.
So – all in all – I don’t know. I know that the mean temperature has not risen in the past decade. Is that because of a la nina? Is it because there is less polar ice reflecting sunlight back? Does it have something to do with a solar cycle? Is it because of increased cloud cover? Is it because of CO2 levels? I don’t know.
What I do know is this has nothing to do with politics… other than there is a whole lot of money being spent. Maybe it is being spent rightly, and maybe we are just buying snake oil – because right now – we simply do not know.
Well. No one knows.
“An astonishing number of right wingers think the planet is less than 7,000 years old.”
They are missing the most wonderful scientific advance in maybe my lifetime – Ardi; who pushed us back to 4.4 million years and likely explains why we started walking upright.
And a group in a ravine about 100 yards from where they found Ardi have found parts of a skeleton that they are sure is a hominid, probably Ardi’s and thus our ancestor, dating back 6 million years.
When I was studying anthropology in undergrad, they thought best case they might get our origins back to a million.
Ardi is the most fascinating discovery I’ve ever read about. Those silly people want to drag their deity down to their dumba*s*s cracker level. It never occurs to them that a deity might be more complex than that.
Yes, I am quite serious. Whatever one believes the actual science shows about whether the planet is warming, I would contend that the fanatical belief in AGW, particularly alarmist fantasies like Liam’s, is entirely politicized and faith-based.
Why faith-based? Not, of course that it is based on theistic faith but on a simple faith for some people that it is true — regardless of the evidence for it — on a sort of new age, anti-humanity faith for others.
I read AGW blogs and articles like Realclimate. As a nonscientist, one can only evaluate as best one can the debates between congnescenti, but it is very clear to me that the AGW advocates like those at Realclimate treat this as a matter of faith. Disagreements are not addressed but dismissed. All contrary evidence is denied or dismissed, or, more typically, incorporated into a new, counterintuitive confirmation of the hypothesis — much like how one of my left-wing professors used to describe conspiracy theories. They are invested in their desired result and aren’t doing straight, honest science. I have little doubt about that.
The Glaciers are disappearing all over the planet, and we still have people coming on here and musing about how the are not sure if the planet is warming or cooling! Idiots.
I guess in their homes, Ice melts more when it is being cooled.
I’m still waiting for right wingers like “quarterback” to affirmatively accept that the overwhelming evidence supports the earth’s age at around 4.5 billion years and that evolution is the best explanation for life’s origins.
But right wingers generally can’t acknowledge scientific evidence that conflicts with the dictates of the theocrats that are essential in electing their corporatists every two and four years.
And yet many of them get annual flu shots, because the viruses keep mutating, as in evolving, rapidly.
I believe that you are evidence of viruses evolving. Or perhaps of de-evolution.
I have never been able to understand something about the opponents of Global Warming. Say it isn’t what we say it is – that the opponents turn out to be right. So? How does it hurt us to try to clean up the way we do things? So what if it turns out to have been unnecessary for warming? It still would be a good thing for everyone’s health if the air was clean and it would be best for our security if we had our own renewable energy sources like Brazil.
We’re behind Brazil, for god’s sake!
Why do they fight this so, other than they are actually dupes for Big Oil and Coal? And the right are also dupes for Saudi Arabia. Way to go, Ratwing!
Tena, paleoanthro is a big big topic of interest for me. I loved the ardi program on national geographic. Don’t get me started on human evolution, love it.
I highly recommend this book that has some great recent research on both the migration out of Africa and trying to nail down the dates of the development of language and society based on genetic evidence and evolutionary events. Awesome stuff:
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/1594200793
Ethan, in that case you might be interested to learn of an assertion I heard while in grad school. It came from a population genetics researcher named Peter Smouse who has studied diversity and gene flow questions in a variety of organisms, including humans. During a lecture for a class I took he noted that if humans & the great apes were classified using the same population genetics principles used in the systematics research of most other organisms all the species of all the great apes would be placed in only one genus.
That’s how genetically similar we are.
Why do right wingers cravenly support oil-dictatorships?
Because Republican elites like Cheney and Bush dictate it.
Energy independence would mean stronger national security.
It would just one of the many returns on investing in alternative energies like wind energy and solar energy that get US off of carbon energies that pollute our air and water and undeniably change the climate.
Oil-autocrats like Republican Bush and Cheney kiss up to oil-dictators of foreign nations out of greed and an indifference to America’s national security.
Why do right wingers hate America?
People who deny evolution should not be allowed on Jury panels; when DNA is used as evidence to convict.
Since DNA is used to show a unique biological Identity for each person, and can separate their biological identity from even their own siblings, then it is clearly an example of evolution at work. A father and mother can have twelve children, and even though their DNA is mostly similar, their is just enough of a change from child to child, to demonstrate one aspect of how evolution is real, and on going.
Since Right Wing Religious Morons deny that basic scientific truth, they should not be allowed to vote to execute someone based on DNA evidence.
“Why do right wingers hate America?”
They hate democracy.
“Yeppers. It’s hard to live with, but it’s still the best of all possible worlds for the Democrats.”
I’m not sure of that Tena – it’s good for the Democratic Party because its ranks swell with liberal/moderate Republicans and sane-conservative Independents.
But for me personally?
There are already too many Reagan Democrats by an order of magnitude. And it’s just getting worse.
“There are already too many Reagan Democrats by an order of magnitude. And it’s just getting worse.”
Huh?????????
Right wingers hate democracy.
Yes. Thank you for correcting me.
“if humans & the great apes were classified using the same population genetics principles used in the systematics research of most other organisms all the species of all the great apes would be placed in only one genus.
That’s how genetically similar we are.”
Definitely. What is it, close to 99.5% genetic similarity? Something like that. And it’s interesting, too, I believe this is correct, that human genetic diversity is far less than the other great apes due to a genetic bottleneck that took place before/during the migration out of Africa. Hence the mitochondrial eve and all that. Wild stuff.
Ethan, I also think it’s interesting that the final assertion in that television series you mentioned was that the most recent evidence suggests we are probably adapted to living in environments with an unusual amount of change taking place. The reason I think that is because a huge percentage of the unwanted plants and animals that associate with us (the pests) are also noted for being organisms that exploit disturbed environments very well.
Seems to me, most of the democrat party’s leadership worships in Christian churches. That they believe the fairy tale that is the bible, and how you turn a blind eye towards that is beyond me.
Right or Left – they all stink. But – back to the topic. The two sources of global warming information are corrupt & tainted. The fact is they cannot explain the past decade (cooler). The fact is they cannot explain the MWP, nor can they exlpain the Little Ice Age.
I am not against moving off of fossil fuels, I support being a good steward of the planet. But – all this AGW stuff is all about the money, and has little to do with fixing or solving anything.
Have a good Thanksgiving all.
“the most recent evidence suggests we are probably adapted to living in environments with an unusual amount of change taking place”
That definitely makes sense. What really interests me is how these environmental/ecological changes influenced the evolution of intelligence. We evolved bipedalism as a response to the savannah-fication of African forest, but then evolved acute intelligence because of our bipedalism (frees up the hands for tools, better vision for seeing longer distances). Only then could we have the capability to live in any environment, including and especially environments that were rapidly changing. We are lucky we evolved when and where we did. Fascinating stuff.
This is a real man-bites-dog story. “Republicans reject Reason and Facts.” Who could have seen that coming?
quarterback the teabagger is now the definitive authority on science as well. This in addition to his world class credentials as a historian and as a lawyer who has been highly trained at the best schools.
QB, you laughably contend that because you can find a handful of scientists who disagree with global warming that the notion is therefore either undecided or should be struck down entirely. Using that old conservative canard, you take one scientist who accepts global warming and one who rejects it and claim that there is significant skepticism within the scientific community, because, see, there is parity. We know you use the same tactics to argue for torture, would you do likewise to argue in favor of pedophilia or domestic violence?
What you can’t do is talk about the preponderance of scientists who absolutely endorse the notion of man made global warming. You can find scientists who bought into the thoroughly discredited Fleischmann-Pons cold water fusion nonsense. That does not give the Fleischmann-Pons work credibility. Science does not operate that way. And those scientists didn’t have a direct financial stake in promoting that cause. Many of the global warming denying scientists do have a financial horse in this race.
The percentage of scientists who accept global warming as being man made is 97%. I know that if I don’t provide “proof” you will howl like a banshee, so here:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
A high percentage of the global warming skeptics within science are also beholden to industries who have a definite interest in denying that global warming even exists. A more accurate scientific panel discussion of global warming would include 3 scientists who are skeptics and 97 who are not. Presented in this more accurate fashion, there would be no confusion about which position actually has the weight of science behind it.
Hmmm, you actively promote an agenda that is at undeniable odds with the facts. Does that mean “you lie?” Does that make you a “liar?” Does that mean that you “worship the FATHER OF LIES?” By the standards which you employ for everyone else it does. Your standards of truthiness are a two way street QB.
The teabaggers like yourself, however, will never be convinced of any fact that does not conveniently align with your bizarro world view spoon fed to you by Limbaugh and FauxNews. I wonder if you believe in gravity?
Here Gasman – is some proof for you.
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/11/the_real_problem_with_the_climate_science_emails.php
Perhaps if the 97% of the scientists you cite are all using the very same corrupt data…
“Perhaps if the 97% of the scientists you cite are all using the very same corrupt data…”
Doesn’t that just fly in the face of logic?
Thousands of scientists around the world have studied climate change/global warming their entire careers. It is not all based on a computer model. There is a TON of data from all varieties of scientific disciplines that all lead to the same verdict.
If you want to ignore 97% of science and focus on difficulties in modeling one of the most complex systems in nature, that’s on you. But at the end of the day it means that you are still ignoring THE SCIENCE.
Healthnut, trying to DISPROVE something by attempting to prove it is faulty is NOT science. It is PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Science is examination, experimentation, and peer-review. Until we have decades of peer-reviewed data that conflicts with the decades of data that we currently have (which will never happen), your theory is a non-starter.
Gasbag,
You really are incapable of learning, aren’t you? You don’t need to answer; you already have demonstrated it by your actions.
What you said: “quarterback the teabagger is now the definitive authority on science as well.”
What you said: “QB, you laughably contend that because you can find a handful of scientists who disagree with global warming that the notion is therefore either undecided or should be struck down entirely.”
What I actually said: “I read AGW blogs and articles like Realclimate. As a nonscientist, one can only evaluate as best one can the debates between congnescenti, but it is very clear to me that the AGW advocates like those at Realclimate treat this as a matter of faith. Disagreements are not addressed but dismissed. All contrary evidence is denied or dismissed, or, more typically, incorporated into a new, counterintuitive confirmation of the hypothesis — much like how one of my left-wing professors used to describe conspiracy theories.”
So, what I said was basically the opposite of what you said I said. Big surprise. You are not only incapable of learning but incapable of engaging in an honest discussion. You are busy railing against the voices in your addled and spiteful brain.
On the merits, as I said, I am a nonscientist and make the best I can of what I read. But at least I know one thing you do not, which is that science doesn’t work by votes or surveys. You didn’t think about that when you were making your smart comments about how “science doesn’t work like that,” did you? In fact, smothering and unchallenged “consensus” is more often the enemy of scientific truth.
The survey you cite is interesting but doesn’t prove much of anything. Perhaps you think it proves Liam’s dire fantasy that civilization will be destroyed during this century and likely render us extinct. Funny they didn’t collect any data like that. But you as a typical left-wing ideologue are incapable of thinking other than in simplistic and extremist terms.
Enjoy your confused thought patterns. That’s the best anyone can hope for someone so willfully deluded and ignorant.
“Healthnut, trying to DISPROVE something by attempting to prove it is faulty is NOT science. It is PSEUDOSCIENCE.”
Complete bs.
You whole world is BS, idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Use_of_vague.2C_exaggerated_or_untestable_claims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_ignorance
Your whole world is a fraud.
LOLOLOL
Those are probably the two most hilarious posts I’ve seen as “proof” of someone’s claim. Perhaps you should study them a bit more. If you try real hard you might see that they . . . CONTRADICT your pseudoscientific assertion.
Not only that, but many of the hallmarks of pseudoscience listed on that wiki page arguably apply to AGW and its fanaticists. So thanks for that.
Everyone wants to know how to evaluate, anticipate and predict where Obama wants to go as America’s President. The best way is to look at what he says. He told us what he believed. He said that the interests of the community are more important than are the interests of the individual. However, America was founded on individual freedom, which means the interests of the individual are more important than the community or the society. America grew economically because of individual freedom and the resulting free market. No other nation experienced America’s level of prosperity. The rest of the world was founded for thousands of years on the community interests being superior to individual interests, because a few elite ruled the many and could never take a chance on individuals having their own way, bordered only by laws to prevent injustice. Obama made his choice to support the Old World position and is moving America, through enormous expansion of government and debt, in that direction. It is clear by his statement, by those with whom he associated as described on claysamerica.com. You need not be confused, as Obama made it clear how to predict his moves. Global warming, even as an unscientific hoax, fits into his appeal to crowds, not individuals.
The whole climate gate thing really makes the whole AGW concept look pretty bad.
Still – buy up the prius’s and volts (if that ever comes to market). I’d love to install a solar systm, maybe not get off the grid completely, but partially.
I think, at some point – people will look back on this the way we look back on the comet pills they sold back around 1910 or the whole Y2K boondoggle.
Here is just one source among innumerable ones available that discusses corruption of climate science. It is only by a professor at MIT, so I realize he isn’t credible to liberals.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
In case the ignoramus Ethan does not yet comprehend, the proponents of AGW in fact have the burden of proof, and it has to be proof of a reasonably specific hypothesis.
I still can’t wait for Ethan’s explanation of how demonstrating the faultiness of scientific methods or data used to test a hypothesis is not science but pseudoscience.
. . . ?
healthnut,
You are hanging your hat on that Atlantic article? First of all, it is by Megan McArdle, who has been charitably referred to as a “free-market libertarian dung beetle” and an arrogant, elitist snob. To say that the content of her articles is regularly identified as being factually challenged is an understatement. She also has an irritating tendency to be drippingly condescending toward working moms. She is a demagogue who somehow manages to translate any subject into “big government always bad; private market always good.” Her field of “expertise” – if we charitably refer to it as such – is finance and economics, not science. McArdle displays a nearly absolute lack of understanding regarding science and how to write about it. She carelessly chucks initials and acronyms around without any apparent knowledge of what they stand for. She wouldn’t recognize empiricism if she tripped over it.
If you read the comments beneath it you will see that using these e-mails as “proof” to debunk global warming makes a mighty thin broth. It’s clear that there are other sets of data besides that of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. McArdle makes the untenable leap of illogic by asserting that the content of these hacked e-mails disproves man made global warming, or at least casts serious doubt. Nonsense.
These are stolen e-mails. Have they been edited? McArdle does not consider the source or the implications, she makes unsupportable assertions. Furthermore:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Despite McArdle’s hype, the e-mails do not support the wingnut anti global warming tropes that have been trotted out for years. This is merely a selective look at candid correspondence between scientists. Nothing more. For McArdle, and you, to try and extrapolate great truths from this cursory swipe at global warming exposes you both as being ignorant regarding science and journalistic ethics.
You can argue the cause of the rise in temperature, whether it is a cyclical phenomenon, or a result of human behavior. What you can’t argue is whether or not temps have risen. It is recorded weather data and arithmetic. The deniers problem is they just don’t believe anything, and can’t be convinced.
QB, you don’t understand facts or logic. I wouldn’t expect you to understand the difference between science and pseudoscience. And it sure as heck ain’t worth my time explaining it to you. I gave you two links that sum up precisely why climate change denial is pseudoscience. You laughed. There is a ton of research online that you could easily find. You refuse. Consensus among career scientists. You don’t believe it.
If you want to enter the real world that would be entirely up to you.
Ethan,
Is the world warming? I think so.
Has the AGW alarmists view been harmed now that a very large part of the data used to support their arguement has been tainted? I think so.
You, and many here are bigots. Plain and simple. Your immediate characterization of anyone that does not share your belief as a “wing nut” is proof. If I were to treat an ethnic group with the same distain that you do someone with a contrarian view, you’d say I was prejudiced. You are a bigot, plain and simple.
The climate predictions, the data? They cannot even predict the hurricane season.
What caused the MWP? What caused the little ice age?
They don’t know. What about the largest greenhouse “gas” in the atmosphere? (H2O) – What about cloud cover, ice cover, ocean currents, solar activity ….
Wikipedia is not the end all be all, and anyone can cite it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
So once again, Ethan makes ridiculous claim, can’t defend it, and retreats to generalized bs and ad hominem.
Let’s be very clear about this. Ethan claims that it is pseudoscience to challenge the data or methodology of AGW advocates. If the data upon which their claims are based turned out to be completely fabricated, or their methodologies completely unscientific, it would be psdeudoscience to “deny” the truth of AGW. And Ethan claims that those in “denial” have the burden of disproving the AGW hypothesis — however one might define it. Because it is unscientific to question the proponents’ proof.
In reality, of course, that is the opposite of the truth. Testing and challenging data and methodologies, and demonstrating that they are faulty, is a core part of science.
In fact, Ethan is guilty of the very fallacy he cited — that of argument from ignorance or lack of proof. He implicilty claims that in the absence of proof we must assume AGW to be a fact.
Lastly, he contends that the test of scientific truth is measured by consensus or agreement. This would have been news to Einstein, Gallileo, and the scientific world in general.
“What you can’t argue is whether or not temps have risen. The deniers problem is they just don’t believe anything, and can’t be convinced.”
Nice false premise and non sequitur. I’ve never seen a single “denier” deny that temperatures have risen. The questions involve time periods and causes. In all the reading I’ve done, I’ve never seen an AGW advocate acknowledge a single piece of contrary evidence as problematic, although there is a wealth of it. They just incorporate it into their theories in counterintuitive ways, or explain it away.
qb Thanks, you made my point.
QB the teabagger,
You yourself note that you are NOT a scientist, yet you seem to be claiming that you alone on this site are qualified the arbiter of what is and is not science and pseudoscience. How is that possible?
““Republicans reject Reason and Facts.” Who could have seen that coming?”
LOL!-) Indeed.
You’ve got Republicon “healthnut” outing his far right wing point of view first by the fact that he can’t simply say DemocratIC Party (he even put it in lower case like some fourth grader).
Then you’ve got the tag-team anti-science right wingers trying to discredit peer reviewed science journal articles with … something right wing “libertarian” fraud Megan McArdle said?
Right wing fraud Megan McArdle doesn’t understand math, doesn’t understand science, she doesn’t even understand the economics that The Atlantic magazine discredits itself for paying her to pontificate on.
Right wing fraud “quarterback” can’t even concede that scientific evidence supports evolution and that the planet’s age as 4.5 billion years old.
How can anyone who has an even elementary understanding in science take serious someone who rejects scientific evidence?
And yet far right wingers reject scientific evidence again and again. Right wingers would cook the planet rather than examine their assumptions.
Right wingers are anti-science.
It’s CLIMATE CHANGE! Not ‘global warming’. Come on Greg. You’re undermining the cause, brother!
Does anyone else notice all of the name calling coming from the ‘climate change’ advocates?
Very little substance in any of the comments here. Just a lot of character assassination, vitriol, etc. It’s sad, really, and indicative I think of the precarious position the climate change alarmists are in given the recent ClimateGate scandal.
I’ll proudly raise my hand as a Republican, Conservative, college educated, well read and well informed person who believes that anthropogenic climate change is a fraud and a hoax and nothing more.
Right wing sock puppet “Barry” simply rejects the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting climate change and instead simply replaces his faith with peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
In the Northwest the physical evidence of climate change is the explosion in beetles that are born earlier and earlier each spring because of the warm weather, those beetles are eating huge swathes of the Northwest’s forests.
But right winger’s reject physical evidence and replace it with blind faith that such physical evidence is meaningless.
Photographic evidence of climate change includes dramatically shrinking glaciers over the decades, but it is simply denied by right wingers.
Photographic evidence of shrinking polar ice caps over the decades is rejected by right wingers as well.
Temperature readings supporting climate change that go back a hundred years that indicate a slow, steady rise in temperatures is also rejected by right winger’s ‘faith based’ “science”.
Evidence from deeply buried ice that is thousands of years old indicate a dramatic change in climate, an increase in CO2, and a trending warming pattern.
But scientific evidence is simply rejected by the right wingers (Republicans, Libertarians, and Conservatives) who think they are “college educated”, “well read”, and “well informed”.
Sorry, rejecting meticulously peer-reviewed scientific evidence that has been accumulating for decades is NOT “well informed”, at some point it’s just conspiratorial, cultish, and a little cartoonish.
come on, global warming is so evident. look at the temperature, it’s nearly 40 degrees here in Mel yesterday.