There’s a new Washington Post-ABC News poll out on climate change; Juliet Eilperin’s got a good piece up about it (despite the terrible headline, for which she is not responsible).
Having watched this story bounce around today, I’m frustrated yet again by how these polls are discussed. Here’s how I would write the lede to the story:
A ramped-up effort by conservatives and industry groups to cast doubt on climate science has largely failed to convince the public that the science is in error. The fact that the earth’s atmosphere has warmed over the last 100 years is accepted by 72 percent of the public, down from from 80 percent last year. The decline came principally from the ranks of self-identified Republicans. The partisan split has widened on the issue, but a solid majority of the public accepts the findings of climate science and supports legislative efforts to address climate change.
To our ears this sounds “biased,” because it accepts—without counter claims from the “other side”—the following three propositions:
- climate change is a fact, a process already underway, not some sort of speculation or proposition of faith;
- a coalition of fossil fuel industries and conservative foundations have conspired for decades to deny this fact, aided and abetted by the American political media; and
- now that climate/energy legislation is a real possibility, that coalition is sharply ramping up its efforts.
All three of these propositions are demonstrably true; it’s impossible to understand climate and energy politics over the last two decades without understanding them. Yet they never seem to sink into the firmament. They don’t shape coverage; they’re not part of the background architecture of climate stories.
So polls about climate science get treated like the results of some contest between two ideological interest groups. It becomes a horserace story—“Democrats/environmentalists are losing”—rather than a story about danger to public health. It’s about environmentalists’ failure to persuade rather than the anti-scientific obscurantism that’s completely overtaken the Republican party, with financial support from large corporate interests.
If I can’t convince a guy standing in a downpour that it’s raining, seems to me the dumbass in the rain is the story, not my poor messaging.
——
One final note: the drop among Independents (86 to 71 percent) is being oversold. In the last four or five years, there’s been a broad shift left in party identification. Many Independents became Democrats and many Republicans became Independents. The group “Independents” is therefore much more conservative than it used to be.
——
One final final note. Tell me, does this make sense to you?
Lisa Woolcott, another Republican poll respondent, said she doesn’t think that burning fossil fuels is “causing all the global warming,” adding: “We can’t control what happens in the atmosphere.” But Woolcott, a physician’s assistant who lives in Kansas City, Kan., said she supports the idea of a bill that would cap the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and doesn’t think the United States should predicate its actions on what other nations do. “We need to do what’s best for us,” she said. “I don’t think we should back down.”
One doesn’t want to mock, but I think it’s perfectly fair to say that collecting opinions like this is no way to chart a way forward on policy. We might heed the words of political scientist Larry Bartels:
Whether it would be desirable to have a democracy based on public opinion is beside the point, because public opinion of the sort necessary to make it possible simply does not exist. The very idea of “popular rule” is starkly inconsistent with the understanding of political psychology provided by the past half-century of research by psychologists and political scientists. That research offers no reason to doubt that citizens have meaningful values and beliefs, but ample reason to doubt that those values and beliefs are sufficiently complete and coherent to serve as a satisfactory starting point for democratic theory. In other words, citizens have attitudes but not preferences ...
What these polls gather are attitudes. Climate change science has become “how do you feel about liberals?” Capping carbon elicits something different; competition with China elicits something different; clean air and water elicits something different. It may be helpful to understand these affective responses of the public, but they are no substitute for science and pragmatism in policymaking. Ultimately leaders are going to have to acknowledge the problem and deal with it. Waiting until all the polls line up is a gutless dereliction of duty.
Comments
View as Flat
Eeli Posted 7:22 am
25 Nov 2009
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:31 am
25 Nov 2009
How to reverse it? Pass some legislation. Once it's not a top agenda item for the Dems, people will cease being so heated about it.
Permalink
shearwater Posted 6:31 pm
02 Dec 2009
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 10:46 am
25 Nov 2009
If we need to understand it better, Eric Hoffer wrote an entire book on the subject. I just want to hear Sen. Inhofe tell us again about global cooling after we have another hottest decade on record.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 12:57 pm
25 Nov 2009
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 1:04 pm
25 Nov 2009
We should be reporting on the existence of angels too. According to polls, the majority of Americans believe that angels exist.
That must mean that they exist, right?
Permalink
Citizen Andy Posted 2:12 pm
25 Nov 2009
The work of political scientists show that generally, people have a party ID and then a loose collection of preferences, not a strong ideology. Party ID substitutes for ideology in most people, and is akin to a brand preference than a philosophical position reached through reason. This has been the findings of every major study of the issue ever since the publication of "The American Voter" way back in the 1950s.
What happens is people cling to a party ID based on the issues they care most about (or mosre often, inherit from their families). Later as they encounter new issues their opinions become more fully formed by listening to other influential voices they identify with (often in their party). If they agree with the majority view of their party, this reinforces their party ID. If they disagree, this can create a cleavage (ie, why Catholic Democrats in Pennsylvania may be very liberal when it comes to tax policy but disagree with the Dem platform on abortion).
The environment, as most pollsters will tell you, rates fairly low among top concerns of average voters, while pocketbook issues rank high. Most voters have very unformed, and hence swayable, views on enviro issues, and are fairly UNlikely to rise to the issue of salience in deciding their vote.
SOOOOO, you have two contrary trends working against one another: 1) Republicans who believe the science on global warming and are sick of hypocrisy on spending, etc and grow weary of the Iraq War and Bush Administration began to quit identifying themselves as Republicans and instead identified as "Republican Leaning Independents." This group has grown at a very high rate, while self-identification as a Republican has reached an all-time low in the history of polling.
2) People for whom global warming is not as salient an issue but for whom jobs and the economy is, are being persuaded by big polluters that solving climate change will cost them their jobs. (mind you, NONE of the economic studies say this-- the study which is most often cited done by the National Association of Manufacturers shows robust economic growth and job creation with the implementation of cap and trade, despite them not modelling the efficiency and renewable energy portions of the bill which everyone agrees will be the real job creators) This is the equivalent of the fearmongering about WMDs and terrorism that "the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud-- THEY KNEW THERE WAS NO SMOKING GUN BUT ARE MAKING THE ARGUMENT ANYWAY!
So, you have people who are scared $%#&less; willing to chuck the environment in favor of fear over jobs being convinced by the corporate world that warming isn't occurring but meanwhile people who are leaving their party of choice because of the trogolodytic opinions of their party's "intelligentsia" (and yes, that is meant ironically). The most important thing here to remember is, though, THAT MAJORITIES IN BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES AGREE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS OCCURRING. Since when did we need 90% of people to agree that the world was round before we send Columbus across the Atlantic? Did we need 90% approval before sending men to the moon?
But I do agree-- the headline shouldn't be "People who say the sky is blue losing ground to those who say it is red." it should be "Corporate misinformation campaign dupes 5% of 'red sky' people."
Permalink
Muddy Axles Posted 5:18 pm
25 Nov 2009
That page was from March 2007, 2-1/2 years ago. The only difference was that the term "global warming" was used almost exclusively then.
The real thinking people were nearly as skeptical then as they are now. They (we) find it difficult to believe the claims of the scientific "intelligensia" (and I use that term loosely) and the political hacks (part of the reason for the skepticism, I assure you) which mostly predict doom and gloom without offering any hope or solid forecasts for true progress to a new climate model, if, in fact, a new model is needed or possible!
It doesn't require a PhD to identify snakeoil when it is being peddled...and the traveling roadshow, pots and pans hanging from the sides of the brightly painted wagons with all the trappings, add nothing to the credibility of the entire premise put forth by the enviro-religionists.
I registered here at Grist solely to enable this comment. I won't be a regular...too many unkind arrows in the air in this environment here. You folks speak a good line of inclusiveness, but wish to include no one with ideas too divergent from your own.
I do like your layout...I may steal elements of it for my own endeavor.
Muddy
Permalink
Muddy Axles Posted 5:19 pm
25 Nov 2009
That page was from March 2007, 2-1/2 years ago. The only difference was that the term "global warming" was used almost exclusively.
The real thinking people were nearly as skeptical then as they are now. They (we) find it difficult to believe the claims of the scientific "intelligensia" (and I use that term loosely) and the political hacks (part of the reason for the skepticism, I assure you) which mostly predict doom and gloom without offering any hope or solid forecasts for true progress to a new climate model, if, in fact, a new model is needed or possible!
It doesn't require a PhD to identify snakeoil when it is being peddled...and the traveling roadshow, pots and pans hanging from the sides of the brightly painted wagons and all the trappings, add nothing to the credibility of the entire premise put forth by the enviro-religionists.
I registered here at Grist solely to enable this comment. I won't be a regular...too many unkind arrows in the air in this environment here.
I do like your layout...I may steal elements of it for my own endeavor.
Muddy
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:03 am
26 Nov 2009
The really alarming part of a slide is that it signals climate legislation will follow the path that healthcare reform has.
70% wanted real reform and at least some kind of public option, then the teabaggery started being covered as fact by mass media, "death panels" became real in the minds of millions of americans. The result? So far any and all reform, regulation of the insurance industry has failed, and there will be no public option until 2013 or 14, if at all.
The 80 or 72 or 55% who want climate problems addressed will not trump lobbyists and clusterfox and teabagging in the media mind set, lies and bribes will win again. Polling on climate change won't matter. Remember when everyone in media was saying it didn't matter if Rupert bought the Wall Street Journal? His wife is liberal they said, she will make him behave. Mass media and mass insanity go together.
The only way to get any progress on climate will come from a global commerical boom in renewable energy and organic ag, and the only thing that will motivate that is fear. Not fear of climate disaster, but fear of econoomic disaster as the US slides ever further behind in the competition to manufacture the new global energy economy.
When even the ultra-wingnut robber baron who funded the swiftboaters, namely Pickens, gets on the big green commercial boom bandwagon but can't get anything done because he can't get the power from wind farms to where he can sell it, it ought to be a sign that even the worst clusterfox propaganda can't hide the fact that we are on the verge of economic armageddon.
Before looming climate disaster makes prosperity and comfort here all but impossible, the sea of US national debt will. That's something that can move even politicians. National bankruptcy, we are almost there. Failing to jump on this green manufacturing boom right now will make it impossible to catch up.
Put questions that address the failure of US green manufacturing to compete on the world stage in poll after poll after poll (I mean HAMMER it home) and just maybe it would move the "fair and balanced" (lies have to have equal weight and coverage with facts, it's only fair and balanced) media mindset.
Permalink
randino Posted 6:05 am
26 Nov 2009
Happy Thanksgiving from Ohio, where we are celebrating the demise of another coal plant. The first time it has ever happened in Ohio.
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Permalink
t jones Posted 8:46 am
26 Nov 2009
The debate has now begun, and the Gorebots that told themselves that the debate is long dead are now losing this battle. The war for hearts, minds, and popular opinion is underway, and you believe that those who do not mimic your gullibility and zeal are "dumbass[es] in the rain".
You obviously lack the power of pursuasion. While you detail an "industrial" conspiracy in your monotonous blogs, more Americans will opt to retain their healthy skepticism.
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 8:53 am
26 Nov 2009
Science be damned. The facts don't matter.
What matters is empty rhetoric and dumbing down the population enough that they will support Big Oil.
Permalink
t jones Posted 8:59 pm
26 Nov 2009
you appear to be firmly committed to the "science". Are you what is known as a "climate scientist"? Evidently, you have crunched all of the numbers, seen all of the data, and have independently formed an objective, scientific theory that - coincidentally - is identical to the existing "consensus". Right?
The only possible way you could be so convinced by "science" is if you rendered all available objective research yourself. Is this the case?
In all probability, you are not a scientist. You are a gullible zealot with tremendous faith, taking anonymous "scientists" at their word, fooled by an imaginary "consensus".
Your comment is clear evidence of your hatred for real science.
Your version of "science" includes ridicule and condemnation for divergent theories.
True science is the pure pursuit of objective reality.
Do you sometimes close your eyes, plug your ears, and repeat the phrase "science is on my side, science is on my side"? Why else would you imagine that those who don't share your fervent beliefs are blasphemous knuckle-draggers?
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 10:31 pm
26 Nov 2009
But I know not everyone agrees with science. For instance there are people who believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And that the earth is flat.
How about you, T Jones? Have you - personally - crunched the numbers on the shape of the earth? Do you beleive it is round? Do you beleive that the earth goes around the sun, or the reverse? Have you crunched the numbers? Why?
Permalink
t jones Posted 11:16 pm
26 Nov 2009
You closely resemble the flat-earthers of the dark ages. For instance, if divergent theories are offered to conventional knowledge, you zealots will counter with allegations of blasphemy while attempting to discredit anyone who might suggest that the earth is not flat, or that the earth is not warming significantly.
I can tell you are going to stick with the Gorebot strategy of persuasion:
step 1) If challenged, repeat phrase "the debate is over, the science is settled".
step 2) repeat step 1
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 8:58 am
27 Nov 2009
Say, are you using a computer to type your messages? Any science there?
Any polyesters in your clothing? Never mind...
Anyway, yes, I'm glad you pointed it out for me. Just like the earth being round, the climate science indeed is settled.
Except for the flat-earthers who don't beleive it because they can't see it for themselves (or rather because they have been duped by Big Oil).
Permalink
t jones Posted 9:54 am
27 Nov 2009
If Al Gore produced a movie about the dangers of ManBearPig, and called it "science", you would also *believe* in the existence of half man, half bear, and half pigs.
Canadian Dave: "I don't understand the science; I just *believe* in what other people tell me that the science told them."
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 10:01 am
27 Nov 2009
And what are you listening to?
If not the science, then what?
Permalink
t jones Posted 10:40 am
27 Nov 2009
But when you pretend that you are certain in the obvious absence of sufficient evidence, I am going to call you on your bullshit. Blind faith is not "science". You may repeatedly proclaim a solid faith in "science", but what you believe in is not science. You are fully invested in blatant hysteria.
Canadian Dave: "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING NOW!"
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 11:16 am
27 Nov 2009
Face with a choice between you KNOWing that the science is inconclusive, and hundreds of scientists who say otherwise, I'll take your side any day.
C'mon everyone - T Jones KNOWs! Join us!
Hello? Hello?
Oh, nobody is rushing to join us. Imagine that!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:32 am
26 Nov 2009
How can that strain of psychosis be overcome? Encourage smoking for one and alchoholism and even greater levels of prescription drug use. It would allow the terminally beckscremental to go quietly. And by all means continue to enable insurance company death panels (the real death panels) that work through all the tricks of the mega-opolist insurance corps.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em Palinites. And don't forget, those hillbilly heroin tablets work better if you crush and snort or shoot them. Drug limbaugh has shown you the way to relieve your pain (and ours) permanently. Just say yes to the wisdom of the ceegar chomping portly doctor shopper. Do it for your country!
Permalink
t jones Posted 9:17 pm
26 Nov 2009
Your comment highlights the primary concern of David Roberts; your faith in The Greenhouse Doomsday Theory is entirely void of objective science and is deeply rooted in partisan politics. Your "amazing" hatred of the other side drives you hopelessly further towards the Left Pole, cementing your beliefs in pathetic conspiracy theories.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:33 am
27 Nov 2009
The only way to get solvent again is to beat the world in manufacturing. Nobody wants our gas guzzlers or nuclear reactors anymore or any of the old energy wasting fossil fueled dinosaur technology.
We need to figure out what they do want and start making that stuff better, faster, and cheaper than the competition. You believe in competition, right? Hehey.
Teabaggers may not have the best answers to our pressing economic problems, regardless of their views on evolution (admit it, you don't believe in Darwin's theory either), climate change, and death panels. Just something to consider.
Nothing real serious, it just involves the end of US empire. No national exports, no money, bad credit, no influence on the world stage..one follows the other..I guess it's too hard to grasp eyyh t? Maybe consult limbaugh or beck for explanation?
Permalink
t jones Posted 9:22 am
27 Nov 2009
Again, you've directly proved my point that you are a close-minded partisan, not at all concerned by your blind faith in the Democratic Party.
I am sure you think of yourself as a pragmatist, but you're an unmistakable poser.
You do not believe in science. You believe what other leftists believe. Your posts are similar to the typical deranged rantings of Butch Maddow or whats-his-name Doberman. You should seriously consider taking your psychotic hatred of conservatives to the nearest mental health professional.
Its important to keep your mind open to diverse ideas.
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 9:31 am
27 Nov 2009
Again, you've directly proved my point that you are a close-minded partisan, not at all concerned by your blind faith in the [Republican] Party.
I am sure you think of yourself as a pragmatist, but you're an unmistakable poser.
You do not believe in science. You believe what other [right wingers] believe. Your posts are similar to the typical deranged rantings of Butch Maddow or whats-his-name Doberman. You should seriously consider taking your psychotic hatred of [normal people] to the nearest mental health professional.
Its important to keep your mind open to diverse ideas.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:12 am
27 Nov 2009
You would take a shower in a KBR built facility, right? Or send your daughter to work for halliburton in Iraq. You must have a "scientific" faith in "free" market contracting.
Hehey, really a gay slur against Maddow? Very sophisticated! No doubt she would be devestated by your scathing repartee, if she took any notice of it (doesn't seem very likely though).
Actually I believe in capitalism, real competitive capitalism that can put us back in the lead in global manufacturing. This sorry excuse for a (wall street) planned economy you all put your faith in isn't capitalism at all, it's corporate feudalism. The divine right of monopoly corporate capital to rule the planet.
Kind of ironic since the orginal american revolution and the teaparty you "teabaggers" claim to emulate was in opposition to one of the first feudal corporate monopolies, owned by british royalty, the British East India Company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
You all put your faith in the princes of monopoly capital like Cheney and Bush. Good choice. An endless sea of national debt is the result. Corporate kleptocracy gone wild. And I bet you are not making a dime off of that faith. In fact it is destroying the US economy and your future prosperity along with it.
Just sit back, take in the beckscrement you live on and enjoy, as in the american revolution and WW II you relax while the rest of US do what needs to be done to face down this current crisis. Ok?
After all it's your right to slur and taunt while we work, it's still a free country. No thanks to the kidnapping, torturing, murdering Bush/Cheney regime that "contracted" our future out to their cronies.
Permalink
randino Posted 9:39 am
26 Nov 2009
Gotta give him credit for guts. But what T. Jones ignores, is that there is an equally powerful movement on the ground that is causing coal plants to be cancelled, that is making local municipalities and states support renewable forms of energy while turning their back on fossil foolishness. A few good days of publicity about the hacking of the climate center computers, does not a war win - especially when what was revealed did not repudiate climate change. Like the tea partiers that he is no doubt allied with, he is good at casting a very big shadow, very good at grabbing headlines, very good at shouting down his opponents, but let's see how he and his crowd do in the hard, slogging, trench warfare of writing our energy and environmental future. This fight hasn't even begun T. Jones. Save your victory speeches. You might end up having to eat them.
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Permalink
t jones Posted 8:09 pm
26 Nov 2009
What is more important?
a) extending health insurance to 30 million Americans? or
b) rescuing the planet, from what (they claim to believe) will certainly induce the End of Times. Drought, starvation, hurricanes, insects, malaria, rising sea levels, social upheaval, etc...
To me, it doesn't sound like a public option will do us any good when we are swimming with the polar bears. This leads me to conclude that Democrats and Gorebots both desire absurd legislation for two entirely unrelated motives.
Gorebots *BELIEVE* (as in "a proposition of faith") that they can protect this planet from humanity.
Democrats believe they can generate some serious cashflow. Leftists never pass on an opportunity to get their hands in your pockets.
So why did Democrats retreat? This is not a victory speech, but I must admit we've taken the battlefield. If the pendulum continues on its current path, the Employment Free Choice Act will take next priority and climate legislation will not be seen before mid-term elections.
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 11:16 am
26 Nov 2009
A colossal distraction from the vital work of saving the planet as fit place for habitation by the children and life as we know it has been perpetrated by the willful and pernicious politicization of science.
Permalink
Clifford Wells Posted 5:13 pm
26 Nov 2009
Why on Earth are you so worried about losing ground from 80 to 72 percent? Gee, I thought the real problem was some rural senators who represent huge energy interests.
Grist bills itself as being all about environment and humor, and I guess you turned the comedy up a little. Thanks for the most amusing Thanksgiving in years. Keep up the ... ugh ... good work!
Permalink
Clifford Wells Posted 11:25 am
27 Nov 2009
I would refer you to Dr. Jeff Masters' latest blog on Weather Underground. He starts off with the tobacco research that started in about 1954, which was fought by lobbyists and a consortium called "Manufactured Doubt."
Jeff goes on to say that although environmentalists (including Hansen) have exaggerated the effects of global warming, Manufactured Doubt is well and alive today. It's job is to convince redneck, non-scientists with a high school degree that AGW does not exist - despite reams of data that shows a clear and present danger since 1880.
Maybe you all should read Jeff Masters, as he always is scientific, neutral (he's a skeptical weather guy), and well documented. And he says that climate change exists (he does not agree that hurricanes will get worse, BTW, showing remarkable objectivity). I have no reason to disagree with him. The science is there, maybe without Manufactured Doubters like good ole "T" here.
Permalink
t jones Posted 11:55 am
27 Nov 2009
I am interested to know exactly how you uncovered our well planned conspiracy to undermine science and "Manufacture Doubt."
I suppose the cat has left the bag. We've been working for years and spent billions of dollars to dumb down the public so we may profit from their death. Mwuhahahaha!
At our top secret Big-Oil Industry Headquarters, we've developed new technologies to scan your brain and monitor your thoughts with military-grade satellites. This has been our secret weapon to gain an edge on the debate to stop legislation.
And we would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling scientists! Damn you, Jeff Masters!
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 12:15 pm
27 Nov 2009
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf
And here is a website with more info about PR clouding climate science http://www.desmogblog.com/
Permalink
t jones Posted 12:36 pm
27 Nov 2009
Again, I am not surprised that you zealots are not receptive to naturally varying scientific theories. I am not surprised that supposedly "scientific" organizations (like the Royal Society or the IPCC) that are fully committed to The Greenhouse Doomsday Theory want to silence divergent theories. Are you?
What exactly are you trying to prove? That humans are deceptive? That the public is vulnerable to propaganda and fear tactics? I would completely agree; you're a prime example of the uneducated falling prey to deceptive media campaigns, Gorebot.
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 12:49 pm
27 Nov 2009
:-)
So who are the "Real" Scientists?
Permalink
guade00 Posted 5:45 pm
27 Nov 2009
Do provide us with links to the science upon which you are basing your opinions. The science upon which we "Gorebots" (good, name calling, that earns *my* respect right there--could come back with "Lim-bot," but I'll refrain) is all part of the public domain. Surely you have come to this site with more than just name-calling and politically-oriented taunts in mind. If you intend to convince anyone here, you have to come to the table with more than that.
We can offer you the IPCC Assessment Reports or more current research, all which I am certain you have read and believe are simply an enviro-religious conspiracy. Fine. Show us what you got, can't wait to see your peer-reviewed graphs of the massive cooling in the last 3 years, sun-spot theories, Steffan-Boltzman sophistry, and "natural" cycles. We're waiting....
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 10:12 pm
27 Nov 2009
But expect more of the same from TJ...
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 11:51 pm
27 Nov 2009
Permalink
randino Posted 9:02 am
28 Nov 2009
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
shearwater Posted 12:07 pm
28 Nov 2009
Permalink
John Faust Posted 12:41 pm
28 Nov 2009
These are the last two paragraphs:
"A recent paper by the biologist Janis L Dickinson, published in the journal Ecology and Society, proposes that constant news and discussion about global warming makes it difficult for people to repress thoughts of death, and that they might respond to the terrifying prospect of climate breakdown in ways that strengthen their character armour but diminish our chances of survival(14). There is already experimental evidence suggesting that some people respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption(15). Dickinson proposes that growing evidence of climate change might boost this tendency, as well as raising antagonism towards scientists and environmentalists. Our message, after all, presents a lethal threat to the central immortality project of Western society: perpetual economic growth, supported by an ideology of entitlement and exceptionalism.
If Dickinson is correct, is it fanciful to suppose that those who are closer to the end of their lives might react more strongly against reminders of death? I havent been able to find any experiments testing this proposition, but it is surely worth investigating. And could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the past two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence? If so, how the hell do we confront it?"
Permalink
J4zonian Posted 4:11 pm
01 Dec 2009
What do you expect but an argument with trolls when you post an article about public opinion on controversial science? We need to ignore the trolls, online and in real life, and forge ahead with making our own lives more ecological, banding together with others of like mind and getting our communities ready for peak oil/climate catastrophe. Transition Towns, organic permaculture, efficiency at home, work and in transportation...are among the answers.
How many of you refuse to drive or fly now and walk, bicycle and take the train instead? How many of you have installed windmills and solar panels and passive solar collection? how many of you collect and use rainwater? Go for the low-hanging fruit first, and by the time the trolls wake up to it we will be living in a 51% solar organic society, well on our way nationally to simply ratifying what's already happened, letting the politicians and deniers scramble to catch up and convince everyone they were always behind climate science and solar and local, organic permaculture. Either make that the subject or get off the computer and go plant a fruit tree.
Permalink
DaveWR Posted 2:56 pm
02 Dec 2009
"The fact that the earth’s atmosphere has warmed over the last 100 years is accepted by 72 percent of the public, down from from 80 percent last year."
This is a meaningless comment. Frankly, I don't understand why 100% don't believe climate has warmed over the past 100 years. We have been coming out of the little ice age so thank God it has warmed. It has generally been warming over the past 10,000 years since the last major ice age.
and this -
"To our ears this sounds “biased,” because it accepts—without counter claims from the “other side”—the following three propositions:
"1. climate change is a fact, a process already underway, not some sort of speculation or proposition of faith;"
Yes climate change is, has always been, and will in future continue to be a fact. So what's new?
"2. a coalition of fossil fuel industries and conservative foundations have conspired for decades to deny this fact, aided and abetted by the American political media;"
They have denied AFACC (Anthropogenically Forced Abnormal Climate Change), not climate change.
That would be right wing media sources like ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, The New York Times, PBS etc??
"3. now that climate/energy legislation is a real possibility, that coalition is sharply ramping up its efforts."
In light of the revelations of the emails, I would certainly hope so.
Permalink