The deniers are winning, but only with the GOP
Gallup polls indicate that Republicans are less likely to recognize global warming 52
-
Posted 11:09 AM on 20 Sep 2008
by Joseph Romm -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Related Stories
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
The science behind a climate headline
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Gar Lipow Posted 3:22 am
20 Sep 2008
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:31 am
20 Sep 2008
In the early days of Bush about 33% of American voters self-identified as Republicans. It's now down to 27%. That's an 18% drop in only a couple of years. (Pew Research Center)
Additionally only 11% of all Americans state a belief that global warming will never happen.
Time to write off deniers as simply noise in the system and get on with working out solutions.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:27 am
20 Sep 2008
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:18 am
20 Sep 2008
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 6:57 am
20 Sep 2008
The yawning gap in D vs. R views of the science (not the politics) seems to just underscore Republican disdain for science, ANY science, that (a) makes their current "non-negotiable lifestyles" less justifiable or (b) flies in the face of their dearly-held religious beliefs.
I don't know any Republicans or evangelical Christians (is there a difference any more?) who go out of their way to point out weaknesses in the Theory of General Relativity. Or the Theory of Quantum Mechanics. Or the Theory of Gravity. Because it does not affect either (a) nor (b).
But start talking about a scientific consensus on global warming -- which is probably much stronger than the concensus on quantum mechanics -- and those folks go ballistic. Suddenly they consider themselves experts in advanced scientific principles and finite-difference 3-D modeling.
Look: if those people don't really give a shit about the implications of global warming science, or are too damned self-centered to want to make even the slightest sacrifice in their "non-negotiable lifestyles", so be it. But they should say so. They shouldn't cling to junk science to justify their preferred response to 'inconvenient truths.'
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 11:42 am
20 Sep 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 11:44 am
20 Sep 2008
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:01 pm
20 Sep 2008
24% don't know that the US won its independence from Great Britain.
Only 11% or so of Americans are global climate change deniers.
Seems to me that we've done a pretty good job educating Americans about global climate vs. some other basic stuff.
--
BTW, before you 'Old Europe' folks get carried away with your snickering - 16% of Germans think the Sun spins around us.
19% of Brits think the same and another 14% of Brits didn't even have a clue as to which did the orbiting.
--
When I suggest that we start ignoring deniers, I'm talking about net trolls.
We shouldn't let people like the CEO of General Motors (Bob Lutz) or the Republican Vice President Candidate (Sarah Palin) go unchallenged.
They need to be publicly called on their ignorance.
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 2:59 pm
20 Sep 2008
Climate change has not been about science for quite a long while now. Those on the left who continue to pretend that this is not the case are the real "deniers".
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 3:01 pm
20 Sep 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:06 pm
20 Sep 2008
a. A war.
b. The economy
Right now the economy, not the environment, is the number one issue on voters minds.
Additionally, in America (and elsewhere) social reform issues can play a significant issue. Abortion, immigration, race relations........ all of these can play a meaningful role in the minds of some voters that will top the environment.
Lastly, the environmental movement, with its transparent intellectual dishonesty, isn't just about the environment. That is what causes people like me to be concerned about supporting it. I am as concerned as the next guy about issues like global warming, disappearing eco systems and the size of the human population. BUT, I DO NOT want regression. I DO NOT want to live in a hunter gatherer or post modern society. I DO NOT want a society with even more governmental say in my life than it already has. But many in the Green movement want these things - that is, not to save the environment (which is their cover story) but as an end in themselves.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:08 pm
20 Sep 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:30 pm
20 Sep 2008
Name me one significant scientific institution in the entire world that says that manmade actions aren't a primary cause of the warming we've experienced in the past 4 decades.
Just one institution, and I'll admit that you're right.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:30 pm
20 Sep 2008
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:45 pm
20 Sep 2008
No worries there.
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/egs
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal
http://greyfalcon.net/92x92
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7
http://greyfalcon.net/truck3
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
http://greyfalcon.net/10xrange
I DO NOT want a society with even more governmental say in my life than it already has.
Patriot Act
Iraq War bill
Deficit Spending decreasing the value of the US dollar, and forcing you to pay increased income taxes.
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
Hell, a US dollar is worth even less than a Canadian dollar now.
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
Oh yeah, and MASSIVE spending, plus MASSIVE deficits.
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
Oh and of course, McCain would kick the Deficit Spending into freaking overdrive. (!)
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/05/15/mccain-defic ...
Since WHEN have the Republicans the party of "Small government". Barry Goldwater?
___
Put it this way,
Who is going to charge the middle-lower class less taxes?
The Republicans, or the Democrats?
http://blog.thehill.com/2008/09/16/mccain-secretly-plans- ...
http://alchemytoday.com/willobamaraisemytaxes.html
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/taxsummary.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akeFON3kg5E
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:52 pm
20 Sep 2008
Don't say "Yes" if he asks you out on a date, you are a lesbian.
Climate change has not been about science for quite a long while now. Those on the left who continue to pretend that this is not the case are the real "deniers".
There are other boards. Find one you agree with. May I suggest Anthony Watts board? I hear it has a nice echo.
Oh, the last conservative I dated asked me out. i felt it was best not to continue due to religious differences; nice lady otherwise.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:00 pm
20 Sep 2008
Ask the people of Houston how their economy is doing without the environment's cooperation. Or better, Galveston.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:54 pm
20 Sep 2008
The cold war changed both parties in the last respect, and the conservative Christian movement within the Republican Party has changed the party from a minimalist Libertarian party to a "morality" party. This is most unfortunate and the primary concern I have about the party.
Nevertheless, ours is less a party driven system than an individual driven one, and some politicians are driven much more to the center - on both sides of the isle. McCain, Lieberman, Olympia Snow, and people like that are much more centrist. Still, for financial and practical political reasons they sometimes have to compromise with the extreme elements of their respective parties (Well, Lieberman managed to avoid that more than most by exiting and surviving).
Thus the criticisms of the party that you made I think are fair. But what Gar doesn't seem to want to acknowledge is that there is a large element of American society that sees the Republican Party more concerned with issues that they are concerned about. There is no getting around this and the Green movement, if it has a collective brain in its head (and I wonder about that) needs to get the Republican party on board with environmental issues. Remember, the Republican party used to be the American conservationists. This can and should be tapped again. The reason that is not happening in my opinion is again because the Green movement as a political entity has also been largely hijacked by people with extreme agendas who are essentially deconstructionist.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:01 pm
20 Sep 2008
Gavelston GOT CLOBBERED in 1906. Was that man made too? Let's try to be a little more sophisticated here.
The Green movement wants the entire economic system turned on its head. They want an end to "consumerism" and an end to industrial production. Now some say it's just not sustainable. Others don't care whether it is or not, they just have a deconstructionist outlook. They HATE modern society. They don't want it to exist. Guys like Wolverine want mankind to function more like the Sioux did 400 years ago. Guys like Russ seem to favor a society that functions like Ancient Greece did.......
So yes, there is economic costs, and man made causes COULD (this is by no means certain) result in major economic dislocation well out of proportion with historical precedent. Very true. Hence the reason that a lot of intelligent people are concerned about it. BUT, they also realize that there is a whole lot more going on in the Green Movement that has nothing to do with concern about economic dislocation - indeed they WANT to see the system collapse.
Hence some people you call "deniers" are more of the conservative "We need to be concerned about this, but we need to be careful that the remedy isn't worse than the disease." This is not an illegitimate approach and should not be treated as such.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:13 pm
20 Sep 2008
Excuse me,
But in what way is McCain currently a "centrist"?
Please be specific.
http://greyfalcon.net/mccain3
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/9/19/16223/5194#com ...
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html
http://thinkprogress.org/mccain-flip-flops/
http://howinsaneisjohnmccain.blogspot.com/2008/03/mccain- ...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/12/mccain-issues-a-chall ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:25 pm
20 Sep 2008
Federal Funding on Stem Cell research. McCain voted for it, it was opposed by his party, supported by Democrats. His position was very unpopular with his party core constituents.
Resolution 2611 Would tighten border security and establish guest worker and "path to citizenship" programs. Republican party opposed it, Democrats supported it, McCain voted for it.
There have been other more historical cases as well.
If the Green movement, and the Democrats in general try to attack John McCain (or his bimbo Palin) they are making a HUGE tactical blunder and will help him win the election. No matter how you slice it or dice it, he's a genuine war hero. He's also got a pretty good moral record for someone who's been in politics as long as he has. Start talking smack about him, and you are giving him votes.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:34 am
21 Sep 2008
The catch of course he also affirmed the House version of the bill which "omits a guest-worker program and a legalization process for illegal immigrants.".
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/25/immigration/index. ...
So all that bill really was building a border fence, and nothing more.
Whats more, he mentions now, that he wouldn't vote for the immigration part of that bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtHOkSWCr6Q
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310007
_____
As for the Stem Cell thing.
You can axe that one too.
(But to be fair, this is a rather recent policy reversal)
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/mccain-on-stem ...
_____
As for the increased minimum wage. It's nice that he says he's for it, but frankly he's yet to actually VOTE for it. And arguing that "Pork" is in there is frankly a rather flimsy stance, considering that makes up only a minuscule amount of the federal budget.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/31/mccain-minimum-wage/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akeFON3kg5E
I'd file that one away into the same category as "I'm for strong regulation against the banking industry".
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/16/mccain-flops-on-regul ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfKPB-AbNts
_____
That said, while I agree ad hominem isn't productive, I wouldn't consider pointing out his policy positions to be "bashing".
And whats more, I consider it fair that when McCain makes blunt false statements, that he is being immoral.
_____
But all that said,
You got anything more specific policy positions that points to "present day" McCain being a centrist?
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:44 am
21 Sep 2008
But then again, that implies he doesn't understand what he's talking about.
So you can slice that either way you like, but neither are good.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
BobG Posted 1:52 am
21 Sep 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:57 am
21 Sep 2008
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:59 am
21 Sep 2008
"Let's try to be a little more sophisticated here.
The Green movement wants the entire economic system turned on its head. They want an end to "consumerism" and an end to industrial production."
Who is this "Green movement" that you've constructed here? It's not representative of any green-oriented person that I know.
Every person that I know wants to change the way that we do things - to move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, for example.
Most would like to see an end to "consumerism" as a hobby and a move to more responsible consuming. They'd like to see the stuff we buy be made in a less environmentally damaging way and from easily recycled materials.
But none that I know want to return to living in caves.
Yes, we do get the occasional 'back to the stone age' whacko show up here, but we just as (more frequently?) get the right wing whacko posting ridiculous stuff.
How about we agree to be sophisticated enough to not set up straw men?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:05 am
21 Sep 2008
Or merely those who are parroting their ideals.
But frankly, I think we can all admit that they are pretty far "out there".
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1 ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Russ Posted 3:27 am
21 Sep 2008
Permalink
HWilkes Posted 4:07 am
21 Sep 2008
Besides what David already said, I would also like to bring up that in most of his votes, McCain has supported and not opposed Bush. Bringing up a couple of places where he might have gone against his own party (in areas that in some cases, aren't necessarily all that central to their entire agenda) hardly makes McCain any kind of 'centrist'.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:56 pm
21 Sep 2008
As for McCain, he's centrist from an AMERICAN standpoint. ALL OF YOU are somewhere far right of center. I doubt there is ANY Republican you would consider centrist - but by definition that means someone who's close to the American norm. Since the party garners roughly half of the American voters support, it MUST, by definition, have people tilting towards the center in it.
Again, the problem with the Green movement is it hates the political right and is making no effort to co-opt it. That's why you will never get it's support. The Green Movement is simply misplaying its hand.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:40 pm
21 Sep 2008
Oh come on Mad.
At very least provide some reason why "present day" McCain is a centrist.
Just making unfounded declarative statements isn't going to get us anywhere.
_
The way I see it,
McCain's changed his whole ideology so drastically, that he no longer resembles a centrist.
Such that talking about who McCain used to be, and who McCain is now, is like talking about two entirely different people.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:11 am
22 Sep 2008
McCain is a shape shifter. He is whatever he needs to be to obtain the reigns of power, centrist, right of center, left of center. He will take whatever position he needs to take to get what he wants. All politicians play this game to various extents, but he is the undisputed master. In the day and age of video and youtube, those who can use a computer can see him change before their eyes:
Also, there is no "Green Movement." That's another figment of your imagination.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:45 am
22 Sep 2008
Candidate McCain has made a mad dash to the right. He is running against the positions of Senator McCain.
Were he to be elected it's unclear who would show up on day one, the guy close to the center or the the guy close to the extreme right. I'd bet on the guy from the right as he would have a lot of political debt to repay.
(Actually Candidate McCain is bouncing all over the place when it comes to the current banking crisis. He said that things are fine, then totally reversed himself two hours later. Might have to quit calling McCain "Pops" and start calling him "Tops" if he keeps spinning in place.)
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:49 am
22 Sep 2008
1/3 Republican 1/3 Independent 1/3 Democrat
The thing is, I'm not sure you can count on that middle third for loyalty to anything. They are pretty much whores who will always look for the winner and gravitate to it. So in that sense, they don't really, really "believe" in AGW, but maybe because of all the media and force feeding and indoctrination will pretty much go along with it, because, well -- hell, they might get a good paying job from the all the tax monies.
The flip side is that if NGW comes up with some cash or reason to switch, they'll be deniers in a a New York minute.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:09 am
22 Sep 2008
To the rest: Name a Republican candidate, any Republican candidate, you would vote for for President.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:19 am
22 Sep 2008
Let's get serious about global chance denial. The people in that camp consists of less than 15% of the public. We passed the denial tipping point long ago. Denial is pretty much a kook/crank position. Denial is rapidly moving into Sasquatch/"I was abducted by a space ship" land.
The only thing that would cause a move back to massive denial would be excellent data showing all the other data collected so far to be flawed.
Permalink
randino Posted 3:01 am
22 Sep 2008
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:01 am
22 Sep 2008
Pick a nomicker and talk to it. This diffuse discussion makes it tough to address you.
Bailo was close. 40% Repub, 20% Inde, 40% Dem
The politicians are ignoring the 40% groups and are struggling to win over those in the 20%.
I have no choice but to be in the 40% because I can't support a candidate that will allow suppression of women's rights or further degrade the separation of church and state. The lack of support for environmental protections is just icing on the cake. My hands are tied. Give me a pro-choice, atheist, Republican who always votes to support women's rights, the separation of church and state, and the environment and I'd vote for her. An independent is someone who doesn't have overarching convictions.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 3:19 am
22 Sep 2008
"Fairness doctrine".
Donate wheel barrows full of cash to Democrats, then pen an article about the GOP and how stupid they are.
Anyone disagree?
Delete their posts.
The most egregious? A simple link to the transcript from March 9, 1999 where Al Gore said that he "took the initiative in creating the internet"
This was a reply to the Maddow video posted claiming that the "Al Gore invented the internet" quote was a lie.
Facts are not tolerated here, BobG, they are deleted.
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:17 am
22 Sep 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:58 am
22 Sep 2008
Wonder what's going on? I'm assuming you broke some posting rule, although, not seeing the post, I can't say. The other poster that lost a comment sure didn't break any rules, at least as I recall (my memory isn't all that reliable). So, this is somewhat of a mystery to me.
It's possible that Grist is trying to get the troll infestation under control and may be overstepping here and there.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Russ Posted 5:29 am
22 Sep 2008
I figure it's some sort of snafu.
Biod, I don't think Bob or I violated any rules.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:42 am
22 Sep 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 5:43 am
22 Sep 2008
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 6:22 am
22 Sep 2008
There is no question about what Gore said, but the author supported Gore financially, and my post was promptly deleted.
Is this place MoveOn and purely political? I am not so silly as to extol the value of Pepsi on a Coke website.
I was drawn here by the pretense of scientific discussion. But when I Google the "scientist" authors, they are all huge Democrat donors and stand to benefit financially to the extent that AGW is proven.
You can look me up...David Nicholson. Yes. I have given money to the NRA. But I am not an Oil Exec LOL. Heck, I even support lead ammo bans.
My only interest is the determination of just how much the cost of our effect on the environment is not being reflected in the price of goods and services...and what needs to change to account for these externalities.
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 6:30 am
22 Sep 2008
(Google doesn't buy enough from my company to warrant a mention....DOH!...se how this works?)
Hot tip:
Don't git yer science form scientologists or politicians.
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
GlobalWarmingInc Posted 7:05 am
22 Sep 2008
Man, these headlines just get funnier and funnier, but in a scary way:
"we are in big, big trouble"
"humanity's self-destruction." <-- really?!? Whoa, easy there.
"Faster Than Expected"
"The global cooling lie"
I like that last one -it's ironic that it's titled LIE, but actually has the most real science behind it -that we are actually cooling down.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 8:23 am
22 Sep 2008
If so, then you have been taken in by right wing bullshit.
Go to Snopes and get yourself set straight.
Gore's statement was awkward, but it takes a great deal of creative reading to make it into what you reported it to be. What you posted was intellectually dishonest.
Repeating things so often proven to be crap just destroys your credibility.
I hope the mods continue to delete obviously stupid junk. Otherwise there will be no intelligent discussion. The 'good folks' will just give up and go elsewhere as has happened on other promising forums that tolerated trolls and garbage.
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 8:57 am
22 Sep 2008
Anyone is free to reach whatever conclusion they like after reading it. I didn't bring the subject up. A video was posted that implies the whole thing was made up out of whole cloth.
The left likes to say things like, "Republicans don't believe in global warming." when the question is about AGW. That is deceptive.
They say "iraq didn't have anything to do with 911." to imply that that is what people who supported the war believe. Deception, again.
This video omits important information and is decpetive.
Awkward statement? Like the "Mission Accomplished" banner?
What other historical facts that show Democrats in a bad light would you like seen banned from the site? FDR smoking cigarettes?
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:04 pm
22 Sep 2008
...is a terrible thing to lose.
I doubt that I'll ever read anything that you further post without great skepticism.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:51 pm
22 Sep 2008
http://greyfalcon.net/think.pdf
-David Ahlport
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 8:54 pm
22 Sep 2008
Pro-choice? It's not that simple. At least it's not that simple for a sentient human being. Ever watched a video ultra sound of an abortion? Try it sometimes.
Your hands are tied because you are an ideologue. I am not, recognize that many of these issues are very complex, and for some very emotional. You are taking the simpletons approach to complex issues here.
The worst thing that can happen in any state is where one party essentially dominates the political process. Once you reach that point, it ceases to be accountable. Without that 20%, you don't have a Democratic process. It rapidly gets undermined.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink