The science is clear about the reality of global warming and the fact that humans are the dominant cause. But, sadly, that isn't clear to most Republicans.
Anybody who thinks the public debate is over -- anybody who thinks the Big Lie doesn't work -- should look at the latest poll results from the Pew Research Center:
The proportion of Americans who say that the earth is getting warmer has decreased modestly since January 2007, mostly because of a decline among Republicans.
Only 49 percent of Republicans now even believe that the earth is warming! Thank you so much, deniers, delayers, and mainstream media. You've done an excellent job.
Even more worrisome is just how many people don't believe humans are the cause of warming:
Roughly half of Americans (47 percent) say the earth is warming because of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels [and only 27 percent of Republicans]. But nearly as many people (45 percent) say that rising global temperatures are either mostly caused by natural environmental patterns (18 percent), say they do not know the cause of warming (6 percent), or say that no solid evidence of warming exists (21 percent).
I'd like to thank the media, especially NBC news, for contributing to this core talking point of the disinformers.
Big lie
According to the United States Office of Strategic Services, Hitler's strategy was based on the view:
... people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
In fact, in his autobiography, Hitler himself defined the term "Big Lie" as ...
a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
I don't think this useful term should be a banned from public use just because Hitler defined it first. I certainly apologize to anybody who is upset by the analogy -- I'm not trying to compare deniers with Nazis; there is no such comparison possible, nor does it apply to all of the people who advocate one of the five myths below. No, the "Big Lie" refers mostly to the strategy of the professional class of those who spread disinformation for a living.
I do think the term gets to a fundamental reason why global warming denial is so effective. The science makes unequivocally clear that the health and well-being of billions of people (and most species) are at grave risk from continued unrestricted human emissions of greenhouse gases.
But who could possibly believe that so many credible-sounding people, including major public leaders in the conservative movement, would so strongly argue at least one of the following:
- The earth is not warming.
- Humans are not a major cause of whatever warming is occurring.
- The problem is not an urgent one because the impacts are distant and tolerable.
- The solution is painful if not impossible with existing technologies anyway.
- Adaptation is a better strategy than mitigation.
It is hard to believe -- indeed, it is almost impossible to believe. And it has proven almost impossible for the traditional media to deal with.
I don't have any easy answers to offer in this post. Shaming the traditional media doesn't seem to work because they are mostly shameless -- indeed, the vast majority of journalists wear it as a badge of honor that they are criticized equally by "both sides."
I suppose the only answer is vigilance. The cost of losing is simply too high.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
What to make of the new climate poll
Comments
View as Flat
GRLCowan Posted 4:13 am
11 May 2008
Anybody who thinks the public debate is over -- anybody who thinks the Big Lie doesn't work ...
It's remarkable what people will actually believe, however absurd and self-serving the belief, if it is a belief, appears.
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:37 am
11 May 2008
The Big Lie analogy was preposterous in the sense that you miss the point that more people now think that man-made global warming is a Big Lie.
They were motivated not by the right-wing talk shows as much as the rabid barking of the left, who seemed to propose Communist solutions. Taken that way, perhaps a new strategy is in order to get more people on board. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:06 am
11 May 2008
The Republicans are the party of Reform.
So of course we would be interested in routing the decadent Anthropogenic Global Warmers from all positions of power.
In fact, this has been a great way to expose all the pseudo-science and rigged numbers in government science. I'd like to see a toppling of the "cult" starting with Hansen and Gore and rippling through all ranks of state-sponsored science.
Even now, as new data comes in contradicting IPCC predictions, I imagine that the big science bodies that signed on without doing due diligence towards the AGW cult leaders will also see shake ups in their leadership.
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 7:22 am
11 May 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:23 am
11 May 2008
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 7:53 am
11 May 2008
What I was referring to was Chicken Little "the sky is falling" problem. Or, "the boy who cried wolf." So I intended to mean that perhaps there was some "burn out" of public opinion.
I didn't just fall off the turnip wagon and could see this coming. First Al Gore (who in my opinion deserves some great credit), then the latest IPCC round, then the climate change conference. A lot of people started saying that the sky was falling, and nobody had a simple solution or a fast one.
Americans are a fickle people, for all you geniuses on Grist. Being a split-personality Gemini and having a poor, almost redneck side to my personality, I have noticed many rednecks changing their views on global warming from neutral to opposition. It happened fast, within the last 16 months. Many rednecks seem to vote Republican, but I think the problem is Redneck Thinking.
So sorry for the misunderstanding.
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:39 am
11 May 2008
4,5,6 dollar gas makes them responsible for economic disaster. They calimed that their oil bidness experts bush/cheney would solve our problems by invading the ME.
Instead it made oil prices soar. Oil empire is not good for america, it's only good for multinational corporations and OPEC. Great friends and financial supporters of the GOP and bush/cheney. McCain is bush-lite.
Oil, war, fear, terror, bush, cheney, GOP, McCain all bad for we the people and the good old USA. GOP friendly corporations sold US down the oily river for huge swiss and dubai bank accounts. Basically it's a matter of treason. Lying and treason for power and wealth.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:48 am
11 May 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:48 am
11 May 2008
This will blow the oil speculation bubble away but not the underlying economics of supply and demand, which are becoming all too evident. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:20 pm
11 May 2008
But to address the issue, this is why I push for simple things that people can understand, like actually building the solar/wind/geothermal that we need, with government funds if necessary, high speed rail, etc., I figure that most people can grasp a pretty picture as opposed to a vague set of numbers.
By the way, when energy was a big issue in Nixon's reign, out he went. When energy was a big issue when Carter was President, out he went. Probably will destroy McCain this time time too. But it's not clear whether the messenger will be killed, no matter who is the President.
Permalink
banana republican Posted 1:34 am
12 May 2008
What I find most disturbing is the number of people who believe in global warming but think it's not going to be a big deal, and they'll save money on their heating bills in winter.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:38 am
12 May 2008
No, the most dangerous thing are the people who take tragic events worldwide and try to use it for their political gain.
They are like trial lawyers who milk every misfortune for their own gain (John Edwards).
Gore-ing and Romm-el are major manipulators here. Somewhere a butterfly sneezes and they leap on it to cackle "warming, warming".
Nothing is sleezier. Nothing more despicable...
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 3:54 am
12 May 2008
But it's true we've got a long ways to go. Bill Maher had a bit about this poll that I liked (and he reported it accurately).
"I saw a poll that explained a lot. Like why global warming and the environment isn't a big issue in the campaign. 47% of Democrats said that global warming should be a top priority. Which is pathetic. 12% of Republicans said that global warming should be a top priority. So we have two parties, the lame, and the super-lame..."
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:07 am
12 May 2008
So it's natural that their intellectual horizons are bit more hazy in general than Democrats or Independents are.
Permalink
mika2 Posted 5:08 am
12 May 2008
Permalink
mika2 Posted 5:08 am
12 May 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:16 am
12 May 2008
I would suggest ya do study research around ice core and soil samples. Tree ring samples also do good for the short-term correlation.
For a brief summary on some of the evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
and also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 6:35 am
12 May 2008
Comparing the global warming debate with a cruel dictators psychological manipulation techniques is not far fetched. Many Germans felt treated unfairly at the time, and they happily accepted the future presented by Hitler because it promised change for the better for them.
Those who predict that it will get a lot worse before it MAY get better (and I am one of them) have a difficult struggle to fight: It is not fun to look into the future with this perspective. Accepting the facts as they are presented by global warming "alarmists" makes you feel guilty, question what you do every day all the time, makes you feel bad about the future of your children, etc. It helps to eliminate (even unconsciously) what does not support your wishful thinking. The hope for a different future becomes so strong that it turns into fact.
This is what makes "changing light bulbs" and the infamous "10 Easy Steps for a Cleaner Planet" so attractive. Even though it has so little impact. People do what feels best, not what is reasonable or effective.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans have not been brought up with much suffering in their community's recent past. Life has been good to most members of most generations who grew up in the USA and Canada. Living simply and frugally has not been role modeled much lately. Few stories are told by American parents and grand-parents that shed a positive light on the simple life or even just to share the experience. Ignorant and spoiled as we are, survival seems impossible (or certainly extremely unattractive) without the modern energy-hungry machines and life-style we enjoy so much here. Life is a drag if it is not like the "American Dream".
Get yourself a gun and a lot of ammo: The same people who deny the possibility of human caused global climate change or dramatic energy shortages (and their children) may one day be desperately hungry and forced to try stealing what grows in your organic garden. No wonder no one wants to look forward - it looks terrible!
I hope I am so wrong!!!!!!!
Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less
Permalink
anotherID Posted 2:35 am
13 May 2008
I watched Idiocracy.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jqa4LpdtOD8&feature=relate ...
We are well on our way.
Oh well, mammals are over-rated and over-due to turn over the stage.
Permalink