We have often discussed the disconnect of the two major parties with their bases. For Democrats, it is the disgraceful record on civil liberties left by Democratic leadership, including President Obama. For Republicans, it is often the environment. Polls show a high number of Republican voters are in favor of environmental laws that are routinely undermined by GOP leaders. Now a new Pew poll shows that roughly half of Republicans say there is “solid evidence” of global warming — a remarkable jump of 37 percent jump from 2009.
The numbers are still higher in the population at large: 67 percent of all Americans and 48 percent of Republicans. However, the high numbers of Republicans accepting the science is not reflected in their party leadership or platform. The party appears captured by the most extreme elements of its members, including highly antagonistic business and lobby interest in the environmental field.
While many GOP leaders continue to deny the very notion of global warming like Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) , others are moving to a new position: it may be real but we may not be the cause or have any real power to change it. That was the view articulated recently by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) in debate with his congressional challenger Ami Bera (D):
LUNGREN: There is no doubt that there is global change, climate change. The question is who causes it and is it caused predominantly by human activity. It seems to me we ought to take reasonable steps but not steps that so put us in a disadvantageous situation economically that we will have less jobs. There’s those that cry about their concern for jobs and then support the very things that would absolutely destroy jobs. We have an example of that in the current administration that I believe is supported by my opponent to try and basically ruin the coal industry in the United States, losing us tens of thousands of jobs instead of pursuing the cleanest technology in the area of coal. […]
MODERATOR: So you’re suggesting the global warming change may not be caused by manmade sources?
LUNGREN: No, my suggestion is we don’t know to what extent it is and to what extent moves we would take on our own in the United States would have an effect. At the same time I believe it makes good common sense to try and reduce carbon emissions where possible, as I’ve done in the U.S. capitol.
That approach is more nuanced and perhaps more dangerous. It shields the politicians from any responsibility to act while allowing global warming to get worse with the potential for catastrophic impacts around the world.
Notably, this study means that more Republicans believe in global warming than evolution. Some 58% of polled Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Source: US News
Mike,
You are right that the denial of climate science isn’t related to facts. It is all about money and the corporate interests that might make less of it! The fact that only 1/2 of any group believes science and their own eyes is telling.
MikeS, Please read what I’m saying. I knew I was going to run into this. I don’t deny there’s pollution and that we need laws and regulations to control it. I just don’t want draconian laws that halt our civilization to save a frog.
“I just don’t want draconian laws that halt our civilization to save a frog.”
Nick,
Draconian is in the eyes of the beholder. I’m sure to a coal operator laws that prevent him from blowing up West Virginian mountaintops are draconian. The way you’re expressing yourself I’m not sure what exactly “halting civilization” means. I do know for instance that may Republicans favor allowing private industry to exploit our National Parks for resources and vacation spas. Is that “halting civilization” to you. I’ll accept at face value that you care about conservation, but you do have a peculiar way of expressing it that is strikingly similar to those who would exploit our environment. Seriously Nick, you know from our past discussions that I do read your words and consider them fairly, however, I do think that perhaps you have conveyed meanings that are consistent with those who are against environmental regulations of any sort.
Blind, Rock strata is not anecdotal except that I chose one example. Do you doubt there is geological evidence virtually everywhere on this planet that we have gone through constant climate change? For chrissake, man, do you understand what anecdotal means? If you won’t concede the settled science that our climate has constantly changed then we can end our discussion right now.
Believe it or not Blind, I am an enviromentalist for a long time. Before the kool aid drinkers took over. I have discussed previously in this forum how the movement has been taken over. One of the founders of Greenpeace[of which I was a member decades past] is Patrick Moore. After the Viet Nam war ended those radicals needed some place to use their testosterone. They took over Greenpeace and radicalized it. Moore has spoken and written eloquently on the subject. The Yellowstone fiasco was taught to me by a professor of ecology. When I went back to college in 1999 to get my history teaching certification I took a couple ecology course. One professor was a former Forest Service director. He told us how we have mismanaged out National Parks for a myriad of reasons. He had us read Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America’s First National Park by Alston Chase. It’s a fascinating read.
Nick,
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I haven’t made a statement about “climate changing all the time”, “rock formations”, or “geology”. Maybe re-read my post if you aren’t sure what I’m writing about and then ask me something specific relating to my actual post.
From what you’ve written I can only assume that you’re responding to me calling your testimony “anecdotal”, which it is. Please don’t try to strawman me or attribute a projection of some other point of view that isn’t stated by me to me. Thx.
My point is that providing anecdotal accounts(your trip to see rock strata), generalized stereotyping(people are arrogant), and unrelated analogies(Yellowstone was nearly ruined by experts) are hurting, not helping, the effort to take “common sense steps” to understand and do what is necessary with regard to climate change.
Blind, Our climate is not naturally changing all the time? Those rock formations are not real. Geology is junk science? What are you talking about?
“Blind, Our climate is not naturally changing all the time? Those rock formations are not real. Geology is junk science? What are you talking about?”
Nick,
You really are begging the question. Remember the Beijing Olympics, where there was worry that the toxic air pollution caused by industrialization, would be unhealthy to the athletes? How about Los Angeles smog problem and the smog problems cause all over the world in major cities due to human caused air pollution? Do you deny these? As I previously said the whole denial issue is about money, not science. As far as the National Park System goes I’ve visited and camped in many of them in my life and while Yellowstone is badly run, due to its popularity, most of them are admirably run. That includes Grand Tetons National Park and Forest which is relatively down the road from Yellowstone.
Oro Lee,
1) There is no such thing as Darwinian evolution. Just the Theory of Evolution and its tens of thousands of collective experiments, observations, and published papers that stand as one, if not the most, supported scientific theory humans have compiled to date.
2) Belief is not part of the equation in scientific terms. Human influenced climate change is an observation based on the increasing frequency of correlating data with respect to climate and the by-products of human industrialization. As the frequency of these correlating data points grow, so does the support and understanding for what you call ‘human caused climate change’. Bringing terms like “belief” in only serve to turn the matter into a faith-based conversation, which invokes all kinds of unnecessary baggage and may close the door of interpreting data and fact before those bits of data and fact ever get analyzed by Jane/John Doe.
Questions like “What aspects of human caused climate change are supported/unsupported with data and what is the strength of that data in relation to other supported/unsupported aspects that humans are influencing rapid climate change?” go a lot further. Its a huge matter and must be broken down into digestible bits, instead of yes/no, thumbs up/ thumbs down.
Mike — as always, the voice of sanity and good advice: FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Nick, you aren’t a “party pooper”, but you’ve added nothing. In fact, you’ve done the same thing that you complain about in your post. You’ve muddied the waters with a anecdotal, non-fact-based comment that only serves to make it harder for individuals to analyze real data and make the most informed choices possible for themselves and society.
Also, “we hired experts who damn near ruined the park” is pretty damn vague and sounds whole lot like a “chicken little”/reactionist stance.
Step back from the “crazies…creating a cocaphony” stance, bring your facts to the table, and discuss the issue, rather than blockade yourself from the fact-based discussion.
Like most people, I too “believe” common sense steps should be taken. Here’s my problem w/ the chicken littles who have really hurt their own cause w/ idiotic scare stories. I stop @ the great canyons[Zion, Bryce, Arches] of southern Utah every year. They are a global treasure. The first time I was there I joined a group of tourists w/ a geologist moderator. He showed the different rock strata as we descended into Bryce. There are layers that were created when the area was an ocean, jungle, frozen tundra, forest and desert. Science proves w/o any doubt, our climate is constantly changing..that’s a given. The big question is how are we influencing this change. Being humans, we have a certain arrogance. We believe we can negatively and positively affect out climate. Here’s the problem as I see it. We horribly mismanaged a pristine enviroment known as Yellowstone National Park. We hired experts who damn near ruined the park. So, isn’t it supreme arrogance @ best, and stupidity @ worst, to think we mortals can corrall this globe. I’m in favor of common sense laws and regulations. I try and ignore the crazies on BOTH ends of the spectrum on this, and most subjects. However, those crazies are very loud, creating a cocaphony.
Fire away folks, I apologize up front for being a party pooper.
Oro Lee 1, October 16, 2012 at 9:05 am
IMHO I don’t think the issue is so much knowledge v. belief, but rather between warranted belief scientifically established and unwarranted belief based on faith. Mark Twain wrote that it was a school boy who defined faith as believing in what you know ain’t so. I prefer to state it as believing in that which cannot be proven, i.e., the supra-natural — that which cannot be measured, cannot be tested, and is not subject to the laws of cause and effect. ‘Cause if something can be proven, then wherefore faith?
==============================================
Perhaps you missed my point because I was not clear.
You believe in what other people say through the vehicle of trust in them.
Not being there with them when they came to their personal knowledge based on their lab experiments or other scientific endeavors, you form a belief that what they say they know is true.
It is true as you say that some methodologies are better than others for producing evidence, however, as the scientist I quoted points out, still you believe what someone else says they know rather than having your own personal knowledge.
And so do I.
And so does everyone else, including scientists who have to trust other scientists to do their science properly and report it in the peer reviewed journals.
The jury system developed as a result of observations that the people are less likely to be corrupted by power than those who are in power.
Just like us, juries do not always get it right, but it is not an issue of who is always right, it is an issue of who is most likely not to be corrupt and there for not sufficiently accurate.
“others are moving to a new position: it may be real but we may not be the cause or have any real power to change it.”
The truth is that the opposition to the concept of human caused climate change has never been about the science, but about the money required to fix it and the fiscal inconvenience it would cause to those industries most to blame. As JT stated:
“That approach is more nuanced and perhaps more dangerous. It shields the politicians from any responsibility to act while allowing global warming to get worse with the potential for catastrophic impacts around the world.”
This is now the fallback position for those who would protect industry from the havoc cause by its excesses and as such is in my opinion definitely more dangerous.
IMHO I don’t think the issue is so much knowledge v. belief, but rather between warranted belief scientifically established and unwarranted belief based on faith. Mark Twain wrote that it was a school boy who defined faith as believing in what you know ain’t so. I prefer to state it as believing in that which cannot be proven, i.e., the supra-natural — that which cannot be measured, cannot be tested, and is not subject to the laws of cause and effect. ‘Cause if something can be proven, then wherefore faith?
As to republicans and civil rights, I like Bill Mayer’s take on that:
Oro Lee 1, October 16, 2012 at 8:32 am
Before I engage anyone in any reasoned discourse of a worthy topic, I ask two “qualifying” questions:
1. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?
2. Do you believe in human caused climate change?
I just want to be sure on which side of the looking glass the discussion will occur.
================================================
It is unfortunate that we do not take into consideration how much of our cognitive systems are based on belief, a substantial quantity of that is mythical beliefs.
There is a branch of science/philosophy which seeks to perfect ways of enhancing beliefs into knowledge:
(The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?, quoting John Hardwick, Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 82, No. 7, July. 1985). The dynamics involved in what to believe is fundamental, involving trust and faith.
Our vast jury systems indicate that the people, not government, are the ultimate deciders on factual matters, hearing expert contradict other experts, then the jury decides which expert had the correct information.
Still, we tend to have a mental framework that says knowledge is better than belief, even though we have to trust and have faith in others to tell us which is which.
That is, our actual knowledge is very limited, belief being the greater part of our cognitive resources.
As such we perform much like a religion, hanging with those of like beliefs, even in the secular domain.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero says:
“Paul Ryan may end up a heartbeat away from the presidency but he’ll be light years from civil liberties. Paired with Romney’s already-abysmal record on civil liberties, Ryan’s positions only take this ticket further from the vision of our founding fathers.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/11/677051/meet-paul-ryan-climate-denier-conspiracy-theorist-koch-acolyte/ Paul Ryan has a particularly bad record on both global warming and civil liberties.
Before I engage anyone in any reasoned discourse of a worthy topic, I ask two “qualifying” questions:
1. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?
2. Do you believe in human caused climate change?
I just want to be sure on which side of the looking glass the discussion will occur.
LUNGREN: There is no doubt that there is global change, climate change. The question is who causes it and is it caused predominantly by human activity. (emphasis added)
That is not the consensus of 98% of scientists, because it is overwhelmingly clear that it is caused by current human civilization.
FairlyBalanced, It is not like the republicans are good on civil liberties or anything else. Their leadership either proposed or voted for every piece of despicable legislation that has been enacted in that area.
Roughly half of them believe in some schmuck who wears blue jeans. The other half only believes the guy when he wears his suit and tie. Global warming comes from the Koch Brothers and all their hot air. Half the RepulbiCons believe that we are baked by the sun in day time and cooled by the moon at night. Ninety Eight Percent of them think that they are special and sort of like the one percent. Yet when they are old and decrepit and wondering where the medicaid and social security benefits drifted off to they will blame some prior President named Obama. Only they will call him Obumbo and carryon in their walkers and wheelchairs about how he was ever elected.