Roughly Half of Republicans Believe in Global Warming

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

105 thoughts on “Roughly Half of Republicans Believe in Global Warming”

  1. Ah … this takes me back 4 or 5 years so in honor of the great trolls from our past:

  2. Says the guy who has never won an argument here against me or anyone else. Don’t you have some Ayn Rand books to eat, Bron?

  3. Nick:

    That was classic Gene, he has used that all before. It is canned, he doesnt have much imagination of his own.

  4. Mike,

    You did say “Childish, but expected.” So perhaps I did over state the case. Mahtso does have a tendency to think money first so your “expected” language was fine in retrospect. In saying “neither”, I erred. However, I still didn’t take his initial comment as such until his clarification and ergo not childish but a simple statement of biological fact. Used to an economic rational, it’s not only childish but short-sighted.

  5. “So in essence Mike, we need to take steps so your vacation home is saved.”

    For someone who comments on other people’s civility, you sure are lacking any of your own.

    1. Nick,

      My Florida home is not a vacation home, it’s where I live. BTW its not near the ocean but about 30 feet above sea level. Since its basically all I ‘ve got fincially I do have a desire to save it and also a wish npt to see a tidal wave on the horizon. More importantly a raise in the ses level would inundate the etire East Coast, from Miami to Boston and I think that might be considered a disaster for the country.

  6. nick,

    Again, you mistake what I say as being angry when what I am is simply a sarcastic b@stard to people I don’t like. Sometimes I’m a sarcastic b@stard to people I do like. Basically I’m a sarcastic b@stard. You have as much chance of changing that as you do changing the orbit of the Earth.

    You seem to lack a clue 24/7.

    I’m not the only one who calls you a troll, nick. There are others here who find you as useless as I do. They mostly roll their eyes and snicker rather than jump into the fray all the while saying in private, “I really wish he’d just go away.” But, despite being truthful, it is merely hearsay until they decide to speak on the matter themselves, ergo of little or no probative value. I’m the only one doing it to your face because trolls often use logical fallacies to hide that what they are saying is bullshit. It give their message a wrongful patina of sense where there is no logic (a true troll pushing a known false agenda) or simply bad logic (the merely dense). I am indeed a master of logic. I cut no slack to those who misuse or abuse logic because they are usually trying to hide either an ulterior motive or their true ignorance. For someone who seems to think I hate Italians, I certainly do quote one an awful lot. Marcus Aurelius said, among many great things that stoic thinker said, “If any man is able to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change; for I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured. But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance.” I’m trained to apply it to rhetoric in ways you have no way of understanding, all geared at reaching the truth of matters asserted. That I use it to disassemble your illogical statements by pointing out fallacies you commit is simply your misfortune. A misfortune you can do nothing about other than to stop making the same logical fallacies over and over again.

    Just like Marcus, you can change my mind. People here have done it in the past. Elaine, Mike, mespo, OS and gyges just to name a few. But you must first prove I am wrong or that there is some evidence I have overlooked. Not opine. Prove. You, nick, have so far demonstrated you are capable of proving very little let alone meeting the threshold of convincing me of anything other than you’re the same kind of jackass I’d find sitting on the corner of almost any bar in the country – always certain, never wrong, always talking. You take every challenge to your statements and worldview as a personal insult and usually respond in kind instead of presenting a cogent counterargument. An odious habit and part and parcel of why I don’t like you. You’ve been called on it by several others here too. They’re just nicer and less direct about stating it than I am. I originally tried nice with you and you demonstrated that you don’t understand nice. No carrot? Fine. Your choice. I’m using the stick instead.

    As to you being a true troll? In all truthfulness, I find that most unlikely. You unravel to easily. I’ve dealt with pros and you are not a pro (and that’s a good thing). I consider you trollish, i.e. you behavior is similar but not because of a sinister hidden agenda but rather because you simply don’t know you’re being illogical when you are being illogical and you can’t differentiate between a cogent defense or rebuttal and your own unfounded and/or unproven opinions so you state them as if they were facts when they are not (merely your opinions).

    You aren’t a paid propagandist. You actually think the stuff you say makes logical sense when often it really doesn’t when critical scrutiny is applied. A true believer, in the infallibility of your own opinion if nothing else. You do this because your ego is bound within your argumentation. People who use their opinions as the basis of argument often make this mistake because they have so much invested in their opinions, they mistake them for facts. That and they’ve never been trained to argue dispassionately. Not devoid of passion, to be clear, but to make sure their arguments are not based in emotion or anything else other than logic and evidence. This is also why you think I get angry. You do ergo you project your reaction upon me. That would be a mistake. If you didn’t get angry, you’d know when to walk away, but clearly you don’t.

    I don’t get angry arguing. Mespo’s known me a long time and he’s seen me argue many times. I’m sure he’d testify that he can count the times I’ve gotten angry on less than on hand excluding the thumb. And I can say the same of him. Why? It’s what we were both trained to do. Do I tweak my opponents? You bet. Angry people make mistakes. Much like you are doing in trying to think I’m angry. Then again, it doesn’t take much to tweak you.

    You also like to bust other people’s balls but when they give it back you cry like a baby about them being mean or uncivil. And for that I consider you a lightweight candyass, which has nothing to do with your being trollish. It’s coincidence.

    Also, there is no Scandinavian blood anywhere in my genealogy other than perhaps some trace from Viking raids amongst the Irish. I’ve never been to Norway.

    And I fear Internet trolls like a cat fears mice.

    Alas, I still don’t value your opinions. I defend your right to have and express them, but not to do so unchallenged by others. I don’t respect your argumentation skills because you don’t have any. I don’t respect you because respect is earned, not due.

  7. Mike, “Even Nick” how well…sanctimonious I guess is the word. I never care about folks who have property near the ocean except for the poor folk in New Orleans. I grew up near the ocean and know you don’t f@ck w/ her unless you are arrogant enough to believe you can control her. “Even blue collar fishermen” know that. You respect Mother Nature but only the self absorbed think they can control her. The cards are being laid on the table. I like it! So in essence Mike, we need to take steps so your vacation home is saved.

  8. mahtso, With the hypocritical spotter Gold Medal! What national anthem would you like to be played? Who would you like to sing it?

  9. “Mike,
    Technically speaking, Mahtso’s comment is neither but rather an accurate reflection of biology. All fauna excrete carbon in the form of the respiratory by-product of carbon dioxide (in humans that’s typically somewhere between 4-5% by exhaled volume).”

    It was (also) intended to be a humorous response to a loaded question. I am reminded of the politician who was asked his position on alcohol. The response was: If you mean the scourge that takes food from children’s mouths and ruins lives, I am against it. If you mean the elixir that puts a spring in an old man’s step on a cold day and fosters lively conversation, I am for it.

    Carbon emissions created when people fly to global warming conferences? These are bad. Carbon emissions created for life-saving medical procedures? These are good.

    1. Mahtso,

      My question wasn’t loaded, you just put economic interests first.

  10. Gene, It just seems you’re more civil during the day. What could cause you to get angry and uncivil starting in the evening? You and Fairly don’t answer questions. He backed down w/ the pretext of “you’re not worthy.” You just keep playing the same tune..a one trick pony. And what’s w/ this troll paranoia. You’re the only one who calls me that. Are you seeing black helicopters w/ trolls? What the hell is a troll? The town of Mount Horeb, Wi. has a troll as it’s mascot. I think it’s a Norwegian thing. Did a troll sexually abuse you when you couldn’t “pay the toll” and he wanted more than a “kiss?”

  11. Mike,

    Technically speaking, Mahtso’s comment is neither but rather an accurate reflection of biology. All fauna excrete carbon in the form of the respiratory by-product of carbon dioxide (in humans that’s typically somewhere between 4-5% by exhaled volume).

    1. Gene,

      Seriously, you didn’t think I knew that down to the claim that cow farts cause more problems re: carbon emissions than man made emissions? Mahtso, though was evading my question and trying to set me up to use that kind of argument. While all fauna excrete carbon, the problemmatic emissions are created by man. To me the issue is less about climate change than it is about environment pollution. The unchecked destruction of our environment from industrial polluters alone, is more than reason enough to regulate it and reduce it. I do believe that climate change is destroying our planet’s viability for human and mammalian habitation, but even if it weren’t there is ample reason to control it. The objection to such control is based on profits and I could care less about the profits of those who choose to exercize their rights over those of countless others.

      Yes, as even Nick agreed, they are controlling the LA smog somewhat. However, what are they doing about the hog excretion into the rivers in Arkansas, etc.etc.etc.? That’s organic too. When you then get to the chemical, nuclear and molecular pollution by industry and by our motor powered toys, this once pristine planet has become a toxic junkyard.

      Now when you get to the fact of the artic melt, we could have a return to the planet of eleven thousand years ago where the sea level was a hundred feet higher. Our eastern seaboard and my Florida home would be underwater. One way or another humanity has to take this all seriously, or face possible extinction.

  12. Actually, nick, BF pointed out the logical flaws and inconsistency in what you said and indicated that such flaws meant your statements were not worthy of further address. Criticising your form is just as valid as criticising your content. Which he did, by the way, when he noted that your evidence was anecdotal. Again, if you don’t like being called illogical? And make no mistake, you were being called illogical by BF in so many words. Then I suggest you don’t be illogical.

    You’ve demonstrated your depth of understanding regarding logic (and other topics) to be about the equivalent depth of a saucer. You are free to say what you like and I’m free to criticize it however I like. It’s that pesky free speech getting in the way of your bluster again. And I don’t give a damn if you think I’m civil or not. I don’t value the opinions of the illogical and irrational or the trollish. Just as you are free to say what you wish, you are entitled to your opinions. I’m not obligated to respect them. Or you for that matter. And I’m not required to hold my tongue to “just get along”. Your bruised ego is not my concern and when you get lumps from dealing with people smarter than you (which BF – a long time contributor I’ve had many more than one interaction with – clearly is)? That is entirely your problem. That his valid criticism goes to the quality and integrity of your rhetorical choices (as do many of mine) is merely coincidence? No. If more than one person sees the same problem in another’s rhetoric then chances are it’s a real problem. Sink or swim, the choice is yours. But don’t expect any slack for your illogic around here. Logic and evidence are king. It’s tradition here. Everything else is just along for the ride.

    I suggest you learn to deal with it or go back to watching your sports.

    Live long and prosper.

  13. Gene, Blind didn’t answer my question about his expertise after sarcastically deriding what I said I thought on the subject. I don’t purport to be anything close to an expert but I provided my reasons for what I said. In that regard, the “paper tiger” comment was legit as Blind chose to not answer. Now, I can not call on someone being sarcastic because I am also. As Blind pointed out, I knew what I said would initially would draw fire. I was asked specific questions by Blind and others and I answered those questions. Gene, you’re a broken record. This “logic” charge you throw around wants me to nickname you, Spock. However, I would like to end on a positive note. At least you’re civil today.

  14. “Are carbon emissions a good thing?” Yes, but only for those of us who enjoy living.”


    Childish, but expected.

  15. I know some old fart RepubliCons who live in Florida and they have strong opinions on global warming and believe that it is happening. They cite their air conditioning bills going higher each year in the summer. They believe the main cause to be too many paved areas such as parking lots and roads. These guys all drive big Fords and Cadillacs and keep the gas guzzling and the fumes a spewing. Each month when the electric bills come in the mail we get an earful.

  16. we are all going to be burned to a crisp.

    Sterilize the poor in developing countries and limit births to a lottery so we can save the earth. No more than 10 million people per year can be born.

    And we can also do what George Bernard Shaw suggested: gas people who dont contribute to society so we can reduce humanities carbon footprint.

    Nothing is off the table to save the earth from humans.

  17. “Are carbon emissions a good thing?” Yes, but only for those of us who enjoy living.

  18. Giving up and dismissing an opponent for using dishonest tactics and ergo not being worthy of address are not equivalences, nick. What Dredd does or does not know on this topic (IYO) is irrelevant to BF’s statements concerning yours being accurate, nick. Even Mike pointed to you begging the question (yet another in a long line of logical fallacies). You argue poorly using inherently dishonest tactics and your defense in having that pointed out is to call BF a “paper tiger” and appeal to your anecdotal evidence again (yet another logical fallacy) and to Dredd’s authority (doop! It’s another one!). Tsk tsk tsk. Overall, a pitiful performance in logic and reasoning.

  19. Nah, Nick. We were just talking about different topics, I think.

    I’m interested in thoughts about how people perceive and interpret topical issues, especially issues that cross from academics and science to the mainstream public. I don’t touch the “global warming is real or not real” subject in public. It too easily turns in to nonsense, politics and ideologies.

    I thought your first post was interesting and your “fire away” line at the end seemed to be an invitation for a critical review. That’s all.


    Thanks, Gene. LOL

Comments are closed.