The GOP Vs. Global Warming

The New Republic: Why Are Republicans More Skeptical, Even As Evidence Grows?

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Jonathan Chait.

---

Last year, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and House members: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" Of the respondents, 23 percent said yes, 77 percent said no. In the year since that poll, of course, global warming has seized a massive amount of public attention. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a study, with input from 2,000 scientists worldwide, finding that the certainty on man-made global warming had risen to 90 percent.

So, the magazine asked the question again last month. The results? Only 13 percent of Republicans agreed that global warming has been proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore's recent congressional testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader, it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected Republican.

How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of them are. Leading global warming skeptic Representative Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), for instance, was the subject of a fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. The bottom line is that his relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand.

But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.

The truth is more complicated — and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement.

Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.

National Review magazine, with its popular Web site, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue.

Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that Representative Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.

Representatives Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md. and Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.

The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.

You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Senator John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.

In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to those hippies!

[Father_of_Catclaw]

In the news today:

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer ? Thu Aug 20, 6:02 pm ET

WASHINGTON ? Steve Kramer spent an hour and a half swimming in the ocean Sunday ? in Maine. The water temperature was 72 degrees ? more like Ocean City, Md., this time of year. And Ocean City's water temp hit 88 degrees this week, toasty even by Miami Beach standards.

Kramer, 26, who lives in the seaside town of Scarborough, said it was the first time he's ever swam so long in Maine's coastal waters. "Usually, you're in five minutes and you're out," he said.

It's not just the ocean off the Northeast coast that is super-warm this summer. July was the hottest the world's oceans have been in almost 130 years of record-keeping.

The average water temperature worldwide was 62.6 degrees, according to the National Climatic Data Center, the branch of the U.S. government that keeps world weather records. That was 1.1 degree higher than the 20th century average, and beat the previous high set in 1998 by a couple hundredths of a degree. The coolest recorded ocean temperature was 59.3 degrees in December 1909.

Meteorologists said there's a combination of forces at work this year: A natural El Nino system just getting started on top of worsening man-made global warming, and a dash of random weather variations. The resulting ocean heat is already harming threatened coral reefs. It could also hasten the melting of Arctic sea ice and help hurricanes strengthen.

How can this be true?

[rchigginsjr]

Global warming is not bad. It is simply change from the status quo. Our last period of global warming (900 ad to 1350 ad) resulted in greater nutrition in northern Europe and the average size of an adult male to grow from 5' to 6' tall. The alternative is global cooling. The last mini-iceage (1400 ad to 1850 ad) led to black death, the destruction of the norse farmers and their ice free farms on Greenland, and poor nutrition in Northern Europe - a return to 5' heights. The sea levels will not increase by 20' but rather 2' world wide.

Change is constant. And don't forget the influence of sunspots on our global temperature!

[co2max]

To all of you who tirelessly link the anti-AGW "Republican Right" with the anti-Evolution movement, please KNOCK IT OFF!!

By doing this, you're just dodging the issue at hand. Creation science is even more phoney, stupid, misguided, laughable, idiotic (need I go on?), irritating and evil that the Global Warming panic-mongering going on. Lets stick to the topic, please.

Now, many of you who deride the "Right" position of human causality accuse us/them of having concern only for the bottom line with regard to the potential damage it poses for accepting the theory and implementing a solution. You should be aware by now that Republican, master-free-enterprise opportunists that we are, will make money on the deal whether we continue with present course, or get forced into adopting sweeping legistlated social/lifestyle/business changes. In view of that, you must realize that the global warming campaign has little relevance to economics. It comes down to quality of life and maintaining a functioning society. Consider the implications relative to refrigeration as a single example, if draconian measures in put into place to reduce the carbon signature of our society . . . that has huge impact on medical care, food storeage and transport and architecture, to name just a few.

[drinuk]

Taking the concept of Peak Oil into consideration, we should of course cut down our use as much as is possible. A 1.5 or 2.00 litre engine is quite sufficient for the average person and diesel is far more economical. Furthermore we could stop the destruction of the Rain Forest quite easily if there was the will to do so. However ! this whole hyped up subject is a scam, it follows Bird Flu and all the other panics we have been subjected too over the past few years. Make no mistake someone, somewhere is earning big bucks with this nonsense. Please remember, the first people on the American continent fifteen thousand years ago travelled across the Atlantic going from one ice pack to another, all the way from southern France in canoe's. We and the world have always evolved and will continue to do so. Ingore this money making C R A P !

[jimfinster]

OlGreyGhost:

Why is it a faulty hypothesis?

[fizzal-2009]

If you think global warmming is caused by a lot of automobiles cut the parking lots in half plant trees too produce oxygen and foce car pooling. Stop condemning property too widen roads and eliminateing tax paying properties.

[olgreyghost]

"And like the dark ages, we have our Copernicus to tell us what science can prove." bigsk8fan

And those who know the truth of Global Warming are like Copernicus rallying against the establishment science myth which is held as a proven fact and not the faulty (and politically motivated) hypothesis that it is.

[dan9111]

The global warming boondoogle is not so much a problem with conservative-disbelief, but with neither side explaining their techniques for determining priority.

If the Democrats are so concerned about human suffering caused by global warming, why are they advocating suffering originating from other sources? Why theft(taxation)? Why violence against free-speech(political correctness)? Why the war against fathers(more women w/custody & free-passes on child abuse)?

If the Republicans are so concerned about certainty of facts, and impacts on the economy, why no consistency? Why murders in funny costumes(warfare)? Why blatant promotion of rape(prison system)? Why the violence against free-markets(drug wars)?

It's a waste of time to deal with these people in any rational exchange of ideas. You will only have them stare into space and talk about how we "need" to do this or that, as if we are obligated to kill for others. Global Warming (valid or not) becomes nothing but yet another political weapon.

[tommancuso]

This is less about Global Warming than about the reluctance to admit not knowing something or not thinking of it first. The Republican/Religious Right who collectively calls itself conservative, is skeptical, even cynical, about so many issues including any that may be argued by what it sees as Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/Atheist groups. "Global Warming is a crock", I heard a Dallas radio talk show host say last week. So is Evolution. So is the theory of relativity. Next, it will be gravity...

Yet the RRR accepts the story of Genesis without question. It accepts words allegedly spoken by strange foreigners two millennia ago, but not the words of learned scholars today. And of course, in large part to blame is the current administration, who has made so many blunders, admitted none and promoted anti-intellectualism in America. They have done this, not by accident, but by plan, and are proud of it. We have a long way to go to get back to 1960.

[zoroastor]

People on both sides of the issue have trouble understanding the difference between corelation and cause.

[co2max]

I view the human contribution, individual, to climage change to be even less relevant than mom-and-pop investor influence on the stock market. Even the big individual, private stock buyers and sellers, collectively have no real push or pull on the market system as a whole. These are the human affectors on the big system. By contrast, the corporate investors and fund managers of the world, work their magic in accordance to their own needs and forces and influence the market in significant ways. These bigger forcers on the market are similar to the natural forces which determine how our climate behaves.
Zoroaster, I agree that you and I could have a reasonable and even enlightening discussion on this issue. Unfortunately, my time here is UP! and I have to ride the bike home.

This was a fun day on-line

CO2Max (aka. Boxorox on other thread lines)

[lawyertom1]

Yes, Al dumbed it down, and many of the rocket scientists on the Congressional panels still did not get it. Of course the issue is complex; find any scientific issue of global proportion (literally) that isn't complex. As my kids would say, dahhhh. The obsession with CO2 is the only thing that bothers me. Methane is a major issue, but never rates discussion. After all, flatulence from cows and sheep is not all that *** or exciting. Then we throw in solar cycles, the three various wobbles in the Earth's orbit & spin, and it is not as simple as the popularists would have it. All that being said, it is real. We do need to act. We need to stop cutting slack for India and China, among others. I am not in the panic mode, at least not until I look at the results of the ice core analyses. These show that it is possible for the climate to flip into a new "stability" pattern in short order (only a decade from one "steady state" to another). That data gives me considerable pause. It is what should make people realize that the problem is more pressing that we generally assume with our long lead-time programmatic proposals. It is the factoid that gives me personally the greatest concern.

[zoroastor]

Ha. I wrote that last one while you were posting. Okay. You do address the issues, and you do so intelligently. I could actually have a rational discussion with you.
I don't believe that any one person contributes to any signifigant degree, or even one state or maybe even a country as prolific in greenhouse gas production as the US.
I do believe that 8+ billion people might have that effect.

[zoroastor]

I see you haven't really addressed any of the issues I raised. Further, the smoking thing may be off base for YOU personally, but it is the same type of logic, accepting only to "facts" that support your opinion.
Unlike you, I don't know for sure. It certainly seems that there is a mounting pile of evidense to support the theory. You, on the other hand, say it just isn't so. And you're sure because you are a physical geologist of higher intellect than the ones telling you it is happening?
Flat earth. Hard to tell. You are not living in the same socio-political climate that existed then. However, different from today, Christianity was the dominately held belief. And, like you, was the CONSERVATIVE held belief. Though I can't say for sure, I would bet that in those circumstances you might feel differently.
Full of myself? Why? I get no benefit whatsoever from global warming. In fact, I'll pay more for just about everything. I'm full of myself because I sound literate and educated? Or because I have trouble with and am frustrated by what appears to me to be intentional and willfull ignorance (not stupidity) on the part of the neo-con collective.

[co2max]

(continued)...
Fast-forward another 10 years and global warming is declared a possibility for many natural reasons and *maybe* some human ones for the long term. I was skeptical. I studies it and remained skeptical till the sea sediment data made it clear that our climate has been oscillating not just on a millions-of-years scale, but on a thousands-of-years scale.
The greenhouse effect is a sound scientific basis to work with. The problem we have before is one of driving forces. We don't have all the evidence yet, but what has been collected so far is circumstantial and disconnected. It makes sense that auto and industrial exhaust do not help the situation, but how far they promote this "problem" is still very difficult to gauge.
Lets concentrate on clean air and clean water and imposing sound land and resource policies. Much of these efforts will rectify more pressing environmental problems and perhaps even lighten the greenhouse load as a collateral effect.

[co2max]

Zoroaster--
Okay, you come across as not so half-baked at the moment. I'll play along.
My resistance to the AGW campaign is summed out nicely by Al's proclamation last week of "Planetary Emergency." It is anything but that.
I fully accept global warming as a present reality. I do not accept humans as being the principle contributor to it. There are so many, immense natural factors involved which apply themselves to our climate that for any us to think that we control the climate is ludicrous.
All I want to say is that you need to CONVINCE ME. I can be convinced. I have been a geologist in one capacity or another for almost 30 years. In the beginning of this "debate" I was a disbeliever of the phenomenon, relying on what I knew about global warming from studies of Terra Forming on Mars in the 70s and 80s. That turned out to be judged virtually impossible; studies turned to the possibilities of climate change on earth and deemed plausible but unlikely.

[co2max]

Zoroaster-
You and your friends are really full of yourselves.
To say that we are the same group that disbelieves that cigarettes don't cause cancer, just where do you guys dig this up from??? It defies understanding by anybody. Others compare us to the flat-earthers and even the Creation Science adherants. That is plain stupid to such a thing. It's the Creation Science mentality that hit me in the face growing up in Alabama that makes me so fiercely anti-AGW now.

Speaking of Monte Python . . . that is the only movie I can think of that made me laugh more out loud than Al Gores propaganda film. I really feel for the guy missing out on winning "Year's Best Comedy" for "Inconvenient Truth." Yep, he had to settle for "Best Documentary" instead. That must be a real source of shame. But it's still a funny show.

[zoroastor]

CO2Max,
Trust me when I tell you, that if I were inclined to, we could trade scientific sound bytes and statistics all day. Mine would support my belief in global warming, yours would support your disbelief. There isn't a lack of "experts" on either side of the fence that we could use to back it up.
Yes, I've heard of all your "evidence". What I think you do, however, is accepting evidense that already supports your belief, and disregarding any that does not.
As you sound like you might know, it is very difficult to accurately measure any pattern on a geologic scale that occures over time periods of less than a century. The time period during which we have been creating greenhouse gasses is not even a blink of an eye in geologic time. Therefore, even though, I could quote you statistics that back my belief, I don't think you'd buy 'em. However, you can test the theory in controlled environments. It isn't some whack job crazy idea. The "theory" is sound, and makes logical sense to even the most uneducated. It isn't until someone with an econmic agenda and stake in the issue tries to debunk it, that the average person would even question the common sense of it.
By the way, why don't you want to believe it? Are you afraid of the cost? Just afraid of the future? Wouldn't you rather be prepared on the very off chance you are wrong? Worst case scenario, the air is cleaner.

[zoroastor]

I liked the Monty Python piece and the quiz by 911 both right on target and simple enough for any moron to understand. Hey, even some of the neo-con zombies might get it.

If this is a scam, who benefits? The companies making solar energy panels? I think if you tried to follow a money trail, you'd end up looking at industries unable to pull a scam of this proportion off.

And how in the world did they get such a large majority of the global scientific community to go along with it. Maybe the are all in for a big cut of that solar panel landfall that is sure to happen.

And as another poster wrote, it doesn't take a super genius to see the basic physics at work.

But keep in mind that these are the same people who still don't believe cigarettes cause cancer, that it's better NOT to prepare for a pandemic like birdflu (I've always been of the "better to have it and not need it, rather than need it and not have it" school. And by the way, anyone here get scammed out of money on that bird flu scam?), and that the sun, in fact, orbited the earth.

[co2max]

"Yes, Martha, I do believe we have left the rational world now."

How do you people on the left side of this issue equate Anthropegenic Global Warming Defiance with Creation Science, Cancer due to Smoking and Fundamentalist Christianity? You just decided to throw in those radical fringe issues to dilute what we're really getting at? Must be the case.

Stop avoiding the truth and deal with this topic directly. Name-calling isn't very clever. That's for children and simpletons.

As for the science -- ever hear of Milankovitch cycles, ice core sample, deep-sea sediments, North American Pollen Database, earth-orbit eccentricity, or even water vapor? These are among a huge list of items which give bearing on the issue of causality of climate change and I haven't seen anybody with the guts or the will to talk about them. doctor_jason gave it a try yesterday, but everything he posted just got slammed as "don't give me cut-and-paste links, what do you really think" garbage, after he was berated endlessly for stating knowledge and opinion without at first providing documented support for his position.