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!

[taddles-2009]

"The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry."

That, and they are narrow minded morons.

[walt1944-2009]

It's pretty obvious why the Republicans would deny there is such a thing as global warming, or if there is, that it isn't man-made but just in the nature of things. The oil companies, who are the biggest contributors to and lobbyists of the Republican party, don't want to see new forms of energy developed as it would mean costing them tons of cash to restructure for a new energy source. The oil companies can't or won't even repair the infrastructure they have because it means cutting into their huge profits and cutting back on some upper management pay raises and perks.
The only way the Republicans will believe man is at fault in global warming is when out atmosphere gets like that of the planet Venus, but by then it'll be too late for everybody!

[afmca]

No - neo-conservative, pseudo-Christian Republicans are morons - that is all there is!!! They cannot get elected caring for the earth - they can only get elected through ignorance, intolerance and greed. Ignorance is easy - no to global warming, yes to tax breaks for polluters; no to universal health care, yes to tax breaks for CEO perks; yes to war profiteers; no to caring for wounded soldiers. Intolerance comes with dehumanizing non-Christians, demeaning real tolerant Christians, being pro-fetus but anti-life and spreading hate against *** (i.e. Dobson's Christian message - Jesus would be so proud!). Greed is also simple - pollute the world until it is inhabitable and then charge the tax paying citizens to clean up the mess corporations caused. Right now there is more profit to be made polluting than cleaning it up. American corporations are always so short sighted. Republican politicians, an the other hand, are just stupid!

[tejasdemo]

Republicans dont believe it because they havent figured out how to rape the American public from it yet.

Once these crooks get that figured out they will jump right on board...Lol

[terrapin78]

And they listen to the biggest CO2 emitter around, GWB, and his drivel.

[a100mike]

afmca: you hit the nail right on the head

[erlepenn]

I don't think those commenting here have a firm grasp of the concept "proven beynd a reasonable doubt." Most people I know believe that the earth probably is warming because of man made problems. Boy, I hope none of you are picked for jury duty.

[terrapin78]

So the Republicans believe in pre-emptive strike against any other country in the world , that may or may not attack us, but WILL NOT EVER admit to global warming and the deathe and destruction to be caused by it.

Why not a pre-emptive strike against global warming?

[gdw666]

All of you 'broad minded' experts.

Explain why the world was warmer 1,000 years ago than now. I don't believe that there were a lot of SUVs at the time.

What caused the 'Little Ice Age' of about 1,300 to 1,800?

What happened to the panic of "Global Cooling" in the 1970's?

[iiffv]

All of you 'broad minded' experts.

Explain why the world was warmer 1,000 years ago than now. I don't believe that there were a lot of SUVs at the time.

What caused the 'Little Ice Age' of about 1,300 to 1,800?

What happened to the panic of "Global Cooling" in the 1970's?
Posted by gdw666 at 03:13 PM : Mar 26, 2007

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. Guess I'm a little too young. Care to enlighten us?

[jimfinster]

gdw666:

What is your evidence that the earth was warmer 1,000 years ago?

[scott4261]

The GOP is working so hard to disprove global warming for one reason and one reason only. Any government restrictions are an anathema to their goal of laizze-faire capitalism. Pure and simple.

[iiffv]

What caused the 'Little Ice Age' of about 1,300 to 1,800? Posted by gdw666

After very little research, I did find out that the last "Ice Age" period was "between about 460 and 430 MILLION years ago.
Source: www.museum.state.il.us

[l8c6]

Maybe it should be kept simple. Whether the carbon dioxide theory is true or not, the angry attacks on the other side of the line stem from a threat to the bottom line.

Can anyone tell us what would be wrong with clean alternatives beside depriving a corrupt energy industry of it's cash flow that enables it to own and engage our military?

[benhocking]

gdw666: First of all, the Earth was not warmer 1,000 years ago than it is now. At this point, not even Europe was warmer 1,000 years ago than it is now. (The medieval warm period resulted in a warmer Europe and cooler regions in other areas of the globe.)

Secondly, would you not let a doctor treat a known disease just because there were other diseases whose cause were unknown? That logic makes no sense. Even if we couldn't explain previous warming periods (most experts believe we can), that wouldn't mean that we can't explain the current warming period.

In short, your antecedent and conclusion are both wrong.

[doctor_jason]

90% of selectively chosen scientists vs. 17,000 freely expressing themselves? Hmmmm, tough choice. More fun with numbers from the non critical thinking crowd. "During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition. Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate."
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm
(from http://neoconexpress.blogspot.com/2007/03/petition-project-unless-this-is.html). Grow up people, science is rarely beyond any doubt.

[doctor_jason]

Maybe "cons" remember the global cooling crisis of 1975 that predicted a new ice age. Perhaps "cons" remeber the UN revising its most recent report reducing the probability by 25%, in a year. Maybe, just maybe, "cons" read beyond what they're spoon feed and remain skeptical. And to all making the WMD jokes, it's funny how you always conveniently forget the dems said the same thing, including before Bush was even president, and after clinton's iraq bombing supposedly destroyed the WMDs. You're a bunch of sheep.

[iiffv]

You're a bunch of sheep.
Posted by doctor_jason at 03:48 PM : Mar 26, 2007

Calling people names doc? That is indicative of a small mind you know?

[doctor_jason]

"Calling people names doc? That is indicative of a small mind you know?" when in Rome

[crescen7]

Use the Source . . .

Don't listen to Al Gore, Don't listen to Joe L. Barton. The information that these people are "interpreting" is available for everyone to see. Review the actual temperature data, review the explanations and modeling from both sides. Decide based on logic. This is science, not dogma.

[jimfinster]

doctor_jason:

Since you such a smart guy, give us a detailed rebuttal to the key points in the IPCC report. Not your opinion, provide some FACTS.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/

[benhocking]

doctor_jason: Maybe "cons" misremember the global cooling crisis: it was a Newsweek/Time scare just like the summer of the shark. If you look back, you'll find the same percentage of scientists support that that now think that global warming is a hoax.

Maybe "cons" don't understand that the error bars were reduced on both sides as more information was gathered. The lower estimate was raised and the upper estimate was lowered. I.e., the estimates became more precise.

Unfortunately, the people with the spoons are the Rush Limbaughs and not the scientists. The scientists are the very people who want you to think for yourself.

As for your global warming petition, read the research that's debunked it. Many scientists on that list have denied signing it. Furthermore, their definition of "advanced" is somewhat loose.

[iiffv]

"Calling people names doc? That is indicative of a small mind you know?" when in Rome
Posted by doctor_jason at 03:56 PM : Mar 26, 2007

Or on the playground?

[aaabee-2009]

I could understand the waffling if we were arguing about trivial things, like Britney Spears or sports teams or beer.

But when it comes to human survival, shouldn't we opt for "Better Safe Than Sorry"?

I mean, this will be your kids world, your grandkids world. Wouldn't it be better safe than sorry for them? Or does anyone not care what we leave our kids?

[tokra1]

A poster wants proof that the world was warmer 1000 years ago. Here are a couple of proofs:

Why did the Vikings settle in Greenland. Do you know what Greenland is like now? It's covered with snow and ice. 1000 years ago it was green (hence the name).

Also 1000 years ago, Britain was growing grapes for wine. Can't do it now, the climate isn't warm enough - it was 1000 years ago.

The 2000 scientists who claim that global warmiong is manmade is bunk. Several of those scientists had to threaten legal action because their names appeared at the bottom of the document and THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS!

Also - for those who believe that mankind is causing global warming - how do you explain the fact that the polar caps on Mars are melting and that Pluto is warming up. Do we have SUVs on Mars and Pluto?

Isn't the answer obvious? The warming is coming from the sun - not from Land Rovers.

Scientists have taken ice samples from the Antartic ice and it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are on a roughly 1500 year cycle - it gets warm and then it gets cold. It's happened over and over again and it will continue to happen. Man's activities have nothing to do with it.

Cleaning up the environment and global warming are two separate issues and have no bearing on each other.

If you don't believe me - then explain why Mars and Pluto are warming and how the earth has warmed and cooled in the past WITHOUT man driving cars and running factories?

[jimfinster]

tokra1:

Same challenge for you. Provide your evidence on why the IPCC report is wrong. Not your opinion, provide some FACTS.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/

[benhocking]

tokra1: I realize you think you're smarter than the scientific community, but if you do a little Google search, you will find out that scientists have already addressed all of your misguided points. Do you really think you're pointing out things that are new?

If you want to get the unspun truth, you can start with scholar.google.com or scirus.com. These provide searches that can be constrained to journals. Surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh hasn't published in any of these journals.

[aaabee-2009]

benhocking, too funny and right on point.

[crescen7]

Use the Source . . .

Don't listen to Al Gore, Don't listen to Joe L. Barton. The information that these people are "interpreting" is available for everyone to see. Review the actual temperature data, review the explanations and modeling from both sides. Decide based on logic. This is science, not dogma.

Of course if one still wants to defer to "scientists"
Here are 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm

And another 5017 Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, and other Life Sciences "scientists" http://www.oism.org/pproject/b_sci.htm

Whose opinion one may wish to consult.

[tokra1]

jimfinster tells me that the IPCC report covers the points I made about the global warming on Mars and Pluto, and the fact that the earth had a global warming period a thousand years ago.

I read the report jim - and I do not see ONE WORD about global warming on Mars - nor do I see anything that says that Greenland was ice covered a thousand years ago.

Maybe YOU better read the report. All the report says is that there IS global warming and that since the amount of CO2 has increased since 1750 that it MUST be the reason for the warming.

Sez who? One does not lead to the other. I can show you a graph that shows a direct correlation between warming temperatures and the number of pirates on earth. In 1750 there were thousands of pirates and the earth was fairly cool. Now there are very few pirates and the earth is warmer. That proves the correltaion. Right?

That's exactly what the IPCC report is doing - reporting one set of facts and another and they trying to give them a cause and effect relationship.

I challenge you to show me in the IPCC (or anywhere else) why Mars and Pluto are experienceing global warming.

I challenge you to prove that the Vikings settled on an island that was ice covered.

I won't hold my breath.

[doctor_jason]

benhocking, there%u2019s no established % of scientists. The UN cherry picked 2000. If U don%u2019t accept the petition, even discounting 100s, perhaps these, a mere sampling of the 20pgs of links to similar reports I have home will appease U 4now: Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in GW (1st to advance it) http://digg.com/environment/Prominent_French_Scientist_Reverses_Belief_in_Global_Warming_Now_Skeptic;www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086;
http://newsbusters.org/search (%u201Cglobal warming%u201D). When Al Bore started his religious movement, a leading MIT scientist mocked his basic premise that there%u2019s complete consensus on the causation issue. + Bore had 8 yrs 2do something, did nothing. Now he wears a collar in the church of liberalism's latest crusade & yet has a less energy efficient home than Oil George & won't take a personal pledge. Another do as I say not as I doer. Fact is 2000 scientists don%u2019t represent all scientists, & the data & science is challenged around the world by people, believe it or not, who aren%u2019t cons, repubs nor "morons." U people want 2 treat this like it's a scientific law, it's not.

[doctor_jason]

IIFFV, here must be a playground, there%u2019s several posts calling entire groups of people morons. Obviously U have nothing substantive 2contribute. Jimfinster, do UR own research.

AaaBee, agreed, this is a red herring, we should be using alternatives for a million reasons, even if this one is open to debate. However, people like Bore are pushing for absurd regulations that threaten the economy and jobs, so certain measures based on certain BS claims must be criticized.

benhocking, just b/c people aren't towing the line doesn't mean they listen to Rush. Grow up.

[aaabee-2009]

Doctor Jason,
Okay, if you are as right as you think you are, this planet is not overloading in pollution and no one has to stop driving their big vehicles.

Respectfully, what happens if you are not correct in your assumptions?

[jimfinster]

tokra1:

You are clearly not capable of rational thought. You have my sympathy...

[zorlacskates]

it's amazing...whenever you research the arguments against global warming -- the bogus 17K person petition, the "mini ice age," etc. -- they're all flawed. EVERY *** ONE. it's the same stupid, debunked arguments and the same, idiotic logic over and over. do you people choose to be ignorant? calling you ignorant is being generous because the next possibility is that you're just stupid. you all know so much, so please, publish something, document something, do some *** thing so we can put this entire issue to rest.

[doctor_jason]

AaaBee, first, I don't think I'm right, I simply think this, list most complex matters is not an open and shut case. Second, I don't need to be scared into reducing pollution and adopting cleaner energies. It just makes sense to evolve and improve upon what we have and reduce reliance on sources that will not always exist and cause political strife. BTW: we didn't sign on to Kyoto and our rate of pollution dropped moreso than some who did. I believe in incentives, not punishments. I believe in technology, not dubious suspect scare tactics. I also don't think we need to agree on whether man causes GW, we need to move to alternative energies anyway for other reasons.

[crescen7]

Use the Source . . .

Don't listen to Al Gore, Don't listen to Joe L. Barton. The information that these people are "interpreting" is available for everyone to see. Review the actual temperature data, review the explanations and modeling from both sides. Decide based on logic. This is science, not dogma.

Of course if one still wants to defer to "scientists"
Here are 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm

And another 5017 Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, and other Life Sciences "scientists" http://www.oism.org/pproject/b_sci.htm

Whose opinion one may wish to consult.

[doctor_jason]

zorlacskates, I'll send your comments to this promient french scientist who was among the first to support the claims. Clearly he is more than ignorant and you, having debunked all the counter arguments, know more than he.

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief http://digg.com/environment/Prominent_Fr
ench_Scientist_Reverses_Belief_in_Global
_Warming_Now_Skeptic

[tokra1]

Despite the insistence of Al Gore this not the first time the Earth has ever passed through a climatic warming period.

During the medieval warm period, known as the Little Climatic Optimum (LCO), 900AD - 1300 AD the average temperature was anything from 1 to 3 degrees centigrade higher than it is today.

* Areas in the Midlands and Scotland that cannot grow crops today were regularly farmed. England was known for its wine exports.

* The average height of Britons around A.D. 1000 was close to six feet, thanks to good nutrition.

* Famine and plague appear to have taken a hike for several centuries. The bubonic plague itself appears to have retreated to its heartland of Central Asia.

* The LCO was the first age of transatlantic exploration. The Vikings discovered Iceland, and Greenland, and a new world even beyond, where they found grape vines, the same as in England.

* Mild temperatures lengthened growing seasons. The result was a near-tripling of European population from 27 million at the end of the 7th century to 70 million in 1300.

But in the late 13th century, it all came to an end.

The climate closed down. The great colonies of Iceland and Greenland faltered and began to fade away. Famine returned to Europe, and with it the plague, in one of the greatest mass deaths ever witnessed by humanity. It remained cold for six hundred years. The chill only lifted in the 1850s, when our current warming actually began.

[tokra1]

Becasue jimfinster cannot answer my questions, he writes:

"You are clearly not capable of rational thought. You have my sympathy..."

Typical ploy - if you can't answer the question about why Mars and Pluto are experienceing global warming, just attack the questioner. That's much easier than "rational thought", isn't it?

My challenge to jimfinster stands - explain to me why two other planets in this solar system are warming. (remember - there are no factories and no SUVs on Mars)

Since jimfinster CAN'T explain why other worlds are warming from the same increase of solar radiance that is warming the Earth - he finds it easier to attack the questioner.

Sheeeesh.

[benhocking]

doctor_jason: I have access to science journals. I can see the evidence myself. Just read the journals and you will see for yourself what the majority of scientists believe. As a "doctor", this should be an easy task for you.

The UN doesn't have to cherry pick anything. Again, go to the source. You obviously don't trust the UN, so where are you getting your information? It's obviously not from the science journals, since they back up the UN's claim.

[tejasdemo]

Republicans are stupid. Period.

[doctor_jason]

benhocking, as the former editor of science said, there's a publication bias. This is not a new phenomenon. Sorry, I'll go with the scientists I know and the counter evidence I've seen. Do you realize 6th graders and thousands of people in NY when presented with both sides of the argument overwhelmingly shifted their views? Bottom line, it's being debatted, and not by "dumb" "moron" republicans, but by the very people who first believed it themselves. The very nature of science is to posit a theory, test it, and alter it as new information becomes available. Claiming anything is a closed book is anti scientific.

[aaabee-2009]

Doctor jason,
I imagine a lot of people don't want to be "scared" into changing their lifestyles.

My concern is the degree to which good information is being subverted. You yourself are showing both sides of that coin, believing in alternative fuels but not wanting to be led by Al Gore. How are we to get folks to listen to the realities of needing to adjust our wasteful practices if detractors make Al Gore out to be an alarmist?

The American people are being bombarded with information, a lot of it just plain bad, and few of those same folks are really interested enough to read the volumes of research to formulate an educated opinion. That is why politics is damaging this discussion so badly, and most of Al's detractors (not to include you) are Republican. They are deciding issues by political party, instead of by facts.

By not supporting those parts of Al's arguement you deem correct, you assist the detractors and make it more difficult for folks to be convinced they need to change their ways at all.

I can't say Al is 100% mistake-proof but he is the closest this world has, for a person trying to save something for future generations. He is a Democrat, but Republicans will die right along with him, if this turns out to be true.

No one of us can predict the future, we honestly do not know either way. Better safe than sorry?

[tejasdemo]

Joe Barton is a moron.

[doctor_jason]

AaaaBbbbb, scare tactics refers to using BS to force people against their free will. We don%u2019t need charlatans like Bore, we need honest people to make the case based on legit reasons. Using BS undermines the issue and is counterproductive. Al%u2019s detractors are also non republican scientists, you simply don%u2019t hear about them in our cheerleading %u201Cnews%u201D media. Better safe than sorry at too high a cost is not good policy nor leadership. I wonder if you would accept the same line of reasoning from a person defending Bush%u2019s overzealous approach to the WOT; my guess is you wouldn%u2019t. Both are trying to save us from perceived life threatening dangers, in some instances beyond the scope of the law/reason, each is a hero or Satan depending on who%u2019s eyes they are seen through.

[zorlacskates]

dr. allegre says we don't know what the cause of global warming is. he doesn't mention any of the dopey counterarguments passed around, he just says he doesn't think it's as bad as he once did. i'll admit, that's compelling, but it doesn't really change anything. he's still in a considerable minority among equally credible peers. of course, that's been the party-line among deniers -- just introduce doubt into the debate and don't worry about finding answers.

[crescen7]

Use the Source . . .

Don't listen to Al Gore, Don't listen to Joe L. Barton. The information that these people are "interpreting" is available for everyone to see. Review the actual temperature data, review the explanations and modeling from both sides. Decide based on logic. This is science, not dogma.

Of course if one still wants to defer to "scientists"
Here are 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm

And another 5017 Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, and other Life Sciences "scientists" http://www.oism.org/pproject/b_sci.htm

Whose opinion one may wish to consult.

[doctor_jason]

Apple2pie, please wake up. It is not simply greedy republicans who doubt man entirely and largely causes GW and that there is anything we can do about it. In fact some of the early advocates have changed their tune.

[wuli1]

The "easy answer" is that rank-and-file liberals are ignorant about the political basis of "man made" global warming, because the ignorant and biased mainstream media is their bible.

There is no "small number of hard-core ideologues" leading the "thinking for the whole conservative movement", nor does "Your typical conservative" have "little interest in the issue".
A substantial number of conservatives at the grass roots know what is and is not "science" about current global temperature cycles. Unlike the liberal hoi poloi who are led around by the nose by the media, there is no one and no one group leading conservatives on the issue of global warming. They read more actual science and are willing to read outside of simply what the mainstream media is willing to report.

Many New York liberals found the same things when a debate was held in New York City (March 16, hosted by NPR), with scientists on both sides of the issue and the "manmade" global warming position shrank in the audience's view from 57% in favor, 30% opposed before the debate to 46% opposed and 42% in favor after the debate.

There are tons of scientific articles and journals willing to acknowledge there is not a scientific "consensus", but unlike conservatives the children of the media won't even look to find how much they are being lied to.