Poll: Most Republicans don’t believe in climate change

A new Pew poll shows a dramatic change in opinion on climate change among Republicans that seems to mirror a new tone on the issue taken up by GOP politicians.

In the poll, 53 percent of Republicans said there is no evidence for climate change, when only three years ago 62 percent of GOPers said they did believe in global warming. Almost 80 percent of Democrats and a majority of independents said there is solid evidence for global warming.

Overall, 59 percent of adults thought there was good evidence that the planet is warming, and 34 percent said global warming is mostly caused by human activity. Both numbers are down steeply from 2006.

An overwhelming number of scientists say global warming exists, is harmful and is caused by human-created carbon emissions, from cars, factories and other sources. Even climate-change "skeptics" agree that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means higher temperatures, as Bjorn Lomborg tells The Daily Beast. Lomborg made a documentary saying global pacts to reduce carbon emissions are not a good idea, but agrees that evidence for man-made climate change is undeniable.

"Ninety-seven percent of top scientists are in agreement, but the public is split about 50-50," University of Minnesota professor John Abraham told the AFP. (The Pew poll shows that only 44 percent of Americans think most scientists believe in man-made climate change.) Meanwhile, a group of hundreds of U.S. scientists announced this month they want to speak out on climate change to battle misinformation.

So why the disconnect?

The campaign to raise awareness about global warming took a major hit in 2009 when leaked emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia suggested that some climate scientists were manipulating data. A government review later cleared the scientists of manipulating data, but the "Climategate" damage was done, at least in terms of public perception. (Though there's some debate. One Stanford researcher conducted another poll that suggests that most Americans had not heard of "Climategate.")

As criticism over "Climategate" mounted and President Obama's efforts to secure a carbon-reduction pact at Copenhagen last year failed, Republican politicians — especially those affiliated with the tea party movement — began more boldly to deny man-made global warming. (And it's not just Republicans who are publicly airing doubts about global warming. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin won his election in West Virginia after literally shooting a copy of the failed cap-and-trade energy bill in a campaign ad.)

The liberal blog ThinkProgress estimates that about half of the approximately 100 freshmen GOP Congressmen do not believe in man-made global warming. The soon-to-be chair of the House Science Committee is a climate-change skeptic.

Even among more moderate Republicans, climate change has become a no-go zone.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who ran on a clean-energy platform just a year ago, told a town hall last week he "can't figure this stuff out" when asked if he is convinced man-made global warming is a problem.

"Mankind, is it responsible for global warming? Well I'll tell you something. I have seen evidence on both sides of it. I'm skeptical — I'm skeptical," he said. (His press secretary later walked back the remark a little in speaking to the Huffington Post.)

It's unclear what effects this new trend among Republicans will have on global policy, since austerity-minded European nations have already signaled they are reluctant to act on reducing carbon emissions. The next UN conference on climate change is set for Nov. 29, when a binding deal to reduce carbon emissions is again not expected to be agreed upon by participating nations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101117/sc_yblog_thelookout/poll-most-republicans-dont-believe-in-climate-change

Big surprise!

BubbleBliss wrote:
Big surprise!

I know, right?

And what's even funnier is that I got this story from Yahoo, which is, if you look at the comments at the bottom, frequented by far-right-wingers.

I've noticed that as well. AOL is just like that, the comments on the articles are pretty amusing actually.

Here's my official stance on AGW. I believe that planet is getting warmer. I'm not convinced that we (man) is at fault (yet).

The problem with this issue is the attitudes taken by both sides of the debate. Each side tries to diminish the others opinions and whatever facts they themselves lay out. It's become a left vs right issue. When one side can't convince the other, they get mad as hell and sparks fly.

That's my Piece and I'm not going to comment further.

It's not a 'left vs. right' issue, it's a scientific issue. The problem that most denialists have is that they see the political issue and the cost of accepting that AGW is man made so they dismiss the science, no matter how proven it is.

I said

It's become a left vs right issue.

No more replies from me on this.

BubbleBliss wrote:
It's not a 'left vs. right' issue, it's a scientific issue. The problem that most denialists have is that they see the political issue and the cost of accepting that AGW is man made so they dismiss the science, no matter how proven it is.

Exactly. It isn't a "left" versus "right" issue. It's a "right" verus "wrong" issue. There is a reason science exists. If people choose to ignore the facts, they're only making the problem worse. There shouldn't be anything political about this issue.

TexasBlue wrote:I'm not convinced that we (man) is at fault (yet).

Then you need to look harder. The genuine qualified sceptics represent only 3% of the active research community. The rest are just denialists who do not understand the science presented either by the 97% "yes" or the 3% "no" but dismiss it offhand because it is inconvenient to their political or economic philosophies.

Human history is full of examples where we wantonly destroy our environment while pretending nothing is happening. We are selfish beings and now we are justifying this selfishness in the name of our "freedoms" against "those who repress us".

It is truly tragic that we put human constructs such as religion, society, constitutions and MONEY above doing what is ultimately for our own good. We would rather build a church to appease our god of choice, sacrifice a goat to the spirits or execute non-conformists whom we have convinced ourselves is responsible for this drought or that earthquake. Self-examination seems to be beyond our remit while we focus on looking for external forces to blame. This selfishness was described in an academic study in 1968. It was given the title "The Tragedy of the Commons".

You can read the whole paper here.

Why aren't you willing to discuss this any further, Tex?

BecMacFeegle wrote:Why aren't you willing to discuss this any further, Tex?

Because it's a very contentious debate. I'm slowly taking a different role in here and trying to avoid debates that will end up contentious. My status (Admin) dictates that, I believe. Very contentious debates that I get involved in probably make me look biased... more than I already am. Hope that makes sense.

As for others.... that's on them.

It would be better explained this way:
If this forum picks up even more in the future and we get more debates on religion going on in here, does it make sense for Matt to remain a moderator in the Religion section? No. Matt and I have discussed this very point in the past. Of course, he would remain as a mod in other areas but I know Matt... he would have a hard time if he had to debate a guy like 10ld in here. He'd probably go schizo before it was done. And I wouldn't want to be party to that. You have to live with Matt. Not me.

I have no choice in the matter due to my position in here.

lol. Actually I think you are just scared that I would utterly destroy any argument you put up

I would do my best to be impartial in the religion section. I am an equal opportunities antitheist, so I hate all religion equally and make no distinctions there

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:lol. Actually I think you are just scared that I would utterly destroy any argument you put up

You're entitled to your opinion. I've also said I'm not near as well-versed in the AGW debate as you are... or even Dbl though you disagree with him completely.

I guess it's like debating how our gov't works with someone who doesn't have a complete grasp on it. There's many living right here in the USA who have no clue and I "destroy" their argument each time.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I would do my best to be impartial in the religion section. I am an equal opportunities antitheist, so I hate all religion equally and make no distinctions there

If you can do it, I'm fine with it.

Maybe I should become like you regarding politics.... and hate liberals and conservatives equally.

You would have to change your name though to any of the following:

* TexasAnarchist
* TexasNihilist
* TexasFenceSitter
* TexasCynic

Any of the four would work. I have an even better one but I can't print it here.