Why liberals fear global warming far more than Conservatives do?

[sylas]

O.K. Sylas. Let us accept your answer.

Conservatives are in denial, you think?

Yes, to a considerable extent; with a quibble on the word "conservative" that I'll consider again below.

Is it because conservatives are stupid? The facts are clear. The majority of scientists accept these facts.

I think that possibility deserves serious consideration. The term "stupid" suggests a kind of one-dimensional low level of intelligence, that I do not accept. I think highly intelligent people are capable of being stupid.

A better term with wider applicability might be "naive", but in many individual cases the word "stupid" fits very well.

To acknowledge a majority of scientists accept the fact of anthropogenic global warming is enough to get you called a liberal by some folks. The word is dreadfully sloppy; it tends to get used to label anyone who takes the wrong side of an issue. You might avoid the label by qualifying your remark to say "but a significant minority disagrees"; but not if you come all the way over to what I am saying and what was reported in the Science article I cited. Not just majority, but a clear scientific consensus across the board, with only isolated and dubious exceptions.

Furthermore, global warming is not an isolated instance of this kind of stupidity, or naivety, from the right.

Now of course; anticipating objections, I know that there are plenty examples of extraordinary naivety from all sides of the political spectrum. Lysenko in the old USSR, or countless examples in Maoist China show that the left can verge upon the insane as well; and those examples are even more drastic than what now afflicts the USA.

But in the present, my opinion is that the right in the USA is the major source of a whole range of idiotic and irrational denials of what ought to be comparatively straightforward. To take another example beloved in this forum... evolution denial tends to be a phenomenon from the right. There are plenty of other instances. A recent book has been published, that I am curious to read -- since I've read other articles by the author. The Republican War on Science, by Chris Mooney. This is a partisan book, of course; but I it seems to me that partisan conclusions in this instance are perfectly rational.

I don't think we should merely presume both sides are equally bad. In the west and in the USA in particular, as far as actual political leadership goes, the biggest problem with head in the sand denial of inconvenient scientific facts is from the right.

You may not like the terms liberal, conservative, etc. but that just reveals your own mindset. You deal strictly with scientific data and expect others to do likewise. To get a feel for most (biased) people read the Boston Globe for Liberalism (or listen to a speach byTed Kennedy). For Conservatism, check out Rush Limbaugh. Most minds are made up long before any facts come in and those attitudes persist for a long time.

I wonder what you think it reveals about my mindset that I dislike those words in this context. Perhaps it is a reflection of the love of clarity of thinking and plain definitions that so often goes with scientific aptitude. I'll just take it as a compliment.

The other word I disliked here was "fear". I don't think I "fear" global warming particularly. Say rather that I think it exists and it is important. The problem with "fear" is that it caries a negative subtext. To be fearful is the opposite of courageous. How would you tell who is "fearful"? Seriously. I think the term "fear" in this context is being applied to anyone who recognizes it and acts upon the recognition. To have no fear is to ignore it and not be bothered. Well, I recognize global warming. How much I do about it is personally disturbing question. I write articles like this. But I still drive a car more than is always necessary, and I have a heater on in my room when I could have perhaps put on warmer clothes.

The terms "conservative" and "liberal" have almost lost their meanings. It's particularly confusing for an Australian, as our right wing party is called the "Liberal Party". In the USA, you have two major parties. By world standards, they are right wing, and even righter wing. If Rush Limbaugh is what you think of as "conservative", then the USA is doomed. He's "oh-my-gosh-I-can't-believe-anyone-could-say-that right wing". Extremists, either to the left or the right, tend towards irrationality. In the USA at present; the extremist left has almost no influence, and the extremist right is in government.

IMO, most people do not deal with scientific facts until it is absolutely necessaray to do so. For example: Why do you think that YECs persist in accepting a 10K year old earth? Is it "denial" or are they just strongly opposed for other philosophical reasons. It seems to be the later.

Regardless of what philosophical reasons might be involved, yes, they are in denial.

Similarly, there may be other reasons why conservatives seem to be so, well, stupid, when it comes to global warming. One is that many people are sheep; and that that it only take a few powerful lobbyists or pundits with various ulterior motives to set up lead for others to follow. The existence of a well funded anti-global warming lobby actively supported by major industry players is well established.

But I think another cause is that the very labels we apply tend to become self fulfilling. If you recognize the reality of global warming, you are far more likely to think we should do something about it. And that will make you a liberal.

---

Now let me backpedal. I think with this post I really have crossed the line and gone off topic. People are very diverse, and I've sold all kinds of people short. I've been rash with sweeping generalizations, and I'm not inclined to defend them at any length.

I don't think it is all that useful to speculate on reasons why so many people have got such a poor understanding of the basic underlying facts of the matter; of what is known and what is uncertain. I think (as I have said repeatedly in the thread) that this is the major reason for "fear", or "no fear", of global warming, and that this ought to be addressed head on without worrying too much about how people managed to get their basic information so wrong, or where they lie on some political spectrum.

My approach will be to continue with what I seem to manage best. Not political rants; but expositions of data and models from the world of science. Some folks, I am sure, will find this useful, no matter where they are politically, and that's the most success I desire.

If recognition of the data becomes more widespread across the political spectrum, then that can only be good. Responses will differ, but at least they won't be based on outright misinformation.

I have several conservative friends down in Florida. They are very fearful of global warming and want things to change. I have others in the farming and desert coutry and they are not as "fearful". Some of my liberal friends are really concerned about warming and want to react to it. Many of my scientific (both sides of the aisle) friends seem to think that we have painted ourselves into a corner and nature will probably take control of the situation before we can ever react (even if we understood how to deal with the problem).

You may well be right; but by "take control of the situation" I take it you just mean that world will carry on one way or the other. There's no implication that "Mother Nature" is going to do something for our particular benefit. I don't think anything is going to prevent global warming. We have collectively precipitated some significant climatic changes; they are now well underway, and we won't know all the consequences for a long time yet. Trying to actively undo what has been done in the past is not seriously on the cards, but I'm in favour of easing up on that accelerator.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Darth Executor]

I think liberals fear global warming because it's the image of the hellfire that awaits them in the afterlife.

[Simeon]

I think liberals fear global warming because it's the image of the hellfire that awaits them in the afterlife.

Well, in may cases it suits their political agenda.

Note, how Hillary Clinton is playing this card and wishes to "do more" in a contest with her dumb Dem' opponents.

Google: "global warming" and Clinton

And of course she "cares" more about our Mother Earth, than any Republican!?

[Simeon]

You're a moron.

The temperature change I refer to is the change in the ocean temperatures, which in turn leads to changes in weather patterns, and drought in the Midwest. That change was very small, but the consequences were large. The physics of such consequences are well established.

You are referring to daily high temperatures in the drought affected areas, which are quite another matter. That you roll around the floor laughing at this comparison shows -- again -- that you have not the slightest grasp of any of this material. Even in a field where naivety and ignorance is pervasive, you have managed to stand out for abject cement headed stupidity that defies description.

The scientific data is clear. Global warming is here, and the major cause is greenhouse gas emissions. When faced with this, you tend to retreat in to gibberish. There's plenty of room for real debate about measuring the amount of warming, and determining whether it has any precedents in the past, on the effects of secondary causes, and the consequences of climate change, and the prospects for what to do about it. It is unfortunate that all of that serious and important discussion so often has to take place against the shrill background of bozos like yourself.

And, having thoroughly lost my temper with you, I have also conceded the futility of continuing to engage with you in any substantive manner. Therefore this post is my…

Farewell. Sylas

Ocean temps have and will continue to flucuate no matter what you and other silly humans do. (or "reason" with their biased POV's)

Ha, I bet you think our recent summer heat wave in the USA is a product of "global warming'?

Record high temps, or mass hysteria?

[Simeon]

Hmmm, here is one reason:

-- The Left is prone to hysteria.



The belief that global warming will destroy the world is but one of many hysterical notions held on the Left. As noted in a previous column devoted to the Left and hysteria, many on the Left have been hysterical about the dangers of the PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance of phone numbers (incipient fascism); secondhand smoke (killing vast numbers of people); drilling in the remotest area of Alaska (major environmental despoliation); and opposition to same-sex marriage (imminent Christian theocracy).

Yes indeed, just what is thread about?

[Simeon]

"So why do you think that liberals fear global warmning more than conservatives? "

I've not seen any evidence that they do. I think lots of conservatives are unconvinced that there is any global warming. I also think that their conviction is based on ignorance and disinformation, but that's a different matter.

The only way to address your question would be to take a liberal and a conservative equally convinced of global warming. We could then see who feared it most.

Are you more scared or less scared of a one metre sea level rise in the next 50 years than I am (stipulating that you are more conservative than I, I suppose, and also stipulating that we assign the same probability level to it.) (I'm not scared of it at all, but I suspect I think it's more likely than you do.)

But if you melt away the political hype, you will laugh your butt off with this bit of irony!

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/south-pole-tragedy.htm

(Punta Arenas, Chile) Famed global warming activist James Schneider and a journalist friend (professional progandist) were both found frozen to death on Saturday, about 90 miles from South Pole Station, by the pilot of a ski plane practicing emergency evacuation procedures.

"I couldn't believe what I was seeing", recounted the pilot, Jimmy Dolittle. "There were two snowmobiles with cargo sleds, a tent, and a bright orange rope that had been laid out on the ice, forming the words, 'HELP-COLD'".



"At least James died for something he believed in", said Mrs. Schneider. "He died while trying to raise awareness of the enormous toll that global warming is taking on the Earth."

It gets better:

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/polar-bear-heat.htm

Polar Bears "Dropping Like Flies" From Heat Exhaustion

Hunter Jeremiah Johnson comforts a polar bear that had collapsed from heat exhaustion before he could shoot it.

[Tickle Me Goody]

<snip>

I don't think it is all that useful to speculate on reasons why so many people have got such a poor understanding of the basic underlying facts of the matter; of what is known and what is uncertain. I think (as I have said repeatedly in the thread) that this is the major reason for "fear", or "no fear", of global warming, and that this ought to be addressed head on without worrying too much about how people managed to get their basic information so wrong, or where they lie on some political spectrum.

My approach will be to continue with what I seem to manage best. Not political rants; but expositions of data and models from the world of science. Some folks, I am sure, will find this useful, no matter where they are politically, and that's the most success I desire.

If recognition of the data becomes more widespread across the political spectrum, then that can only be good. Responses will differ, but at least they won't be based on outright misinformation.

I did not realize that you live in Austarlia. Silly me.

Sylas, unfortuanately, Rush Limbaugh is the (extreme?) example of an American conservative and (also unfortunately) Ted kennedy is an example of American liberals.

It is not a question of examining any data. You flatter the average American (non-scientist) if you think that they do any of that. The conservatives feel that, if you back "global warming", then then you are just an "environmental wacko" who has been saying stuff like this all along and ignoring the effect on the American economy.

It is a mind set. The extreme left is no better, just a different agenda. Save the environment and ignore all economic impact on businesses. Save the whales, don't drill in Alaska, prevent nuclear reactor waste. Did they "cry wolf" too many times?

The trouble with this thread is that it is in political science and not plain vanilla science. In this arena "Fear" Liberal" and "Conservative" are a reasonable fit.

IMO

GG

[geochron]

Ha, I bet you think our recent summer heat wave in the USA is a product of "global warming'?

I bet he doesn't, because he seems to be reasonably well informed about climate change. The contrast is striking,

It's fairly clear from your posts here and in Natural Science that you have little idea what the scientific evidence for climate change is. One liners about sun Gods and chicken little are unimpressive from someone who manifestly knows nothing about the subject beyond what he heard on Rush Limbaugh

[Simeon]

I bet he doesn't, because he seems to be reasonably well informed about climate change. The contrast is striking,

It's fairly clear from your posts here and in Natural Science that you have little idea what the scientific evidence for climate change is. One liners about sun Gods and chicken little are unimpressive from someone who manifestly knows nothing about the subject beyond what he heard on Rush Limbaugh

So called "global warming" is nothing more than Climatic Change, and ditto when the temps go down.

You may not like my one liners, but no has yet proven that there is anything humans can do to change this reality - the reality that Liberals are hysterical idiots. (e.g. Al Gore)

Oh, and did I mention to watch Science as a political football in 2008? Why wait?

Hillary Clinton has already pledged to lower the Earth's temps!?

[geochron]

no has yet proven that there is anything humans can do to change this reality

It's pretty well established that ongoing changes in the climate are down to human activity in the recent past.

If you have something worthwhile to contribute now would be a good time to do so. As far as I can see your opinion is not grounded in anything substantial, so why should anyone care what you say?

Or have you just omitted the pl and t from your username?

[Simeon]

The media is driving the hysteria of "global warming" and the "crisis" of a so called man made cause.

However, the scientific data doesn't support the man made "green house" gases cause, although yes, temps are rising, and as I have posted, this climatic change.

The dumb Dem's are attempting to exploit these basis fears spread by the media.

Look for more of the DNC talking points and the cultic dogma of Al Gore to be ever presented as "fact" by the media.

Next, get ready for CLIMATE PORN IS A COUNSEL OF DESPAIR

Apocalyptic visions of climate change used by newspapers, environmental groups and the government of the United Kingdom amount to "climate porn," says the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).

http://www.ippr.org.uk

Moreover, the IPPR says overuse of alarming images is a "counsel of despair" that makes people feel helpless and is partly commercially motivated.

The IPPR report also criticizes the reporting of individual climate-friendly acts as mundane, domestic and uncompelling.

The climate change discourse in the United Kingdom today, says IPPR, looks confusing, contradictory and chaotic; moreover, it seems likely that the overarching message for the lay public is that in fact, nobody really knows.

The IPPR analyzed 600 newspaper and magazine articles, as well as broadcast news and advertisements. Coverage breaks down, it concluded, into several distinct areas, including:

• Alarmism, characterized by images and words of catastrophe.

• Settlerdom, in which "common sense" is used to argue against the scientific consensus.

• Rhetorical skepticism, which argues the science is bad and the dangers hyped.

• Techno-optimism, the argument that technology can solve the problem.

It is appropriate to call what some of these groups publish 'climate porn,' because on some level it is like a disaster movie," says Simon Retallack, IPPR's head of climate change. "The public becomes disempowered because it's too big for them; and when it sounds like science fiction, there is an element of the unreal there."

[geochron]

The media is driving the hysteria of "global warming" and the "crisis" of a so called man made cause.

However, the scientific data doesn't support the man made "green house" gases cause, although yes, temps are rising, and as I have posted, this climatic change.

The dumb Dem's are attempting to exploit these basis fears spread by the media.

Look for more of the DNC talking points and the cultic dogma of Al Gore to be ever presented as "fact" by the media.

Next, get ready for CLIMATE PORN IS A COUNSEL OF DESPAIR

Apocalyptic visions of climate change used by newspapers, environmental groups and the government of the United Kingdom amount to "climate porn," says the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).

http://www.ippr.org.uk

Moreover, the IPPR says overuse of alarming images is a "counsel of despair" that makes people feel helpless and is partly commercially motivated.

The IPPR report also criticizes the reporting of individual climate-friendly acts as mundane, domestic and uncompelling.

The climate change discourse in the United Kingdom today, says IPPR, looks confusing, contradictory and chaotic; moreover, it seems likely that the overarching message for the lay public is that in fact, nobody really knows.

The IPPR analyzed 600 newspaper and magazine articles, as well as broadcast news and advertisements. Coverage breaks down, it concluded, into several distinct areas, including:

• Alarmism, characterized by images and words of catastrophe.

• Settlerdom, in which "common sense" is used to argue against the scientific consensus.

• Rhetorical skepticism, which argues the science is bad and the dangers hyped.

• Techno-optimism, the argument that technology can solve the problem.

It is appropriate to call what some of these groups publish 'climate porn,' because on some level it is like a disaster movie," says Simon Retallack, IPPR's head of climate change. "The public becomes disempowered because it's too big for them; and when it sounds like science fiction, there is an element of the unreal there."

Since you've posted the above twice, I will answer it twice. Maybe you could respond in just one place.

Some of the responses to climate change criticised in the report are exemplified by you.

Settlerdom, in which "common sense" is used to argue against the scientific consensus.
(for instance, the "it was hotter in North Dakota in the thirties")

Rhetorical skepticism, which argues the science is bad and the dangers hyped.
(for instance, that stuff about Antarctic ice you came out with)

[Simeon]

Since you've posted the above twice, I will answer it twice. Maybe you could respond in just one place.

Some of the responses to climate change criticised in the report are exemplified by you.

Settlerdom, in which "common sense" is used to argue against the scientific consensus.
(for instance, the "it was hotter in North Dakota in the thirties")

Actually, it was often hotter and for longer periods of time, and yes, there is a "common sense" explanation because drought bakes the earth and causes temps to rise even further.

My point, as I posted, is that the planet didn't end then, and it won't in the near term billion years on either.

Rhetorical skepticism, which argues the science is bad and the dangers hyped.

(for instance, that stuff about Antarctic ice you came out with)

What was wrong with the hard science (apart from the spoof parts) regarding the Antarctic region, where the environment has been liitle changed and has been recored as stable for the last 50 years?

Also see the follow hard science article:

brief introduction to

the history of climate

Beginning in the early 1900s, the climate of the world began to warm. This is evident in Figure 1-1, which shows the average Earth surface temperature from 1880 through 1999. The temperature is an area-weighted average over the land and ocean compiled by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, using an averaging technique devised by Quayle et al. ; see also . In the plot, "zero" temperature is defined as the temperature in 1950. The fine line shows the monthly temperatures; the thicker line shows the 12 month yearly averages.

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBo...f_climate.html

[Simeon]

Of course you do. But it's there nevertheless. The famous "hockey stick" curve first showed this sharp rise 1998. There's a strong political and economical lobby to deny deny deny these findings. It all came to something of a head in the USA congress last year.

Just catching up to this part of your argument.

Who is picking and choosing what scientific facts to post? Or, are you just picking your horse or favorite scientists that backs your philosophy or political bias?



HOCKEY STICK HOKUM



Before 1999 the accepted view on climate change was that the world had undergone a warming period in the middle ages, followed by a mid-millennium cold spell and a subsequent warming period -- the current one.

That all changed when paleoclimatologist Michael Mann's research paper eliminated the Medieval warm period from the history books. With a nice, steady temperature oscillation that persists for centuries followed by a dramatic climb over the past century, Mann's work produced the "hockey stick" graph.

The trouble is that there's no reason to believe Mann, or his "hockey stick" graph of global temperature changes. Subsequent studies have shown Mann's analysis to be less than definitive:

In 2003, Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre published an article in a peer-reviewed journal showing that Mann's methodology could produce hockey sticks from even random, trendless data.

Furthermore, in a soon to be released report by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the three researchers -- Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University -- find that Mann's methodology is biased toward producing "hockey stick" shaped graphs.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.ph...rticle_ID=8916

Original Source: Editorial, "Hockey Stick Hokum," Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2006

For text (subscription required):

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/...428306460.html

[sylas]

Just catching up to this part of your argument.

Who is picking and choosing what scientific facts to post? Or, are you just picking your horse or favorite scientists that backs your philosophy or political bias?

I'm quoting the scientists. You're quoting Wall Street Journal.

Looking in more detail at who is quoting what just makes you look worse at every turn; so let's dig a bit deeper.

You are responding to msg #130, where I cited the report by the NAS into the hockey stick curve. This is about as non-partisan as you can get. It is the National Academy of Sciences in the USA, and the report was commissioned by congress specifically to look into the claims for a sharp increase in recent warming and see whether or not the claims were valid. A large committee was involved in its production, and the NAS itself is not aligned with any political movement.

The sharp rise is called the "hockey stick", and the NAS report confirmed that the conclusions were valid. The NAS report does speak of some scope for tuning or adjusting the trends identified by Mann in 1998; which is normal in the progress of science. But the science involved was good.

From the summary of the NAS report:

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, NAS 2006, (page 18)

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.

© source where applicable

The NAS report is thorough. It also considers the criticisms that have been made of the methods used by Mann et. al. Criticism is perfectly normal in science; it is part of what keeps scientific work at a high quality. The report, from page 105, looks at some of the criticisms, and proposes various better methods that can be applied. Their overall support of Mann is thus qualified; but this is mostly a matter of tuning. The basic result is solid.

You've cited Wall Street Journal, an article called "Hockey Stick Hokum". The basis of the Wall Street Journal rubbish is a report commissioned by Rep. Barton, and produced by three statisticians – not scientists. It amounts to a lot of quibbling over the particular statistical methods in Mann's work. This report is from an ad hoc committee, commissioned by the usual political suspects (Rep Barton is notorious for head in the sand refusal to deal with the science), not subject to any peer review, not involving any actual scientists or climatologists, and not even making any new criticisms!

The basic criticisms of this report were already made in the peer reviewed literature by McIntyre and McKitrick in 2003, and have been already responded to and dealt with in the literature. That debate is considered in the NAS report on page 86.

Mann has responded to the report commissioned by Barton. He is quoted at Mongabay.com:

War of words over new climate change report, 'hockey stick' model, July 2006

"The un-peer reviewed report commissioned by Rep. Barton released today adds nothing new to the scientific discourse on climate change and is a poor attempt to further personalize and politicize what should be a matter of scientific debate not politics," wrote Dr. Mann in a response released Friday.

…

"Barton's report, written by statisticians with no apparent background at all in the relevant areas, simply uncritically parrots claims by two Canadians (an economist and an oil industry consultant) that have already been refuted by several papers in the peer-reviewed literature inexplicably neglected by Barton's 'panel'. These claims were specifically dismissed by the National Academy in their report just weeks ago."

© source where applicable

As far as I can tell from looking over the reports in question, Mann is correct.

More seriously, all of this quibbling is beside the point. The science marches on. Mann's work is just one little piece in the continuing accumulation of data pointing the reality of global warming, the role of humanity in causing it, and the extent of warming being substantially greater than the normal swings in climate that take place on our planet. His work is now eight years old, for heavens sake.

Here's some more recent science.

• 2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century, from NASA. Note that this is based on temperature data; not on proxies. NASA thus provides a direct confirmation of the Hockey stick inferred by Mann's proxy based analysis. Here is NASA's data, graphed.
  [attachment=1]
• Climate 'warmest for millennium', reported by the BBC in Feb 2006. Extract: In the late 20th Century, the northern hemisphere experienced its most widespread warmth for 1,200 years, according to the journal Science.. This is research by Dr Timothy Osborn.

But am I picking and choosing? Of course: I'm picking and choosing what is supported by scientists who actually study climate. Could I have chosen scientists disputing that human effects are a major cause of global warming? No, not in the peer reviewed literature. As I showed back in msg #145, there are NO scientific reports actually denying human caused scientific warming, based on a survey reported in 2004 in the journal Science. The scientific debate is all on the details, in the context of a universal consensus of the reality of human caused global warming.

Deal with it.

Cheers -- Sylas