Sunday, April 06, 2014

The Politics of Global Warming

From Gallup:
A lack of formal education in general is clearly not a factor in Americans' failure to be more concerned about global warming; Americans who have not attended college are no less concerned than those with a college degree or postgraduate education.

Politics are important in understanding American attitudes about global warming. The issue has become highly politicized in recent years, and that polarization shows up across a number of indicators. At the core, Democrats appear to have widely accepted the warnings about global warming, and well over half today say they worry about it a great deal. On the other hand, less than 20% of Republicans worry a great deal, while almost two-thirds say they worry only a little or not at all. So long as global warming remains a politically charged issue, it will likely lag behind other environmental issues as a public concern.
The data show that political independents are much closer to Republicans than to Democrats on the issue, should I wonder why that was left out of the above commentary?


allen (in Michigan) said...

The problem for the left lies in the failure to produce evidence of anthropogenic global warming. That failure's necessitated attempts to use less persuasive, less credible alternative to the required demonstration proof.

Computer models had their day in the sun but have fallen out of favor. Now the primary method of advancing the cause is to attempt to bludgeon the public into acquiescence with the entirely specious "scientific consensus" through sheer repetition.

Lefties however want to be led so the poor quality of their arguments is no problem. Their acceptance of anthropogenic global warming is all the proof they need with all the blather about scientific consensus and the hockey stick graph and all that being nothing but eye candy for people who aren't evolved enough to know truth by the odor it exudes.

Righties, by contrast, are inherently skeptical since the world's filled with people willing to lie to get what they want.

What's missing is an assessment over a longer period of time and I'd be willing to give odds that independents started out much more concerned with anthropogenic global warming but over time have shifted their position markedly. That is, I believe, as a result of the failure to produce conclusive evidence, or even convincing indications of the likelihood, of anthropogenic global warming.

maxutils said...

I'm going to come back with a link that a friend of mine posted on FB, which is sort of related ... it's a pretty neat analysis, in collegiate research, whose premise is that having more knowledge is actually less useful in making correct decisions than having more. I don't know if I agree ... I'm literally still processing it. What I do know is ... with regard to global warming, or the lack thereof? There are plenty of people with way too much information, and I have know idea what is more correct. So ...I really can't pick a side. And if you're honest with yourself? You probably can't be sure you're right, either.
Where I come down is ... if we assume that the 'lefties' are correct, what can we do? We can't affect China or India, and we shouldn't cause our people to suffer because we can't compete. On the other hand? There's nothing wrong with reasonable economic restraints on pollution/emissions. I will gladly pay 50 cents more for a sandwich, if it means I don't have to breathe China's air. $3 bucks more? I probably go with China's air. It's all relative.

maxutils said...

Here is the link I was referring to. Post it or not, but it's a really interesting read.