Look at the polls: Twice as many Democrats as Republicans say that most scientists agree that climate change is occurring. But why don’t conservatives believe in climate change? For some progressives, the answer is easy: Republicans are dumb or backwards or fooling themselves. They may feel the same about me, since I don’t think it ever makes sense to write off a hundred million of your fellow Americans as fools for disagreeing with you.
It is certainly true that partisanship drives a lot of the opposition. President Obama is for it, so they are against it. Al Gore is the face of climate change, so it must be wrong. That’s an irrational approach to any issue, but it is something we all do. Democrats should try this thought experiment: If Dick Cheney were promoting an issue, calling on Americans to make it a national priority and touring the country with a fact-filled slide show, would you be willing to agree with him?
Gallup Poll
You might say it would depend on the facts he was presenting, but if I honestly ask myself the question, I know it would be very hard for me to stand on his side.
Or look at the issue of missile defense. There may be plenty of reasons to be skeptical of missile defense, but for most progressives who don’t follow the issue closely (like me), I think our opposition is rooted in the fact that President Reagan first promoted it.
Progressives are no more interested in having their cities bombed than Republicans are in having them flooded, and very few non-experts on either side really understand the complex science of either issue. But we have taken our cues from the leaders we trust, and instinctively oppose those with whom we generally disagree. (Just to be clear, I’m not arguing the relative merits of missile defense and climate action. My point is simply that tribalism and partisanship tends to color our judgment.)
So it makes sense that conservatives would start out as skeptical toward climate change. But once every major scientific organization has concluded the science is right, shouldn’t they get past that? After all, the consensus view of climate science has been endorsed by the august and stodgy National Academy of Sciences, which President George W. Bush called the “gold standard” of scientific inquiry.
It may be that a more important reason many conservatives are reluctant to accept the science of global warming is that the solutions worry them. Addressing the problem will require national policies (and international cooperation) that shift our economy towards clean energy, and the GOP generally wants less, not more, government. So conservatives are going to demand very strong evidence that the problem is real and dangerous.
Still, I believe that for most conservatives, the bar of proof is not set infinitely high. When they see a real, dangerous threat, they get behind government action. For example, Republicans support the Centers for Disease Control’s work to fight epidemic diseases and FBI efforts against organized crime. Similarly, once conservatives are convinced that climate change threatens our way of life, they will support policies to address the problem. Their solutions may be different from EDF’s, but that’s a debate the nation would benefit from having.
Wow. You'll pretend I am being honest. How generous of you. While I appreciate you listing a couple of books you recommend, I am surprised how quickly you jumped to insults. That is typically a tactic of people with weak arguments. I'll read the books but I am surprised at how quickly you resorted to the kind of attacks I mentioned in my original note. That is really uncalled for and disappointing. Do you really think talking to people like that is going to get them to want to join you (that is after all what the article was about in the first place).
By the way, you should go back and read my note again... carefully this time. You will find I did not say the only books I found that were good were those that deny it is happening. I said "The books that I have found that apply this rigorous method are all on the side expressing doubts about the extent of the claims of the impact of global warming." Expressing doubts about the extent of claims of the impact is hardly denial that it is happening. I did not say the books held the position that global warming does not exist. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt but it sure seems that in my note, you saw what you expected to see and you didn't read it carefully.
Bruce
April 1, 2013 at 2:33 amIn reply to Really. You can't just google by Benjamin Funar
Well, Bruce, you've got to admit that it sounds a little odd that after your calmly reasoned comment you ask others to provide you with a book that wraps up the whole of climate change in a neat package for you, because while you can find books that lead you to have doubts about (not sure whether it's the existence or the effects of) climate change, you can't find one for the other side. It would be more helpful if YOU listed the books you read so that we too can read them. It would be helpful if you mentioned maybe the top three reasons behind your doubts. My suggestion to you is to read the science itself in the literature. Put the pieces together. You're obviously a smart guy. Read what the hydrologists say. Read what the marine scientists say. Read what the climatologists and the experts on atmospheric chemistry and processes say. It's all there, published in the relevant journals. The carbon cycle is out of whack because we are dumping so much of it into the atmosphere. And when you overload a system that is in balance, you get an unbalanced system and the effects of that unbalance. So I wouldn't worry too much about someone's tone, especially since you yourself then jump to the conclusion that anyone who uses such a tone surely has a weak argument.
jbinsb
April 2, 2013 at 3:41 pmIn reply to Wow. You'll pretend I am by Bruce
Thank you for a rational and non-cobative response. I admit that I do not have the time for an exhaustive reading of scientific papers in many journals across the many disciplines that are relevant to this subject. Your point that I am looking for a single book to wrap it up nicely for me is well taken. I would clarify by saying that I am fine with reading a few books. I realize that given these restrictions I am imposing, it may not be possible to get the level of rigor that I would like to have. However, I think that if the goal is to get more people to join the cause, then the people trying to do that need to be able to get to people like me. I think there are a lot of people like me. I am willing to be convinced but I am not willing to be told what to think. True, I don't have the time to become an expert and that may be a problem, but if you want to succeed, I'll repeat... you need to be able to get to people like me.
As for your point that it would be helpful to list the books I have read on the other side that I thought were good, I understand but I intentionally did not do that and I have a good reason. This is a very polarized issue. There are people firmly entrenched on each side of the argument that truly believe that everyone on the other side is an idiot or they are an evil genius trying to fool the masses for their own evil purposes. I'm not going there. I just want a well reasoned argument on each side so I can decide what makes sense to me. I want them to reference where their data came from (even though I may not have the time to check their sources). My experience has been that anytime I identify something I read that I thought was good, the conversation turns to attacking that author and telling me I shouldn't believe anything that person wrote for whatever the reason of the day is. This is tremendously frustrating. That is why I didn't list anything I read because I knew it would take the conversation away from where I wanted it to go.
I would like to point out a miscommunication we apparently have. You asked me to point out some of my biggest doubts. My response is that I said I had found what I considered to be well written books that expressed doubts. I did not say I had bought into what they presented and in fact I have not drawn a conclusion yet. I am truly in the middle trying to make up my mind. I want to find well written things expressing the other side of the issue so I can read them too and make up my mind.
Since I am still uncommitted, I can't give you my doubts but I will give you some comments about what i think people that believe in man-caused global warming should stop doing because it is keeping them from winning over people like me. 1) Stop saying the debate is over as a way of getting out of answering someones questions. Just never say those words again. This is a coercive, condescending and lazy tactic that only aggravates and alienates the people you could be convincing to join your side. 2) When you make a bold prediction based on your model and it doesn't come true, don't say that your model is really right and the data is an anomaly that will only mean next year things will be more extreme in the direction your model predicted and your model will be vindicated (this is especially bad when you have to do this multiple times). That makes you look like you are hopelessly committed to your model to the point that you argue with the data. Instead, own up to the fact that your model needs additional refinement. A real scientist worships data and tries to find models that fit the data... not the other way around.
Your point about not worrying about other people's tone is valid and perhaps I did appear to quickly conclude that he must have a weak argument. That was not my intent. I wanted him to see that he was using attack and ridicule instead of reaching out to someone that really wants to listen. I have to admit that I am tired of being attacked when I don't just blindly follow the thinking of one side or the other of this issue. I am tired of the hate and ridicule that is so quickly deployed against anyone that dares to ask a question. To be fair, both sides of this argument seem to be guilty of this behavior.
Bruce
April 3, 2013 at 12:57 amIn reply to Well, Bruce, you've got to by jbinsb
This is a reasonable start, but I think that's ultimately it's flaw.
There's at least four populations of conservative opponents with very different motives. 1) the wealthy oligarchs 2) the ideologues 3) the partisans, and 4) the followers.
The partisans are often smart but uninformed except from limited sources and only good a repeating what they've been told. They behave the most like you describe in your article. i.e. the source of the message determines their level of belief in it.
The followers are more fickle and act mostly like partisans accept they don't have the time or IQ to really process the scope of the argument and follow their chosen leaders whom they abandon when it suits them.
The ideologues are the infantry for the oligarchs and relish being righteous over being honest, intelligent or sensible. The dopamine hit they get from attacking liberals is what they live for. Nothing else matters.
The oligarchs have this deeply held objectivist worldview (Ayn Rand style) that can't reconcile the import of climate change. It means that there is in fact global impact from individual actions. The tragedy of the commons is not merely a philosophical concept but reality. Doesn't square in their world. Climate change driven by human action means that there is a need for global governance, for thoughtful direction from an elite, and for collective sacrifice for the long term sake of humanity. Their heads explode.
You'll need this level of nuance or better to present a real proposition for how to proceed.
Benjamin Funar
March 31, 2013 at 3:16 pmI hope this post was in jest. I fear not. Allow me to slightly rephrase your post:
There's at least four populations of Progressive alarmists with very different motives. 1) the wealthy oligarchs 2) the ideologues 3) the partisans, and 4) the followers.
The partisans are often smart but uninformed except from limited sources and only good a repeating what they've been told. They behave the most like you describe in your article. i.e. the source of the message determines their level of belief in it.
The followers are more fickle and act mostly like partisans accept they don't have the time or IQ to really process the scope of the argument and follow their chosen leaders whom they abandon when it suits them. They are mainly on board because it feels good and they like a caring government that cares for them.
The ideologues are the infantry for the oligarchs and relish being righteous over being honest, intelligent or sensible. The dopamine hit they get from attacking conservatives is what they live for. Nothing else matters.
The oligarchs have this deeply held power-trip worldview (Stalin style) that can't reconcile the import of climate change, except as it can be used to promote monopoly or statist power. It means that there is in fact global impact from individual actions. The tragedy of the commons is not merely a philosophical concept but reality. Doesn't square in their world. Climate change driven by human action means that there is a need for global governance, for thoughtful direction from the elite that is, of course, them. There is the need for collective sacrifice on the part of everybody else (lesser mortals) for the long term sake of humanity. Their heads explode in self-deluded aggrandizement at the possibilities.
You'll need this level of nuance or better to present a real proposition for how to proceed to recognize that these motivations have little or nothing to do with environmental defense.
Robert Collinge
March 31, 2013 at 3:45 pmIn reply to This is a reasonable start, by Benjamin Funar
OK, I'll bite.
My partisans are every science academy in the world, every professional scientific and engineering body in world, and 33,000+ scientists of universities and government agencies. They don't repeat what they've been told. They do the science, they place the instruments, they debate the measurements and causes amongst equally trained experts and work towards a better understanding of the way our planet is behaving and changing.
Your partisans are so discredited as scientists or researchers it is astonishing they get air time. But controversy sells. From 1991 to 2013 the number of articles in the peer reviewed literature that support and AGW interpretation: 13,926, the number that don't 24. Of those that don't they all subsequently failed to make their case.
http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/
As for ideologues, while the best you can do is cite climategate as evidence of conspiracy (which has had 8 independent review panels all conclude nothing of the sort) we have court presented evidence from PR firms, non profits and oil & tobacco corporations that reveal a specific intent to sow doubt about the science of global warming. The self same firms that tried to prevent smoking from being linked to cancer contrived and executed a campaign to do the same with AGW.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/where-theres-smoke-the-climat…
They don't just get joy from being righteous, they get paid.
Stalin... really that's who I (liberals) supposedly follow or feel deep philosophical kindredship with? Really, that's straw man is the best you can do. Try harder. It makes you look stupid.
Benjamin Funar
March 31, 2013 at 5:28 pmIn reply to I hope this post was in jest. by Robert Collinge
Does the UN itself backtracking have any bearing in your opinion? http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/01/report-show-un-admitting-sola… So let's see if I get your logic. While we do not really have a handle on how global warming, er, climate change works, we know that ham-fisted central planning (is there any other kind?) via a one-world government (with only our best interests at heart, of course) is sure to make our lives better.
Robert Collinge
March 31, 2013 at 5:43 pmIn reply to OK, I'll bite. My partisans by Benjamin Funar
No really simple. Set a fair price for carbon. Stop subsidizing fossil fuel extraction and offloading the pollution cost to society. Price it in the market and make it trade fairly. Wind and solar will kick it's butt under those conditions.
Recent report out this week shows that there's a $1.9 Trillion annual subsidy for fossil fuels. Stop it!
http://grist.org/climate-energy/imf-says-global-subsidies-to-fossil-fue…
As for the UN backing off, they are doing nothing of the sort. The lower atmospheric temperature trends are part of a much larger system dominated by the oceans, then land, then air. The air temperatures in the lower troposphere are influenced by ocean cycles, aeresols, volcanoes, etc. All they are say is that one piece of a giant edifice of the science behind AGW is at the low end of projections, not of projection, low end. Meanwhile, artic ice mass is vastly lower, Greenland ice melt is much faster and methane emissions higher than forecast so a couple predictions right, a couple off by a small amount.
By the way the projections made by Hansen et al back in the 80s, within the margin of error. Pretty damn good science and demonstration of their understanding of the key mechanism unless you need them to get it precisely right 30 years ago.
Benjamin Funar
March 31, 2013 at 10:40 pmIn reply to Does the UN itself by Robert Collinge
I am genuinely glad to hear that you do not aspire to be a Stalinist central planner. However, I would suggest that is the direction your seemingly reasonable-sounding suggestions would lead. We both would agree that it would be best if externalities were internalized into the price system. Good.
The imposition of a "fair" tax is where problems begin. Who imposes? What is fair? More importantly, what is efficient? The problems start multiplying quickly, for an efficient tax requires knowledge of what human actions cause climate change and, most importantly, the dollar cost of these actions. Then there is the question of who does the imposing. Should a country saddle itself with extra costs when other countries such as China do not?
You suggest a world government approach. Frankly, it is hard enough reigning in our own country's government in Washington. The world government would become dominated by elitists, who would be corrupted by the power. Odds are you personally would be on the outside looking in and not represented, despite your confidence in knowing all the answers.
Recapping, the costs are basically unknown when it comes to specific human actions. Imposing a tax requires central control at a world level. Power corrupts. Are you sure this does not give you a Stalin? Or a Mao? Or any other tyrant in world history. That's a big price to pay when it might just be sunspots causing climate change, or climate change that people can simply adapt to. Be careful what you wish for.
Good night.
Robert Collinge
April 1, 2013 at 2:03 amIn reply to No really simple. Set a fair by Benjamin Funar
Went back to read through the source articles from the Economist, All seems to stem from journalist David Rose's piece in the Sunday Mail which was roundly debunked at the time but still managed to be re-reported in the Economist.
sidebar: It is amazing how that happens. So easy to go to skepticalscience or realclimate and check and see if a sensational headline has any scientific cred, and the main stream media doesn't do that, or the journalists that are more easily influenced by the oil & tobacco lobby feel it serves their side's case to keep pushing data and interpretations that have been rejected as false or incorrect by the practicing experts in the field and that consistently represent a naive understanding of the science.
Anyway, the punchline is that the data and graphs that are misused in the article don't back up the headline that global warming has stopped or fallen outside the models. The last 15 years have been much warmer than the previous 15 years. Fluctuations within a 90% confidence interval are no indication whatsoever of unsound science or inaccurate models. And as I said earlier, the major warming 90%+ is happening in the oceans and its effect on air temps has many factors that will drive those fluctuations.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-rose-hides-rise-global-warming.ht…
Core Issue:
We're trapping 0.6 Watts per square meter per second of solar energy (That's 1 million kilowatts a minute on the sun facing side of the earth). Direct satellite measurement. That's increasing consistent with the rate of CO2 increase. Weather may fluctuate, but unless something stops trapping that heat, it's going somewhere.
Benjamin
April 2, 2013 at 4:01 pmIn reply to I am genuinely glad to hear by Robert Collinge
Perhaps we will be glad of that heat trapping come the next nuclear winter or whatever black swan is on the horizon. I have tremendous confidence in the ability of markets to adjust. For example, as the doom and gloom headlines tout a global drinking water crisis, private enterprise comes up with nanotechnology to create a mesh to filter the salt out of sea water at a fraction of the cost of current technologies. When we were running out of whale oil, woe, private enterprise turned to the unthought of potential of petroleum. I remember the doom and gloom of the limits to growth debate of 1970s. What happened with that? So my point is that, no, I am not willing to judge the science, but I am willing to judge the economics. The economics says to not take draconian action with high and certain costs when the benefits are highly, highly uncertain. Let us not put technological change in the deep freeze. Give the market breathing room and it will astound you.
Robert Collinge
April 2, 2013 at 4:32 pmIn reply to Went back to read through the by Benjamin
Keith, in your next article in this series about how to build a constructive conversation between conservatives and progressives, I suggest you start by urging the EPA to allow the distribution of Carlin's work, as discussed here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html I know to many of us, the idea of a so-called discussion with progressives calls up images of dishonesty, and you taking on one of your own in this manner would be a big start.
You might also take a stand against all the juvenile name calling and smearing that us conservatives associate with conversation with progressives. You could start by commenting on this matter in the comment section of this article you already have written, where name calling from the progressive wing is on vivid display.
You might also recognize that just because someone attaches the term progressive to a policy does not mean that the policy is best for human progress. You already recognize that conservatives are troubled by possibilities for heavy handed government, and you might further acknowledge that such concerns do carry weight in this age of cronyism and government failure. You might even take that big step to the middle in terms of respecting patience as opposed to jumping into a Cheneyesque preventative war against another mass destruction bogeyman. It the coasts are not flooding like Gore's models predicted, maybe we should indeed be conservative in our actions.
Robert Collinge
April 2, 2013 at 6:07 pmAny article (journalist) that uses the term 'consensus' to describe scientific ecology is off base from the start. The minute a scientist allows he self to join a group, he/she has abandoned the scientific ideal of independent research. History tells us that mavericks make breakthroughs not committees.
Man
April 3, 2013 at 3:38 amYou are absolutely correct!
woman
April 5, 2013 at 10:29 amIn reply to Any article (journalist) that by Man
I have had the opportunity to study under some of the top planetary scientists and meteorologists, many of whom pointed out that we really have very little data to go on. In truth, we have less than 40 years of even remotely accurate planet-wide data, and while some claim that they have answers for things like the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, in reality there is no consensus.
But my real objection to the claims of Global Warming is the behavior of those making the claims.
International conferences at resorts in Bali, Rio (twice), Kyoto, South Africa and Denmark, where 20-30,000 experts gather, make me want to be a global warming expert too, but only for the frequent flyer miles.
And the failure of the super rich who claim to believe in it also makes me question their commitment and that of those in their circle. Why would someone as smart as Richard Branson buy an island that will be underwater in 20 years if his beliefs are true? Why do people like Gates and Buffett and Bloomberg not use their vast fortunes to even make a start to save our planet? Are none as altruistic as Carnegie?
Finally, when we had a federal government that claimed to be true believers and had the resources to make a real change, rather than really invest in proven technologies to cut CO2 emissions, we have new roads and empty rails and windmills that need to be shut off at night because they kill birds or keep the locals awake. China built a 800 mile long TGV in 3 years while the current administration crows over increasing the average speed on a line used 6 times a day to 105MPH. That is about the speed of the Prius that passed me the other day on the interstate.
baldy
April 4, 2013 at 5:54 pmClimate change is considered as irrational to many democrats. I've read some information about this and it truly relates to some of the mystery books. I wonder why this issue still continues until now.
Naomi J. Baxter
April 4, 2013 at 8:56 pmMoney. Anyway, the issue is anthropogenic global warming. Some researchers are in it largely for that - it's a good paying job, after all, and it pays to keep the money coming in. Some promoters are undoubtedly True Believers; some, like Al Gore, show no personal concern about it. He's an apostatic Televangelist for the Cause if I ever saw one. Anyway, it's far from the most absurd government grant research being done, and it is certainly a valid subject for research - anthropogenic or natural climate change. there is a significant problem with mandating actions to prevent what we don't know is happening before the results of the actions being taken are known or understood. the question has been raised regarding the actual function of carbon dioxide - with the possibility that in may lower global temperatures (I have no position on this. unlike the True Believers, I admit to not knowing). Right now, action is being driven by a cadre That knows they’re right, but they don’t know why. They know their opposition is wrong; they also don’t know why. Global warming is a religion, complete with its infallible Priests, Sacred Hierarchy, indulgences for sale in the form of Carbon Credits and True Believer followers. Science observes a phenomenon, uses current knowledge and speculation to posit a cause, derives a model for results of this cause expected to be manifested in the future. If this result fails to materialize, the researcher seeks the cause rather than changing the catchphrase “Global Warming” to “Climate Change,” which is a fail-safe sobriquet, since climate is always changing and always has been. Another similarity to religion: The clergy demonize the opposition. The scientist studies their results. The Vatican accepted the navigational mathematics of the Copernican universe while maintaining that non-belief in the Ptolemaic universe was an actionable apostasy. They demonized those who questioned the Papal infallibility. History repeats itself - the same opera with different characters.
Machado
April 4, 2013 at 9:27 pmIn reply to Climate change is considered by Naomi J. Baxter
while the author trying to be somewhat fair minded tries to place political affiliation as the reason and then notes conservatives don't like the policy implications he fails to state that liberals like many of the anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-oil, pro redistribution policies and maybe that is why they are so quick to embrace climate change. Also the fact the John McCain or other have embraced climate change has not led conservatives to mass embrace it thus shooting a hole in the theory.
I think the bigger reason, the elephant in the room that the author tries to avoid mentioning is the science itself. I have a degree in Physics so know a bit about the scientific method. In Science you postulate a theory then make measurements for evidence that supports the theory. Somewhere in the chain that rule was broken for climate change. We went from theory to computer model that explained a very small set of data and then simply declared the model as the proof. Sorry, that is not science. I think many grasped on to it because it fit their political agenda, anti-capitalist, pro redistribution of wealth.
The other thing with science is that it is the skeptic that is presumed correct until the challenging theory can provide concrete and irrefutable evidence. I find it laughable from a science stand point that the skeptics have been vilified and asked to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the climate change proponents. And beyond models how have they done with real evidence. Not very well. First Satellite measurements showed much more heat radiates into space than models assumed. We have found none of the predicted increase in temperatures in the past decade. This is becoming so bad the even the Economist who has been a supporter of man made climate change concluded recently that the predictions have exited the 95% confidence range which means based on actual measurements there is only a 5% chance these model that we have been basing the hysteria on are correct and may soon be 0% if current trends continue.
Does that prove their is no man made climate change, no. It does prove with 95% certainty that the climate models being used are wrong and we were right to be skeptical and wait for actual evidence. And that has little to do with what political leaders we trust. Conservatives are basically rational people waiting for real evidence.
Really. You can't just google "best books on climate change" and find dozens of scientifically based and well reasoned books on the subject, only those that deny it is happening. Hmmm. I'll pretend you are being honest and recommend these two as good reads on the topic:
The Discovery of Global Warming, by Spencer Weart
Atmosphere, Climate and Change by Thomas E. Graedel and Paul J. Crutzen
Benjamin Funar
March 31, 2013 at 3:26 pmIn reply to I am not a Republican and I by Bruce