Why is global warming such a partisan issue?

Question

Last night and today I asked the same poll question on YA to determine the political affiliation, knowledge, and education of people on both sides of the global warming issue.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahj_9Ts6XCPlEPR8x0ZiSSPsy6IX?qid=20070620093306AAiroBM
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As51esLbobIHNR73Q9Efqv_sy6IX?qid=20070619214425AA4ugqF

I got 32 useable answers, pretty well spread along the political spectrum. Breakdown:

Every single person who did not believe humans are the primary cuase of the current global warming (non-believers=NBs) were right-leaning to conservative. Those who believed humans are the primary cause (believers=Bs) ranged from moderate to one socialist, mainly liberals.

Bs got their information from much better sources on average. Many NBs cited common sense.

Bs had better education, basically averaging a BS in science while NBs averaged a BS in a non-science.

Why is global warming such a partisan issue?

Answer 1

Because the right represents Big Business, which is the biggest contributor to pollution and environmental degradation, and has the billions upon billions to spend on misinformation, propaganda, and bombardment.

EXACTLY like the Tobacco Industry did.

And look how long the gap was between the actual empirical data about lung cancer and emphysema and the OFFICIAL warnings on the cigarette packs.

About fifty years.

Problem is, we don't HAVE that kind of time now.

And you can bet your last dime that Big Business will fight this to the death.

LITERALLY.

Answer 2

I believe that Global Warming is real and that humans are one of the biggest contributors to this disaster (we cut down trees, pave over nature, we pollute the Earth on a daily basis not just by cars but also our industrious nature). As for political persusion, I am a registered Democrat (that does not mean that I like them, but I like them better than Conservatives). As for education I have a BS in Political Science and an AA in Paralegal Studies. I am an Eagle Scout and I have written numerious reports on preserving our Environment from everything to recycling to Shark Conservation. I have read books on climate change, been on the internet and I have asked actual scientists on Global Warming. What I find amazing is that most scientists believes in Global Warming is a true belief, except for those that works for Exxon. Heck we even had a political expert of the Bush administration that creativly changed a few words on an official report to say that Global Warming is crap. He now works for Exxon. We even have George Bush saying that we need to curb global climate change (global climate change, global warming whats the dif).

I think that it is a partisan issue because according to conservatives the Bible says that humans control the Earth, while liberals try to find a balance between our needs and the needs of the Earth. Conservatives believes that a strong economy is paramount while liberals believes that a strong environment should be paramount (humanity has lived without an economy, I don't think we can live without an environement).

Answer 3

Because look at the consequences. IF humans are the primary cause - who will fix it? The Government. Liberals love the government to come and save them, while conservatives want the government to stay out of our lives. Personally, I think we need to have hard numbers showing us EXACTLY how much of the current warming is attributable to man (the rising CO2 levels). Also, I would like to point out that a degree in the sciences does not make you an authority figure on gobal climatology. Personally, I prefer to listen to the experts, and I have yet to see a definitive study that can link EXACTLY how much of the current warming trend is caused by man. If any of you have such evidence, I am open to reviewing it. because I believe that IF we are in fact the primary cause of global warming, then we should fix it. However until we are sure, we should probably hold off on throwing our tax dollars or passing legislation on it. Also, a lot of people have been saying things like: "It is indisputable that CO2 levels are increasing heavily, this proves global warming is our fault". I understand that we are polluting, and that CO2 levels are rising. I just want hard data about how much these CO2 levels are affecting current global warming. Is that too much to ask?

Answer 4

Because global warming is BAD NEWS and people don't want to hear it.
They especially don't want to hear it's THEIR FAULT
And they double-especially don't want to hear they'll have to give up their lifestyle.

After all, they see their lifestyle as mandatory. They live in a nice suburban tract-home in a crime-free (they think) neighborhood, 20 miles from their employer, where transit doesn't work. They need the A/C or the house would be 110 degrees inside. They're underwater on their mortgage, so moving to a nice earth-sheltered home made out of used tires is just Not An Option.

They're getting by, doing everything that society, advertising and goverment told them they should be doing. And NOW supposedly this is killing the planet!? They can't accept this message.

Anyway, it sounds just like the "we need to abandon technology and go live in caves" message that hippies, liberals and environmentalists have been saying for decades.

Now, of course, that's not true. Americans are brilliant inventors and we can (and will) engineer our way out of this with new products that are BETTER in every measure. We already did it twice:

- The ozone layer was being depleted by freon used in car A/C, and voila! The ozone layer healed and today just about EVERY new car has A/C.

- Regional smog was caused by pollutants in auto exhaust, and voila! Cars today are cleaner AND more powerful. And who today cries about the loss of carburetors? Fuel injection is better!

Remember the ozone hole and regional smog were also denied by people who feared they'd lose their engine performance and car A/C. Wrong.

So brace yourself for better houses and cars.

Answer 5

Do you think it might be anything similar to what happens when you pull a loose thread on a sweater... whereas if you pill it long enough the sweater will unravel.

The same could be true with the so called conservative perception of the world around them. If they're wrong on this issue perhaps they're wrong on others.

Their positions on many issues is precarious at best. It's more than probably that many of them have serious concerns regarding the party propaganda but rather than ad mitt they're wrong on this issue and quite possible many others they choose to defend the indefensible

Answer 6

The issue is not "global warming" ( most agree that there has been warming since the Little Ice Age ) but, rather, whether it is anthropogenic ( human-caused ). It is partisan because the division is between those who adopt various positions as a substitute for religion and others who are skeptical about the facts of the matter. It has also become political in the sense that some benefit from believing one side and voters may use the issue to make choices, albeit without reason. Even companies that know better now see that they can make lots of money from "carbon credits" by embracing the idea of carbon footprint caps and credits.

Those who eschew ordinary religion and need a substitute to "believe in, embrace, and feel good about themselves about "have variously endorsed a variety of so-called "environmental" issues that largely have Luddite components ( distrusting the benefits of technology ). We have only to list some of the "popular causes" of the past generation:

DDT - Rachel Carson's SILENT SPRING has been largely debunked and millions have died because nothing has been as effective as DDT in combating malaria.

Over-population - Recall Paul Ehrlich's THE POPULATON BOMB repeating the worry of Malthus that more people couldn't be supported. The CLUB OF ROME published a study indicating a similar thing and that "we" were running out of all kinds of resources. Nevertheless, the population of the world has more than doubled since that time and nothing has run out. Indeed, the Green Revolution and globalization have raised the standard of living of billions. There is still poverty and disease but fewer people aren't the solution, except locally.

Recycling: we have people eschewing paper to "save the trees" without realizing that there are more trees now than in the 1920s because they are raised for their economic value.
McDonald's went from styrofoam to paper although a correct analysis indicated that the effect on the environment was made worse by so doing. Bad science but good P.R. With the exception of aluminum, most recycling costs more energy and wasted effort than it is worth.

A generation back people were worried about Global Cooling. Enough said about that one.

Nuclear Power has been a bug a boo although such nations as France and Japan and others have safely used it to provide much of their power needs. It is amusingly ironic that the current neuroses about carbon footprints are best addressed with nuclear power which has zero. The safety of hydroelectic is vastly worse than nuclear plants if we consider how many people over the world have been killed in the construction and operation of dams.

The latest "religious" cause is the carbon footprint although 99% of people asked would erroneously say that the principal greenhouse gas is CO2 whereas it is actually water vapor.

The partisan aspect, frankly, is largely due to the inability to understand science and the scientific method. Science is NOT equivalent to computer models that are not required to make predictions and account for all observations to date. The current models do not account for cloud formation and cannot reproduce the past history of the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age. It is usually a necessary but not sufficient condition that models be "backward compatible" with observations.

Also, one does not take a poll of "scientists" especially when some have a vested interest in taking one side of a debate which has become political. This is especially true when the sources of funding are for one side and not the other.

PS To anticipate a question from the previous poster who takes surveys, I have a PhD in physics from quite a respectable institution and taught and did research at several others.

Answer 7

Global warming is a partisan issue, because it is an environmental one.
Any environmental issue typically means big businesses, that are the biggest polluters may face more pollution regulations that may lower their record profits, to a bit lower record profits.
With this in mind, they have made it a primary goal to discredit, and make environmentalists appear to be the bad guy, in the same way they do their competition.
they use right-wing media groups to spread this kind of propoganda, saying things like sustainable agriculture and energy production will ruin the economy. just this one little phrase causes brokers to view anything that comes out of the mouths as environmentalists as a threat to their investments.
Then they follow up with hoaxes like the $2000 CFL cleanup stories and the like.
They want everyone to feel environmentalists are as much of a threat to them persoanlly, as they are to a small portion of their profit, not telling you that the pollution is taking money out of your pocket for increased healthcare costs, and other areas of everyday life that causes living expenses to be higher, including taxes to cleanup their messes.

BTW DDT isn't as effective as the people who produce it try to make it out to be. yes it kills mosquitos, but is also causes genetic mutations which leads to mosquitos becoming resitant to it and requiring more and more be used for the same effect. This causes faster bioaccumulation in the environment, which leads to genetic abnormalities and health problems for any animal which includes mosquitos in its food chain, which is almost everything. So the cost of DDT usually outwieghs the potential benefits. BT works almost as well, and has shown to have no adverse effects on anything but select insects. The only problem is, DDT is much cheaper, which is usually the case with chemicals that cause more problems than they are worth, and underdeveloped nations cannot afford them. DDT is still being used in these underdeveloped countries, but people are still dying from malaria, because even resistant mosquitos are not the only resivoir of infection in these countries that have lower standards of sanitation. This is another example of a misconception promoted by companies that are the biggest threat to the environment, that feel environmentalists are the enemy.

contaiminated water is one of the biggest sources of infection, next to mosquitos. where do you think mosquitos pick it up?

Answer 8

That may change, as rock solid conservatives and business leaders join the voices of those who know global warming is real, and mostly caused by us:

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives Tuesday to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

Rush Limbaugh is going to take a little longer.

Answer 9

You might be correct about this evaluation. Though I would be careful of making generalizations or absolute statements. Nice stab at doing your own research though.

I'd be interested in a similar study done on scientists. My guess is, you'll find the majority of scientists who are global warming skeptics all have PhD's and also just happen to be liberal or left leaning.

Yahoo! QnA may not be the best place to do this kind of rsearch, though. But in general, I think I agree about yahoo! QnA'rs being mostly partisan about issues.

Answer 10

Luca, that's one heck of an answer. Bravo.

Maybe it has become so polarized because those that promoted the idea of AGW were originally liberal activists. The natural inclination of most people is to be skeptical (instinctual survival skill ). Partisan causes draw the highly impressionable from both sides - and extremists liberals persuaded those folks to believe in their cause, leaving only skeptics and those who refuse to listen to liberal ideas regardless of whether they are right or wrong.

There is a great amount of intimidation in the scientific community. I believe that there are quite a few closet liberals among the skeptics, but they are living under a "Don't ask - don't tell" policy.

Answer 11

To have to accept that everything you believed is wrong is a crushing burden. I personally went through a long period of depression when I realized that things are much worse than popularly believed. But when the truth became apparent to me, I accepted it in spite of the fact that I had to change my thinking. What is partisan about this? It’s the basic difference between reactionaries and progressives.