Is belief in man-made global warming a matter of political belonging?

Question

As a non-American I'm amazed of how this issue seems to be linked to political belonging. Is it?

If it is, then why? Isn't this a failure? I mean, of course different partys have different ideas about how to deal with the issue, but shouldn't the climate science itself stand alone from politics?

If you don't live in America I'm still interested to hear if you think this attitude is strong in your country as well.

Answer 1

I'm an American and a member of the Republican party, but I'm also a scientist. My understanding of the data indicates there may be a problem, perhaps a very serious problem. I think, furthermore, that it is time to begin replacing fossil fuels with renewable resources, and I think it undesirable that we must send so much money to despotic but oil-rich countries to maintain our economy.

In my discussions with well-meaning non-scientists who are also Republicans, I find they are at first astonished that I believe GW could be a threat. As I talk to them about it, I find that most of them can be convinced---they have simply been told what to believe by right-of-center news media, and have come to a group consensus or understanding based on propaganda from deniers. Many of them become angry when they realize that they have been deceived. I think these people, who are the core of the Republican party, can be brought around to a more realistic attitude and that this will happen within a few years. The remaining deniers will become a kooky fringe group.

Answer 2

I would like to think that it is a common sense, believe your own senses kind of thing. Do your research, be informed and keep an open mind.
But...politicians of all stripes have made it a political animal as a matter of image and/or vote getting. Their influence does nothing but cloud the core of it. Whether it is through influence peddling or plausible deniability.
One way or another, humans on a global scale, are having an influence on the climate. The politicians can confuse the issue till the cows quit belching methane, I stand by what I see, hear and postulate on my own.
I will say that voting for the Green Party of Canada, makes me feel slightly better. Before judging the Green Party, I ask people to read their mandate and decide for themselves.
They are serious and they are making the environment a matter of "political belonging".

Answer 3

The Republican party contains a lot of so called "deniers" becuase of the people who constitute the Republican party - the big business types (especially big oil) who fear that environmental laws and taxes could skim away some of their profits and the other part of the Republican party, rural and religious social conservatives (neo-cons if you will) who fear that environmental laws and taxes will cut into their already meager living and disrupt their lifestyle. The latter often denies the concept of anthropogenic global warming on the basis of God's will.

The Democratic party, conversly, contains a lot of educated, if not rich, city dwellers who have researched climate change and see the need for a change. Unfortunatly, they often do not take into consideration that the changes they wish for are not feasable for everyone in the country. They sometimes adopt an elitist attitude and shun rural people, southerners, Christians and other groups as a whole. Conservative "global warming deniers" may be denying science but liberals are denying the human element of reality.

Then, there are always exceptions to every rule. We have the libertarians and the green party of course. And we also have so-called "dixiecrats" which are prevalent in southeastern Oklahoma among other places. These people are your typical Evangelical Christians but they vote democrat for financial reasons (ie they vote for the party that keeps them in welfare). Dan Boren is a good example. I heard him say in person that drilling for oil in Alaska is actually good for wildlife, yet he is a democrat.

And yes, the climate should stand alone from politics, but when we have people who want to create laws and impose taxes as a solution to climate change, while ignoring how this may adversely affect others, the two become tangled together. Al Gore certainly didn't help matters when he became involved. What we need now is for both sides to open up and understand where the other side is coming from so that we might reach some solutions that work for everyone.

Answer 4

The problem is that the United States effectively has a two party political system, and this often creates an 'us vs. them' mindset. Many conservatives think that anything 'liberal' is automatically bad, and they consider global warming a 'liberal' issue. This is partially because Al Gore has become the public face of global warming, but there was a widespread conservative denial of the issue even before that.

It feels rather like on many issues in the USA, everyone has to pick a side. On abortion most liberals support a woman's choice, most conservatives are pro-life. Most liberals support gun control, most conservatives oppose it. Most liberals want univeral health care, most conservatives oppose it.

Likewise most liberals consider global warming an important issue, most conservatives seem to think it's either not important or even a non-issue. In all cases there are of course moderate people who are capable of examining an issue in an unbiased manner, but another problem is our media. The Fox network in particular is radically biased, and many conservatives get their news from this source. Any network which presents Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com as an expert is not trustworthy.

The bottom line is that far too many Americans view global warming as a political issue rather than a scientific one. They don't learn about the science behind global warming before forming an opinion about what the political policy should be. As Cosmo illustrates, if they understand the science, conservatives can realize that it's not a political issue.

We need to make an effort to make sure everyone understands the science behind global warming, particularly in the USA.

Answer 5

Most of the people I know who think it's all a bunch of bull are all independents, democrats, or left leaning. But that's because I live in a college town and we really don't have many republicans around here.

But I'm sure most skeptics outside in the real world might be republicans and are only skeptics because Al Gore was the one leading the way. In America, some of the less intelligent people might make decisions based on politics but you may find many people who make decisions that have nothing to do with politics.

I notice that those who are defending the global warming science tend to accuse anyone who disagrees to either be paid by oil companies or are members of the republican party or some fundamental christian. These accusations are your first big mistake. It's really hurting you people in whatever your trying to do and shows that you really don't understand the average american.

America has the largest percentage of independent voters compared to other countries. That is why you never see just one party in power. There is a very large swing vote. If you play the politics card on them, your most likely to lose them. That is probably why the global warming issue hasn't struck a cord with the majority of americans.

You can't use European tricks here.

Answer 6

The situation in the United States is a bit odd, i'll admit. In fact, of course, the existance of global warming and climate change is a matter of scientific fact. There is no 'debate" political or otherwise.

But, in the US, we have extremely powerful special interests--the coal and oil companies. And they have spent a great deal of money spreading false information to confuse people. In addition, they are the primary source of money for the "right-wing" or neoconservatives--and control many of the so-called "religous right" as well (take a look at where the tele-evangelist Pat Robertson gets his fortune (oil). So there is a segment of the American population that has been deceived--and even religiously indoctrinated--into rejecting the scientific facts.

That's changing--and really only represents a tiny fraction of the American population. It is still a political factor only because Bush and some other political leaders are part and parcel of this special interest bloc--but htey will soon be out of power.

Answer 7

Many things in America seem divided along right-left, Democrat-Republican lines. It seems that if a member of one party accepts something as true then all the members of the other party must immediately denounce it as false or fraudulent (sometimes both).

This does not appear to be the case in the rest of the developed world. I've heard someone remark that, in the US, knowing a person's stance on climate change can generally reveal their political leanings, while in the rest of the world it tells you next to nothing.

So yes, I would certainly say that people in the US generally tend to believe or disbelieve anthropogenic global warming based upon their political bent. I find this lack of scientific and intellectual integrity appalling.

Answer 8

specific it has exchange right into a faith and Al Gore is the pope of the cult.think of of ways plenty money specific communities will make off of the hype.think of of all that government money going to "learn".as properly there is in basic terms plenty you're able to do ,after all whoever controls the climate controls the international.worry is the best political motivator. climate exchange is an factor of the character of the planet.complication-loose experience is to have sparkling power yet till there's a greenback in all of it that occurs is communicate,communicate and extra communicate.government policies,fines and effects(gotta get that bailout money someplace) We incredibly choose sparkling air and water .i'm the unique recycler and that i do no longer waste power in basic terms like many people.i take advantage of power and don't decide for the "guilt" holiday of doing so. I even have a topic with Gore the guru who flies around a gasoline guzzling jet.So does Queen Pelosi who opted for a much bigger one to fly returned and forth to California.remember her asserting she needs to shop the planet,yeah she flies we stroll.we are in a position to all initiate by using the recent power saving easy bulbs. Oh I forgot they are those with mercury in them.Oh,properly sounds like a reliable theory on the time. i assume you all heard that some genius baby-kisser had to tax cow farmers for any that own extra advantageous than a hundred for emitting "methane gasoline" yeah it is real.can we bottle it extremely?Or on 2d theory deliver some from the bull to that baby-kisser as he's attentive to the B.S. while he sees or smells it.

Answer 9

I am a Canadian scientist (PhD Physics). On social and fiscal issues, I am more conservative than the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Since 1984, I have worked in the area of molecular spectroscopy. I analyse an average of 8000 spectra per year. Spectral features from varying concentrations of CO2 and H2O are present in all of the spectra. I agree with the consensus view that man-made greenhouse gasses have a measurable and significant effect on radiative transport in the earth's atmosphere. For the record, none (0%) of my research is funded by the UN or by oil companies. Where can I get my share of the bounty that the political types talk about?

The Conservative government started it's mandate with a do-nothing policy designed to appease it's main base of support in oil-rich Alberta. Canadian governments of all political stripes spend too much on social programs and have only avoided massive deficits by relying on taxes and royalties from resources (mainly oil). The federal government's environmental policy (and the minister responsible) fell by the wayside when much of Canada (including vote-rich Ontario) experienced a green rather than a white Christmas last year. The Canadian government tried to make the distinction between causality and probability, but for the majority of voters, a very real link between global warming and changing weather has been established. The minority Harper government is now moving toward greener policies to attract votes.

Answer 10

Politicizing the issue is the main tactic of those seeking to keep environmental efforts stalemated. It has nothing to do with party, or whether one is "left" or "right". The numbers of supporters are the same from that standpoint. It is similar to how the hawks used to call the doves "communists" during the cold war. Americans are famous for their arrogant self interest, but it has reached a whole new level with this. As embarrassing as it is to share citizenship with such trash, obviously issues like nationality will soon be a moot point.