Pew Poll: Majority of Republicans Are Global Warming Deniers

EnvironmentJanuary 2011 • Views: 22,494

A horrifying poll from the Pew Research Center shows that the energy lobbies, fundamentalists, and corrupt Republican mouthpieces have done an appallingly good job of brainwashing their followers into denying the science of global warming.

Pew’s headline for their article is “Majority of Republicans No Longer See Evidence of Global Warming,” but in truth it’s much worse than that — because the results show that even if they accept that the Earth is warming, only 16% of Republicans accept that human activity is to blame.

The Republican Party is going to have to answer to future generations for their lies and corruption on this issue, perhaps more than any other. They’re playing cynical political games with the very source of human life.

Jump to bottom

112 comments

Holidays are Family Fun Time Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:40:44am

For once, I don't know what to say.

Obdicut Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:41:55am

If this were a problem that could be fixed at any point, it wouldn't matter so much. But this is our only shot at stopping the damage from global warming. It is not something that can be put off or delayed. And it will take large, governmental action to stop-- which I think, in the end, may be why the GOP is rejecting it, on purely ideological grounds. Because it will take organized group action to fix, they deny its reality.

Again, I urge all of you, especially those of you who still do vote for the GOP, to write, actual physical letter write, to each and every one of your reps and senators, at the national and state level, to your governor, to the leadership of your party, and let them know that you understand the truth of the science on this matter and that you want to see them take action.

If we lose, we lose everything.

Killgore Trout Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:42:23am

Abolish the EPA!
/wingnut

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:42:53am

We're boned.

eastwald Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:44:07am

The last sentence of Charles post really says it all - their ignorance and greed makes them willing to risk their own species survival. As fiscally conservative as I may be, I will not be voting Republican while this kind of thing is going on.

Amory Blaine Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:46:16am

The Republicans are in denial about all their failed ideologies.

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:46:56am

what really gets me is the number of republicans and conservatives (not elected but avg. man on the street types) who are avid outdoorsmen. They have a vested interest in seeing the environment maintained yet they vote against that very thing.

Renaissance_Man Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:47:24am

re: #2 Obdicut

If this were a problem that could be fixed at any point, it wouldn't matter so much. But this is our only shot at stopping the damage from global warming. It is not something that can be put off or delayed. And it will take large, governmental action to stop-- which I think, in the end, may be why the GOP is rejecting it, on purely ideological grounds. Because it will take organized group action to fix, they deny its reality.

That's not why they're rejecting it. The base voters are rejecting it because they think 'liberals' believe in it. That's all. They've been told environmentalists are evil Communists, and so anything that those lib-types likes and agrees with must be wrong. The only ideology in play here is hatred of liberals.

Their world-view really is that petty.

Obdicut Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:47:43am

re: #7 Dreggas

Yeah, there is absolutely no reason why conservatism should be related to hostility to the environment. I mean, conservatism, conservationism, highly goddamn related concepts.

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:51:08am

re: #9 Obdicut

Yeah, there is absolutely no reason why conservatism should be related to hostility to the environment. I mean, conservatism, conservationism, highly goddamn related concepts.

I see it a lot when I go to fishing get togethers and tournaments. There are so called conservatives bitching about the liberals and what they're doing. Of course they're doing this while taking advantage of public parks (or even pay lakes), smoking a bowl and in general getting to have clean areas to go do things like camp and fish. The people they want to put in charge would sell off that land and make it a shopping mall if they could.

A Man for all Seasons Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:51:25am

re: #9 Obdicut

Yeah, there is absolutely no reason why conservatism should be related to hostility to the environment. I mean, conservatism, conservationism, highly goddamn related concepts.

I don't understand the religious wing of the GOP being against AGW.. God commanded us to be good stewards of the Earth.. Protecting it's precious resources..And isn't that what the scientists are trying to do?

Amory Blaine Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:51:59am

re: #9 Obdicut

Yeah, there is absolutely no reason why conservatism should be related to hostility to the environment. I mean, conservatism, conservationism, highly goddamn related concepts.

Yes there is a reason. Extracting profit is more important to todays conservative than it is to protect land for future generations.

Holidays are Family Fun Time Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:53:24am

re: #11 HoosierHoops

I don't understand the religious wing of the GOP being against AGW.. God commanded us to be good stewards of the Earth.. Protecting it's precious resources..And isn't that what the scientists are trying to do?

I think it's a perception thing. The equate environmentalism with long-hair hippies. Hippes with Bill Clinton and there is a large mistrust of Al Gore.

Major distrust. Until they see the damage in the "woods outback" they won't believe.

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:54:07am

re: #13 ggt

I think it's a perception thing. The equate environmentalism with long-hair hippies. Hippes with Bill Clinton and there is a large mistrust of Al Gore.

Major distrust. Until they see the damage in the "woods outback" they won't believe.

By then it'll be far too late.

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:54:12am

re: #12 Amory Blaine

Yes there is a reason. Extracting profit is more important to todays conservative than it is to protect land for future generations.

My father is the "Fuck you, I've got mine" kind of conservative. Over the holidays he was going on about things and how it doesn't matter to him because he'll be dead. I said "It matters to me because I probably won't be and neither will my kids or theirs" he shut up.

Obdicut Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:55:36am

re: #11 HoosierHoops

I don't understand how the religious wing of the GOP can ignore Jesus's repeated main theme: Charity and mercy to the weak and the helpless.

I mean, Matthew 25:31 through 25:45 is pretty damn clear.

Ming Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:55:47am

One of the saddest things about Republican opposition to global warming is that reducing carbon emissions goes hand-in-hand with reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Now, many Republicans are in effect mouthing platitudes that have been dreamed up by the oil companies.

Questions about climate change, and what people might do about it, are complex enough, without the added burden of the denial of mainstream science.

garhighway Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:55:51am

Wow. 17 posts in and no "but the Democrats aren't 100%" comments yet?

I'm disappointed.

Big Steve Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:55:55am

The republican respondants are bad enough but what's with half the democrats who say humans are responsible!

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:56:22am

re: #18 garhighway

Wow. 17 posts in and no "but the Democrats aren't 100%" comments yet?

I'm disappointed.

Look in the previous thread.
;)

Big Steve Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:56:24am

re: #18 garhighway

Wow. 17 posts in and no "but the Democrats aren't 100%" comments yet?

I'm disappointed.

you were too quick

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:56:43am

re: #20 Varek Raith

Look in the previous thread.
;)

Or...
Just after your post!
:)

Holidays are Family Fun Time Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:57:06am

re: #17 Ming

One of the saddest things about Republican opposition to global warming is that reducing carbon emissions goes hand-in-hand with reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Now, many Republicans are in effect mouthing platitudes that have been dreamed up by the oil companies.

Questions about climate change, and what people might do about it, are complex enough, without the added burden of the denial of mainstream science.

Change is hard. Change one isn't personal in charge of is unthinkable.

KingKenrod Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:57:42am

re: #11 HoosierHoops

I don't understand the religious wing of the GOP being against AGW.. God commanded us to be good stewards of the Earth.. Protecting it's precious resources..And isn't that what the scientists are trying to do?

They are more concerned about anything that moves toward a one world government.

Holidays are Family Fun Time Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:58:37am

re: #24 KingKenrod

They are more concerned about anything that moves toward a one world government.

Good point!

Political Atheist Tue, Jan 4, 2011 9:58:44am

re: #16 Obdicut

Which shows us the bs factor within the theocrats. They don't really want the Bible as their guide, they just use it as a weapon to become powerful themselves if they can.

charlz Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:01:36am

re: #26 Rightwingconspirator

Which shows us the bs factor within the theocrats. They don't really want the Bible as their guide, they just use it as a weapon to become powerful themselves if they can.

Obdicut quoted from Matthew. Mark defines original intent.

tigger2005 Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:01:52am

Supposedly, Republicans and conservatives in general are the serious minded folks, the adults, the ones who believe in thinking about and preparing for the future, about being responsible for our children and building a better world for them. Those lib'ruls are the "live for today, if it feels good do it" types who act on emotions and instinctive impulses and give no thought to the long- or short-term consequences of their actions.

I think they really still believe that about themselves, even as they think and act like spoiled children.

Kragar Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:02:32am

Anyone who denies global warming is occuring should be denied any assistance when resources become scarce.

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:03:48am

re: #29 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Anyone who denies global warming is occuring should be denied any assistance when resources become scarce.

I got my bunker.
Bring on the Apocalypse!

Kragar Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:04:41am

re: #30 Varek Raith

I got my bunker.
Bring on the Apocalypse!

Just make sure its waaay above current sea level.

Holidays are Family Fun Time Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:04:59am

re: #12 Amory Blaine

Yes there is a reason. Extracting profit is more important to todays conservative than it is to protect land for future generations.

I see a real disconnect as far as "profits" go. I think a lot of Republicans equate profit with jobs not with greed and riches. They think they are voting to help people by employing them.

I don't have the answer, still trying to grasp the questions.

tigger2005 Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:05:21am

re: #29 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Anyone who denies global warming is occuring should be denied any assistance when resources become scarce.

Well, you better start making a database now then. You only have about 120 million or so names and addresses to enter.

Kragar Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:05:51am

Assassin of Pakistani Governor Driven by Belief in Blasphemy Laws

The man who allegedly killed the governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, Salman Taseer, in broad daylight in the capital, Islamabad, on Tuesday has been arrested and confessed to the crime, according to Pakistani officials.

The assassin was Mr. Taseer's bodyguard. Once in police custody, officials say he defended murdering Mr. Taseer, a senior member of the ruling party and a close associate of President Asif Ali Zardari, because the governor was an outspoken critic of Pakistan's strict blasphemy laws.

Kragar Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:06:27am

re: #33 tigger2005

Well, you better start making a database now then. You only have about 120 million or so names and addresses to enter.

Child's play.

Holidays are Family Fun Time Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:06:55am

I'm off,

have a great day all!

Talking Point Detective Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:07:46am

re: #8 Renaissance_Man

That's not why they're rejecting it. The base voters are rejecting it because they think 'liberals' believe in it. That's all. They've been told environmentalists are evil Communists, and so anything that those lib-types likes and agrees with must be wrong. The only ideology in play here is hatred of liberals.

Their world-view really is that petty.

Not to diminish the influence of anti-government hysteria or hatred of libz....I think there's another factor as well. Many of the deniers are also fundies. It is antithetical to their entire belief system to think that God is fallible or that humans can affect events on a global/cosmic scale.

A Man for all Seasons Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:08:45am

A winter's day
In a deep and dark December;
I am alone,
Gazing from my window to the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

I have my Gold
And my Seeds to protect me;
I am shielded in my Religion,
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:10:50am

re: #38 HoosierHoops

A winter's day
In a deep and dark December;
I am alone,
Gazing from my window to the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

I have my Gold
And my Seeds to protect me;
I am shielded in my Religion,
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

Step away from the bong!
/

FQ Kafir Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:12:09am

The real problem I wrestle with when it comes to global warming is that the current theory doesn't seem to be falsifiable.

If it's getting warmer, it's due to global warming.

If it's getting colder, it's due to global warming.

The Scientific Method

There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be "falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

There is a lot of compelling evidence for GW, but for me,

The science isn't settled.

//getting ready for some major lizard flack

Alexzander Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:12:18am

Morning everyone. I slept in; back to the job search/cover letter writing game.

A Man for all Seasons Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:14:22am

re: #39 Varek Raith

Step away from the bong!
/

LOL
I'm on Vacation, Watching Formula one racing and drinking German beer

jc717 Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:14:38am

I'm most depressed that only 41% of INDYs believe that there's scientific consensus for AGW.

The war is lost.
I wonder how different the results would be if the poll were taken during a summer heat-wave. Many people still don't get that weather does not equal climate.

Obdicut Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:16:14am

re: #40 FQ Kafir

I don't think you know what 'falsifiable' means. Or what AGW actually is.

Put shortly, AGW is the statement that the CO2 put into the atmosphere by mankind has forced increased retention of heat, which is causing feedback effects causing more retention of heat.

Falsifiability is present in a large number of ways:

1. It could be proved that CO2 does not trap heat in atmosphere.

2. It could be proved that mankind has not contributed large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

3. It could be proved that the average temperature has not risen.

However, all three of these things have been proven. So falsifiability has, in fact, been passed.

You appear to simply be citing falsifiability without actually understanding what it is.

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:17:01am

re: #40 FQ Kafir

IT'S "FLAK", not "flack"!
How's that flak for your flack?!
"P

Alexzander Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:17:15am

That was a great summary Obdicut.

Talking Point Detective Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:18:01am

re: #40 FQ Kafir

There is a lot of compelling evidence for GW, but for me,

The science isn't settled.

//getting ready for some major lizard flack

Even the IPCC put the probabilities that GW is A at 90%. I guess it depends on how you define "settled." Does it mean 100% assurance, or does it mean that the vast majority of evidence points in one direction?

And the results show that the majority of Repubs don't even think that the Earth is warming. Independent of whether you think the warming is anthropogenic in nature - the belief that the Earth isn't warming is actually in contrast to the majority of respected scientists (admittedly a small cohort) who think that GW isn't A.

There's some serious disconnect revealed in that poll. There's no way around that.

garhighway Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:19:28am

re: #44 Obdicut

I don't think you know what 'falsifiable' means. Or what AGW actually is.

Put shortly, AGW is the statement that the CO2 put into the atmosphere by mankind has forced increased retention of heat, which is causing feedback effects causing more retention of heat.

Falsifiability is present in a large number of ways:

1. It could be proved that CO2 does not trap heat in atmosphere.

2. It could be proved that mankind has not contributed large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

3. It could be proved that the average temperature has not risen.

However, all three of these things have been proven. So falsifiability has, in fact, been passed.

You appear to simply be citing falsifiability without actually understanding what it is.

The anti-science crowd likes to use the "falsifiable" test on this and on evolution, since they think (in their lack of understanding of the concept) that it poses an impossibly high hurdle. Even money this guy's a Young Earth Creationist.

tigger2005 Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:21:03am

re: #37 Talking Point Detective

Not to diminish the influence of anti-government hysteria or hatred of libz...I think there's another factor as well. Many of the deniers are also fundies. It is antithetical to their entire belief system to think that God is fallible or that humans can affect events on a global/cosmic scale.

But that still doesn't make any sense. How does the fact that human beings can mess up the planet make God fallible? If it could, then the belief that human beings were created capable of sin, and did sin, also makes God fallible.

It seems like people used to have a much better ability to adapt their belief systems to changing circumstances. They had more imagination, I guess. Sure, you can believe that God has provided us with limitless energy...but why does it HAVE to be in the form of fossil fuels? Why is it so hard to just say, "Brothers & sisters, perhaps God is telling us it's time to move on from the fuels that have served us well for so long and embrace other forms of energy he's so graciously provided for us. We can have faith that no matter what changes occur, God will always provide for us." ?

FQ Kafir Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:23:49am

re: #48 garhighway

I am unabashedly athiest, and have put hundreds of hours on this subject.

What's interesting is that personal attacks seem more inviting than a debate without namecalling.

re: #44 Obdicut

The theory must still be falsifiable if it is to be treated seriously.

Randy W. Weeks Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:24:16am

Considering where these people get their "news", I'm surprised that only 53% deny AGW. Hell, I was there 6 months ago so maybe there's hope.

tigger2005 Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:24:18am

re: #35 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Child's play.

Do you think they'll admit to being global warming deniers when they get hungry & thirsty enough to need help?

tigger2005 Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:25:54am

re: #50 FQ Kafir

I am unabashedly athiest, and have put hundreds of hours on this subject.

What's interesting is that personal attacks seem more inviting than a debate without namecalling.

re: #44 Obdicut

The theory must still be falsifiable if it is to be treated seriously.

Obdicut did not call you any names, and he demonstrated how the theory can be falsified. You are furiously hand-waving.

Talking Point Detective Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:26:58am

re: #49 tigger2005

But that still doesn't make any sense.

If you're looking for logic, then your search will be never-ending.

How many times have you heard the fundamentalist argument that it is hubris to believe that man can affect the environment?

I mean fundies could have been standing by the Cuyohoga River while it was on fire and still claimed that humans can't mar God's perfect creation.

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:27:02am

re: #50 FQ Kafir

Oh, please.
Reading your posts on the previous AGW thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are ignorant on this subject.

Talking Point Detective Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:30:43am

re: #50 FQ Kafir

The theory must still be falsifiable if it is to be treated seriously.

Once again, how do you define "settled?" Do you doubt that a preponderance of the evidence, and the opinions of experts, point in one direction?

Do you think that very much of the science you rely on daily can be proven with 100% certainty, or is that a standard you use only for theories about climate change?

garhighway Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:31:21am

re: #50 FQ Kafir

I am unabashedly athiest, and have put hundreds of hours on this subject.

What's interesting is that personal attacks seem more inviting than a debate without namecalling.

re: #44 Obdicut

The theory must still be falsifiable if it is to be treated seriously.

So what, exactly, do you want to falsify? Obdi outlined three central tenets of AGW, each of which meets the test. Do you want us to come up with an alternative Earth, run the experiment forward 100 years and see what happens?

PS: For a guy who has put in "100s of hours" on this, you seem a little light, my friend. You didn't know that there are measurements out there for both ice extent and ice mass, and that BOTH are declining? That's a 15 second Google exercise. Perhaps you need to get away from the denier sites more.

FQ Kafir Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:33:23am

re: #57 garhighway

Einstein's Theory Of Relativity is STILL falsifiable.

Obdicut Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:34:18am

re: #50 FQ Kafir

The theory is falsifiable, so what exactly are you complaining about?

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:35:15am

re: #58 FQ Kafir

Einstein's Theory Of Relativity is STILL falsifiable.

So is the theory of AGW.

Talking Point Detective Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:36:22am

re: #40 FQ Kafir

There is a lot of compelling evidence for GW, but for me,

The science isn't settled.

I'm going to harp on this.

You say that there is a lot of compelling evidence. At what point do you distinguish between a lot of compelling evidence and "settled science?"

It seems to me that for some reason your holding on to a semantic argument that ultimately carries little meaning.

FQ Kafir Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:37:15am

re: #60 Varek Raith

How? When temperatures go down, the major proponents of the theory say it's part of global warming.

garhighway Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:37:38am

re: #58 FQ Kafir

Einstein's Theory Of Relativity is STILL falsifiable.

Congratulations. You have won the Non Sequitur Of The Day Award.

And by the way: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

FQ Kafir Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:38:05am

re: #61 Talking Point Detective

Compelling does not equal true.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:38:17am

re: #62 FQ Kafir

How? When temperatures go down, the major proponents of the theory say it's part of global warming.

Local temperatures != global average temperature.

Seriously, I'm calling bullshit on you putting in "hundreds of hours" on this. You are making incredibly basic logical errors.

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:38:26am

re: #62 FQ Kafir

Ah, I see.
You just don't understand climate in general and how AGW affects it.

Obdicut Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:38:29am

re: #62 FQ Kafir

How? When temperatures go down, the major proponents of the theory say it's part of global warming.

What temperatures have gone down, please?

Are you talking about weather, and not climate?

garhighway Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:39:02am

re: #67 Obdicut

Are you talking about weather, and not climate?

Of course he is.

FQ Kafir Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:39:04am

I am amazed that so few people on this thread cannot disagree without being disagreeable.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:40:03am

re: #69 FQ Kafir

I am amazed that so few people on this thread cannot disagree without being disagreeable.

You shouldn't be amazed that intelligent people tend to greet ideological opposition to the scientific community with hostility.

garhighway Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:40:32am

re: #69 FQ Kafir

I am amazed that so few people on this thread cannot disagree without being disagreeable.

Is that a double negative or a quadruple negative?

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:41:04am

re: #69 FQ Kafir

I'm amazed that you think your evasive maneuvers will go unnoticed.
;)

Talking Point Detective Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:41:50am

re: #64 FQ Kafir

Compelling does not equal true.

Still a semantic argument that carries little meaning unto itself.

Talking Point Detective Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:42:34am

re: #65 Fozzie Bear

Local temperatures != global average temperature.

Seriously, I'm calling bullshit on you putting in "hundreds of hours" on this. You are making incredibly basic logical errors.

Really - I think that not much more needs to be said.

FQ Kafir Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:42:51am

It's a fair bet that I've studied this subject more than anyone on this thread besides maybe The Lizard King himself.

Obdicut Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:43:21am

re: #75 FQ Kafir

Then can you please cite the temperatures that have 'gone down'?

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:43:42am

re: #75 FQ Kafir

Again with the evasions.

garhighway Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:43:53am

re: #75 FQ Kafir

It's a fair bet that I've studied this subject more than anyone on this thread besides maybe The Lizard King himself.

You are a funny guy.

MinisterO Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:43:58am

re: #75 FQ Kafir

It's a fair bet that I've studied this subject more than anyone on this thread besides maybe The Lizard King himself.

You'd lose.

CarleeCork Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:44:58am

re: #51 LoneStarSpur

Considering where these people get their "news", I'm surprised that only 53% deny AGW. Hell, I was there 6 months ago so maybe there's hope.

What changed your mind?

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:45:28am

re: #75 FQ Kafir

It's a fair bet that I've studied this subject more than anyone on this thread besides maybe The Lizard King himself.

I also think it's a fair bet to say that climatologists have studied this subject more than any single one of us here. ;)
Why should I trust you over them?

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:47:09am

Fucking magnets...

wrenchwench Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:47:55am

re: #69 FQ Kafir

I am amazed that so few people on this thread cannot disagree without being disagreeable.

Only really disagreeable people say that.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:48:02am

re: #75 FQ Kafir

It's a fair bet that I've studied this subject more than anyone on this thread besides maybe The Lizard King himself.

Either make an assertion followed by evidence for that assertion, or enjoy being ridiculed.

FQ Kafir Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:48:11am

There is obviously no tolerance for skepticism on this subject here.

Interesting Times Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:49:02am

re: #85 FQ Kafir

There is obviously no tolerance for ~~skepticism~~ willful ignorance and lies on this subject here.

Fixed.

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:49:04am

re: #85 FQ Kafir

There is obviously no tolerance for skepticism on this subject here.

We have no tolerance for people who evade and ignore questions.
Like you are doing.

re: #76 Obdicut

Then can you please cite the temperatures that have 'gone down'?

Care to answer the above qoute?

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:50:16am

re: #85 FQ Kafir

There is obviously no tolerance for skepticism on this subject here.

You also, as seen in the previous AGW thread, misrepresent data.

jamesfirecat Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:51:19am

re: #79 MinisterO

You'd lose.

Damn it where's LVQ when we need him?

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:52:34am

re: #85 FQ Kafir

There is obviously no tolerance for skepticism on this subject here.

There's plenty of tolerance for ambiguity and skepticism. That's not what's happening here.

You made an assertion about decreasing temperatures. Would you care to source that assertion? Skeptics don't make assertions, they challenge others' conclusions about which they are skeptical, and they do so by providing contrary evidence, or competing explanations.

Gus Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:55:19am

re: #29 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Anyone who denies global warming is occuring should be denied any assistance when resources become scarce.

Sounds like something out of a bad 70s science fiction movie.

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:55:52am

re: #91 Gus 802

Sounds like something out of a bad 70s science fiction movie.

SOYLENT GREEN IS TEAPARTIERS!
/

garhighway Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:57:28am

re: #90 Fozzie Bear

There's plenty of tolerance for ambiguity and skepticism. That's not what's happening here.

You made an assertion about decreasing temperatures. Would you care to source that assertion? Skeptics don't make assertions, they challenge others' conclusions about which they are skeptical, and they do so by providing contrary evidence, or competing explanations.

You would think that with 100's of hours of study (hee!) under his belt, he's be able to answer that question right away.

MinisterO Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:57:42am

The new congress won't do anything about the problem. At this point voting for a Republican at any level of government is tantamount to voting to do nothing. Electing a Republican president in 2012 would likely seal our fate.

Randy W. Weeks Tue, Jan 4, 2011 10:58:56am

re: #80 CarleeCork

What changed your mind?

I got over my intense dislike of Al Gore. I grew up. I woke up. I started looking at all the talking points the deniers repeat ad nauseam and discovered how wrong they were. Not only wrong, but intentionally misleading. I read a lot of what LudwigVanQuixote wrote.

I'll be long gone in 50 years, but I'm appalled what my grandchildren are going to be going through then. And ashamed that likely nothing will be done about it (in the name of Profits, can I get a Hallelujah!) until it's far too late.

Varek Raith Tue, Jan 4, 2011 11:04:27am

OMFG, what's wrong with me?!
I like tofu turkey...
...
..
.

Lidane Tue, Jan 4, 2011 11:17:15am

re: #7 Dreggas

what really gets me is the number of republicans and conservatives (not elected but avg. man on the street types) who are avid outdoorsmen. They have a vested interest in seeing the environment maintained yet they vote against that very thing.

Because Mother Nature is a welfare queen who needs to quit demanding handouts. She needs to bootstrap her way through life like the rest of us.

/wingnut

MinisterO Tue, Jan 4, 2011 11:18:14am

re: #93 garhighway

You would think that with 100's of hours of study (hee!) under his belt, he's be able to answer that question right away.

Probably a blog scholar. The scientific literature is too hard to read and often dull. I mean where's the controversy? Where are the accusations of manipulating, cooking, cherry-picking data? Where are the smoking guns that falsify the work of thousands of research scientists? It's hard to find all that good stuff in the scientific literature. Thank God for the blogs. I welcome the day when hundreds of hours of blog study warrants a PhD.

ihateronpaul Tue, Jan 4, 2011 11:45:44am

we're fucked

100

theheat Tue, Jan 4, 2011 12:59:36pm

And because as a body the GOP is playing games with the future of the planet, and will most certainly do everything in their power to continue trashing it, why again would anyone support any individual belonging to that party - because they loop something about "lower taxes" like a doll with its string being pulled?

The GOP is a horseshit party. They stand for horseshit. They support horseshit, and they want to heap more and more horseshit on the population. Voting for any one of them just affirms their bigger agenda.

101

Cheese Eating Victory Monkey Tue, Jan 4, 2011 1:09:50pm

Today's GOP is not the party of Teddy Roosevelt.

102

Cheese Eating Victory Monkey Tue, Jan 4, 2011 1:27:28pm

One thing that gets on my nerves is the underhanded rhetoric coming from the GOP. If their message was "yes, there's a problem and we trust the scientific community, but the country is broke and we're not paying for it/ let the private sector deal with it", that would at least be honest, but still dumb.

(P.S. - One of the older LGF posts with photos of glacier retreat helped me change one intelligent mind. Unfortunately, I'm still having a hard time convincing another smart person. The power of worldview and political tribalism can be very hard to challenge, even with the facts.)

103

Renaissance_Man Tue, Jan 4, 2011 1:31:17pm

re: #43 jc717

I'm most depressed that only 41% of INDYs believe that there's scientific consensus for AGW.

The war is lost.
I wonder how different the results would be if the poll were taken during a summer heat-wave. Many people still don't get that weather does not equal climate.

Remember that 'Independent' doesn't mean 'moderate'. It just means someone who won't answer that they belong to any political party. In today's climate, it often means a cultist who thinks Republicans are too liberal for them. That's why the meme that 'indys' swung towards Republicans this last election is rubbish.

104

freetoken Tue, Jan 4, 2011 1:37:45pm

As sad as this statistic is, one must consider that even fewer self-proclaimed Republicans believe the scientific theory of evolution.

105

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Jan 4, 2011 2:08:04pm

re: #62 FQ Kafir

How? When temperatures go down, the major proponents of the theory say it's part of global warming.

Please provide links.

106

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Tue, Jan 4, 2011 2:18:24pm

re: #75 FQ Kafir

It's a fair bet that I've studied this subject more than anyone on this thread besides maybe The Lizard King himself.

hey internet douchebag! You're lying! Nobody believes your dumb bullshit! Nobody cares how many conservative shill pseudo-science blogs you read

107

Turkey Jihad Tue, Jan 4, 2011 3:10:03pm

Red State thinks it's time for a coup.
Your text to link...

108

freetoken Tue, Jan 4, 2011 6:26:49pm

re: #75 FQ Kafir

It's a fair bet that I've studied this subject more than anyone on this thread besides maybe The Lizard King himself.

You lost.

It wasn't even fair.

109

Dancing along the light of day Tue, Jan 4, 2011 8:52:41pm

re: #62 FQ Kafir

How? When temperatures go down, the major proponents of the theory say it's part of global warming.

And, you think differently, why?
Argue your point of view & convince me?

110

boxhead Wed, Jan 5, 2011 12:35:11am

While talking with a colleague, the topic of AGW came up. He did not believe, so I sent him a link for wikipedia full of references about the controversy.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

His response was that Soros was behind wikipedia. Wow... The conversations with those I respect from the Right seem to always end up with blaming George Soros as the architect of the controversy as if he was a super hero. That belief, IMHO, come directly from the FOX/Right Wing Radio machine. I cannot get them to think past that. I cannot get them to even entertain the thought that Glen Beck does not represent the truth. No source of dissenting information is worthy in their eyes because it does not come from FOX.

My question to you Lizards is, what can I do? I am usually good in debating. I feel helpless trying to educate these folks. I don't want to give up, but I am at a loss trying to achieve my goal...

Any advice?

111

freetoken Wed, Jan 5, 2011 1:45:23am

re: #110 boxhead

My question to you Lizards is, what can I do? I am usually good in debating. I feel helpless trying to educate these folks. I don't want to give up, but I am at a loss trying to achieve my goal...

You can lead a horse to warm water, but you can't make him drink it...

Seriously, your colleague has entered a state where group identity is now so important to him that rational arguments over science will be fruitless (at least in the short run.)

He is fighting tribal warfare, as some of the regulars here might put it. The Evil Soros and his minions vs. the Patriots fighting for The American Way.

Send him the AIP link:
[Link: www.aip.org...]
and if he dismisses that as some commie plot they you know you are dealing with a true, Bircher-esqu, wingnut and like with most creationists there is little that you will be able to accomplish.

112

boxhead Wed, Jan 5, 2011 2:41:49am

re: #111 freetoken

thanks..... unfortunately, the last part of of your last sentence is where I am. All info provided that goes against preconceived views are just dismissed as lies by the Left. The funny/sad thing is that I am not that Left, just more than they are. And as such, they all think I am a hard core Leftist freak... aaaarrrrrrr

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Pew Poll: Majority of Republicans Are Global Warming Deniers

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud