Global Warming: Opinions and Politics

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
This week saw the arrival of both a paper and a new survey which track the US public's awareness of climate change. The two use slightly different sources and come to slightly different conclusions, but there's one trend that trumps all: when it comes to climate change, politics dominates, eclipsing self-assessed knowledge and general education...

Both surveys asked similar questions, however, including whether climate change has occurred and whether humans were likely to be the primary cause. The scientific community, including all the major scientific organizations that have issued statements on the matter, has said yes to both of these questions, and the authors interpret their findings in light of that.

The UNH poll shows that a strong majority—in the 80-90 percent range—accepts that climate change is happening. The Gallup polls explicitly asked about global warming and got lower percentages, although it still found that a majority of the US thinks the climate is changing. Those who label themselves conservatives, however, are notably less likely to even accept that basic point; less than half of them do, while the majority of liberals and independents do...

The more registered Republicans and those who describe themselves as conservatives thought they knew about anthropogenic climate change, the less likely they were to accept the evidence for it. For Democrats and independents, the opposite was true (same for self-styled moderates and liberals). This group also did a slightly different check, and broke out opinions on global warming based on education and political leanings. For Democrats and independents, increased education boosted their readiness to accept the scientific community's conclusions. For self-styled conservatives, education had almost no effect (it gave a slight boost in registered Republicans).
One set of polls, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, focused on a set of rural areas, including Alaska, the Gulf Coast, and Appalachia. These probably don't reflect the US as a whole, but the pollsters had about 9,500 respondents. The second, published in the The Sociological Quarterly, took advantage of a decade's worth of Earth Day polls conducted by Gallup. These each had in the area of 1,000 participants, which the authors pooled.
Politics and self-confidence trump education on climate change
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,145
1,301
182
51
Birmingham, AL
We as a species are not entitled to a stable climate, and we can't have it even if we want it.
You can waste your own resources worrying about it, but I resent the coercion of others to waste theirs.
 

gmart74

Hall of Fame
Oct 9, 2005
12,344
2
57
Baltimore, Md
lol so a poll involving 9500 people from the poorest parts of america, and another one of ~100,000 purely from earth day rallies..about global warming.... please oh well educated one, please tell me even you see how pathetically biased and worthless these studies are? there seems to be a lot of scientifically dubious polls being posted around here lately.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
lol so a poll involving 9500 people from the poorest parts of america, and another one of ~100,000 purely from earth day rallies..about global warming.... please oh well educated one, please tell me even you see how pathetically biased and worthless these studies are? there seems to be a lot of scientifically dubious polls being posted around here lately.
Looks like you can add 5 more data points that agree with the findings. That number to be increased shortly, no doubt.
 

NatchezTider

All-SEC
Jan 13, 2000
1,395
6
157
72
Natchez, Ms. USA
hot summers, cold winters....what's to change?
once al bore hopped on-board the agenda, i totally wrote it off. between him and some hollywood-type describing a polar bear looking for ice, most "real" people (as i call normality), don't concern themselves with this liberal, tree-hugger, united natons propaganda!
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
Way to address his substantive points. I am going back to not caring now.
His comments were deliberate misrepresentations of the data sets, not substantial points. Par for course here whenever studies offend gmart's sensibilities. Link if he's curious about those "poorest in America" populations.

But the specifics of the studies aren't even my thrust here. Have you not noticed the same political guidance of GW opinion in your personal interactions with others on this topic? I certainly have.
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
21,601
2,259
287
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Global warming/cooling/change is real, and ethanol (and all the expense to the individual involved) is the solution. Voila! No more global warming/cooling/change. Government is great at solving these problems. Simple.
 

gmart74

Hall of Fame
Oct 9, 2005
12,344
2
57
Baltimore, Md
His comments were deliberate misrepresentations of the data sets, not substantial points. Par for course here whenever studies offend gmart's sensibilities. Link if he's curious about those "poorest in America" populations.

But the specifics of the studies aren't even my thrust here. Have you not noticed the same political guidance of GW opinion in your personal interactions with others on this topic? I certainly have.
a. i scanned it and saw no information about income. however the 3 areas listed in the initial article are known for their poverty.
b. in the article, and also in the pdf paper, they list multiple problems with their data set including recent weather etc. so even they acknowledge doubts about their conclusions.
c. you have a very odd definition of "deliberate misrepresentations"

keep prancing away oh lord of the dance- one day when you decide to have a grown up conversation you will be taken seriously other than by hardcore liberals.

i knew i shouldnt have taken him off the ignore troll list but curiosity clouded my better judgement
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,145
1,301
182
51
Birmingham, AL
But the specifics of the studies aren't even my thrust here. Have you not noticed the same political guidance of GW opinion in your personal interactions with others on this topic? I certainly have.
You are so right. However, "Global Warming" is just one of many bludgeons used by a particular political faction to rationalize increased government control of people for what they believe is the greater good.
 

BAMAFAN IN NY

Hall of Fame
Jan 2, 2007
5,699
22
62
48
Watertown, NY
www.myspace.com
The way I see it is this.

Scenario 1: Global warming, cooling, change. or whatever they want to call it today is real.. and its caused by humans.
Option A: Do nothing and global warming continues on its current track
Option B: Spend billions and billions and billions of dollars, and hand over countless freedoms to the govt while at the same time placing a ridiculous burden on businesses.... And global warming continues on its current track.. (everything ive read tells me that anything we do short of killing all the humans on the planet and shutting down every piece of machinery will have, at best, a nomimal impact.

Scenario 2 There is no climate change.. no actions needed

Scenario 3 Climate change is real... But its natural and there is nothing we can do about it.


To me, only one these options seems completely retarded. And its the one where we spend billions of dollars and get nothing for it... But then again, we should be used to that by now.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,612
10,698
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
CT, there are just some types that, even if its for their benefit, dont like being told what needs to be done. Probably were the type to hold their breath when little. Others are too greedy and afraid they might have to spend a few dollars to rectify the situation. Unfortunately it is their children who will ultimately pay the price. Both will argue even when science says otherwise.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,612
10,698
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
A few dollars? That's my problem with global warmers. Bamafan in NY nailed it into the ground. Unless you are prepared to destroy the world's economies, then you are no more serious about dealing with global warming than I am.
Destroy world economies? Bogus argument. These scare tactics were used by conservatives before. Cleaner car exhaust - too expensive. Better fuel economy - too expensive. Remove CFCs from aerosols - too expensive. Remove CFCs from air conditioners - too expensive. Scrubbers on smoke stacks - too expensive.
One big way to cut down on CO2 emissions is through efficiencies. That pays for itself.
 

swoop10

Hall of Fame
Feb 10, 2001
5,007
0
45
62
Valdosta, GA
Destroy world economies? Bogus argument. These scare tactics were used by conservatives before. Cleaner car exhaust - too expensive. Better fuel economy - too expensive. Remove CFCs from aerosols - too expensive. Remove CFCs from air conditioners - too expensive. Scrubbers on smoke stacks - too expensive.
One big way to cut down on CO2 emissions is through efficiencies. That pays for itself.
It's funny how you talk about one side using scare tactics while promoting the biggest scare tactic ever created.
 

New Posts

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.