Chart of the Day (global warming denialism)

The ignorance and Know-Nothingism of the modern Republican party is truly astonishing.  Check this out via Pew:

Thanks to years worth of demagoguery, an absolute majority of Republicans (53%) now completely denying global warming!  And lets be clear here, nobody serious denies that the earth is warming.   There is at least a fake controversy as to whether humans are responsible or not (while there are some crank scientists reliably trotted out by Fox News to suggest humans are not responsible, you cannot find an actual climate scientist who believes this).  And damn, if that fake controversy isn’t effective as even Democrats are split pretty evenly on that issue.

It’s one thing to have concern for the environment be a low priority, but its almost as if Repubicans are becoming actively anti-environment, just because they know Democrats (and those damn foreigners) seem to care about the health of the planet that supports us all.  Check out these changes over the past four years:

And, I’ve already shown enough cool charts, but they’ve also got one which looks at the views of those Republicans who identify with the Tea Party.  You’ll be shocked, shocked to know that the Tea party Republicans having an even less tenuous connection to reality.   I had an interesting conversation the other night with some reporters and I sort of stuck up for the American people (not suggesting they’re smart, just not particularly dumber than in other countries).  Then again.  But, I don’t know how much you can blame “the people” when you have one of two major political parties and an entire right-wing media leading them over an anti-intellectual cliff.

Advertisements

About Steve Greene
Professor of Political Science at NC State http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/shgreene

7 Responses to Chart of the Day (global warming denialism)

  1. Dan Pangburn says:

    The factors that resulted in the 20th century global temperature run-up have been discovered. The contribution of atmospheric carbon dioxide is between small and insignificant.

    A simple equation, with inputs of accepted measurements, calculates the average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy. See the equation, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10 and 6/27/10).

    The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down.

    • Saffi says:

      @Dan Pangburn – interesting equation, pretty graph. Unfortunately, they appear on a blog known by those who have looked into it for a rather loose relationship with scientific accuracy. This blog, and its self-referential sources, claim that average global temperatures will go down.

      On the other hand, The National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, and University Corporation for Atmospheric Research all disagree.

      I think I’ll go with the actual, you know, experts.

  2. Seth says:

    Steve, is the effect over time one of conversion or replacement? That is, do Republicans appear to be moving in the anti-environmental direction because they believe less and less in global warming or because fewer people self-identify as Republicans than did so a few years ago, and those who are still there are more strident in their positions than those who left?

  3. Dan Pangburn says:

    Saffi–If you had been more observant, you might have discovered that the data sources are all independent, government funded agencies. And I check them against each other. The CR website is one of the few forums that I have found where full papers can be made public without the bias and de facto censorship of the Journals. I give links to all of the source data so that my work can be verified by anyone that is competent with a spread sheet.

    Eliminate from that list all that have never done any research in climate science and the length of the list is reduced to zero.

    Tens of billions of dollars have been wasted in Global Warming related research in futile attempts to prove the assumption (Climate Scientists assumed that it must be CO2 because they couldn’t think of anything else) that Global Warming was primarily caused by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide that human activity was producing, or, the bad things that might happen IF the planet got significantly warmer. (Never mind that historically, humanity has been better off when it was warmer)

    There are five agencies that report average global temperature anomalies. I track them all. On a month-to-month basis there is noticeable disagreement between them but, in general, over periods of many months, they agree quite closely once offsets are applied to account (mostly) for differences in reference temperatures. (They actually report ‘anomalies’ which are the temperature differences between the current measurements and some fixed reference temperatures).

    I have graphed the reported atmospheric carbon dioxide data from several sources and locations and concluded that the atmosphere is fairly well mixed. (The data are graphed at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html ).

    From 2001 through October, 2010 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 21.8% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased significantly and the trend of the average of the five reporting agencies from 2001 through 2009 is down. The 21.8% CO2 increase is the significant measurement not the comparatively brief time period.

    As this wide and rapidly growing separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising temperature continues, more and more climate scientists are beginning to realize that maybe they missed something and more of the general public are becoming aware that they have been deceived.

    • Steve Greene says:

      I’m no climate scientist, so I’m not going to pretend to interpret the data myself. Quite simply, I am going to trust the consensus opinion of actual climate scientists rather than a mechanical engineer. Either expertise in a field means something or it doesn’t. Personally, I believe the former.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Three years ago I knew very little about climate, but as an engineer, I am knowledgeable about science and, more importantly, have the tools and ability to learn.

        Two years ago, I determined that carbon dioxide could not be a significant contributor to GW. A year ago, after thousands of hours of research (as a retired engineer I can do that) I discovered the basis for the temperatures of the 20th century and that basis continues to hold true. Thanks to your website and others, that detailed information is now accessible to others.

        A lot of paychecks depend on telling scary stories about the planet getting warmer, and getting gullible politicians to believe them to keep the grants coming. I am not paid by anyone. Imposing useless constraints on the economy will reduce the quality of life for us all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: