Climate Change is Now Politics – Not Science
A recent in-depth poll by Pew Research Center found liberal-leaning people much more concerned about climate change than conservative-leaning folks.
That fissure extends to belief in the scientists who work in the climate arena.
The 36% of Americans who are more personally concerned about the issue of global climate change, whether they are Republican or Democrat, are much more likely to see climate science as settled, to believe that humans are playing a role in causing the Earth to warm, and to put great faith in climate scientists.
Some 55% of liberal Democrats say climate research reflects the best available evidence most of the time, 39% say some of the time. By contrast, 9% of conservative Republicans say this occurs most of the time, 54% say it occurs some of the time.
On the flip side, conservative Republicans are more inclined to say climate research findings are influenced by scientists’ desire to advance their careers (57%) or their own political leanings (54%) most of the time.
Here’s some additional information reported from the Pew research:
- Power plant emission restrictions − 76% of liberal Democrats say this can make a big difference, while 29% of conservative Republicans say the same, a difference of 47-percentage points.
- An international agreement to limit carbon emissions − 71% of liberal Democrats and 27% of conservative Republicans say this can make a big difference, a gap of 44-percentage points.
- Tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks − 67% of liberal Democrats and 27% of conservative Republicans say this can make a big difference, a 40-percentage-point divide.
- Corporate tax incentives to encourage businesses to reduce the “carbon footprint” from their activities − 67% of liberal Democrats say this can make a big difference, while 23% of conservative Republicans agree for a difference of 44 percentage points.
- More people driving hybrid and electric vehicles − 56% of liberal Democrats say this can make a big difference, while 23% of conservative Republicans do, a difference of 33-percentage points.
- People’s individual efforts to reduce their “carbon footprints” as they go about daily life − 52% of liberal Democrats say this can make a big difference compared with 21% of conservative Republicans, a difference of 31 percentage points.
The point is this: everybody is looking at the same science – the same information. How can so much difference in interpretation and opinion exist when acting off the same data? Answer: because the climate change science data is far from conclusive. No one can draw a direct line from where it is to where it takes the earth and the oceans and us – and when. So, “climate change” is now a political point of view where divergence of opinion is customary.
We know regardless of any issue there will always be extreme positions where there’s a total thumbs up or down on whatever it might be.
But when it comes to ‘climate change’ there’s little middle ground. Either people buy in totally or people don’t.
A Gallup poll basically echoes that of Pew. Almost half of the public believes that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated.
82 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of Independents expressed some worry, while just 26 percent of Republicans did.
What these polls are really showing is that there is no conclusive scientific data to support the contention and implementation of radical solutions.
Politics is not science. The use of the word ‘consensus’ does not belong in the same sentence as science. Science is constantly changing as new theories using existing data are developed and tested.
For example, preceded by European science in the 17th century there was a general perception and acceptance that the earth was flat. But when science produced scientific evidence it was shown the planet’s spherical shape.
There is general acceptance of the earth’s temperature rising. But there is little acceptance either by the public or the scientific community as to the rate of warming and even less acceptance of what to do about it.
It would appear the majority of people are supportive of reducing – or at least not adding to – the carbon imprint of various sectors of our economy. But the majority do not believe in imminent Armageddon.
There’s good reason for that skepticism.
Here are a few of the headlines over the past several decades:
- 1988 – “World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018”
- 2000 – “Children Won’t Know What Snow Is”
- 2005 – “Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020”
- 2013 – “Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018”
- 2014 – “Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’”
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 6 reports since 2008 have made numerous short-term and longer-term predictions of the consequences of climate change. In virtually all cases to date, none of those predictions have been even close, much less correct.
But those totally ‘in’ on climate change are not fazed by the apparent past misinformation on the subject and are quick to believe and adopt the latest reports of dire consequence and outcomes.
Those spreading climate change misinformation have now switched from calling skeptics ‘science deniers’ to now calling them climate change ‘solutions deniers.’
When our EPA was launched in 1970, its primary goal was the elimination of heavy smog, pollution, and acid rain/lakes. It accomplished its mission.
Its latest regulation on vehicle emissions will require everyone in the US to drive an EV or stay home – all in the supposed mitigation of climate change.
If fossil fuels are the major culprit of global warming, why isn’t there an outcry against China building new coal fired electrical plants at the rate of 2/week. China is the world’s biggest user of fossil fuels and its contribution to the latest international climate change conference and was to pledge its emissions will peak by 2030. Big deal, right?
Meanwhile the US has not added to fossil fuel emissions since 1990 but we’re going to change everything we do by lowering our emissions. Make sense?
Climate change is now all about politics – not science.
******************************
Have a great and prosperous week.
Hug somebody.
References:
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/
https://riskcenter.wharton.upenn.edu/climate-risk-solutions-2/climate-change-as-a-political-problem/
https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-challenging-politics-of-climate-change/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/flat-Earth
SPIDER Bites
The trivia question of the week: What is sushi traditionally wrapped in? Answer the last week’s largest mammal: Blue Whale. The largest blue whale ever confirmed was 98 feet long and tipped the scales at 199 tons. Is that big or what?
As expected, we now have administration officials warning everyone that their “checks” are in peril of not being sent out if the debt ceiling is not increased. How did people exist before without the federal government’s takeover? I think people just never expected to be taken care of by the state and had to rely on themselves. What an old-fashioned idea.
The DoD changed the name of Ft. Hood, coined after a Confederate general, to Ft. Cavazos – after a general in the Korean and Vietnam wars. In 1942 the War Dept. – what the DoD used to be called – set the name of Ft. Hood. We’re supposed to forget all about the Confederacy (our history) as we’re being ‘unified.’
The CPI inched up .4% in April to 4.9%, according to the Labor Dept. This despite the Fed’s 10 successive interest rate increases trying to quell inflation.
Cornell U. – in joining some others – announced the formation of a free speech committee last week. Many campuses are now starting to realize the previous bent on limiting free speech is not a winning, popular strategy. Gee, somebodies in academia’s administrations are now trying to enforce the 1st Amendment and withdrawing support to stray from it.
The House oversight committee revealed its findings to the public last week on foreign entity payments to the Biden family. The FBI refused to turn over subpoenaed documents. Who knows if this DOJ will do anything about potential corruption.
So, the ex-marine who subdued a ‘crazy man’ on the NY subway with the help of others and with the gratefulness of fellow passengers was charged last week with manslaughter. This perpetrator is the victim – again.
A federal judge last week blocked the most recent order to Border Patrol to release migrants into the country without getting an alien registration number or a court date. The WH calls it “parole” where migrants are just given a requirement to make an appointment with ICE, then freed into the country. The southern border is still ‘secure’ as it has been since this administration took over. Just ask them. But just don’t ask the border townspeople or the border property owners – or the NYC mayor.
