Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Jonathan Chait analyses the reasons why Republicans deny anthropogenic global warming:
As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore's recent congressional testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader, it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected Republican.
How did it get this way?
The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of them are. Leading global warming skeptic Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), for instance, was the subject of a fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. The bottom line is that his relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand.
But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.
The truth is more complicated -- and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement.
Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.
National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue.
Also see discussion from Brad Delong:
Why have the industry shills and the hard-core ideologues led the thinking for the whole conservative movement? They have led the thinking because the energy industry has funded them.
I think the influence of business in the GOP, not just the energy industry, is a factor. The fear is that any policy to address global warming will require business to implement costly changes, or, in the case of unilateral action by the U.S., reduce competitiveness causing profit to fall. Thus the policies, and even the idea the global warming exists are resisted.
Gore aside, it's genuinely striking how much of conservative thinking about global warming seems to be driven purely by hatred of environmentalists.
Comments
Matt Nisbet has an additional factor: as people are leaving the GOP, what remains is ideologically more pure, thus GOP as a whole (although its overall numbers are dwindling) is getting more and more likely to deny global warming. While this does not address the causes, it partially explains the polling numbers.
Posted by: coturnix | March 25, 2007 10:09 PM
This piece is a typical attempt to avoid any substantive issues by speculating on the mindset of the people holding the belief. Unfortunate.
Posted by: Kevin | March 25, 2007 10:13 PM
Wow - what a substantive argument from Kevin!
Posted by: coturnix | March 25, 2007 10:38 PM
"This piece is a typical attempt to avoid any substantive issues by speculating on the mindset of the people holding the belief. Unfortunate."
Yes, because there are absolutely no posts on Deltoid or any climate blog dealing with the substantive issues, and the cause of knee-jerk denialism is simply a prohibited topic of discussion.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 25, 2007 10:58 PM
Also, conservatives must feel that global warming threatens their religious belief in free enterprise, because unfettered consumption and commercial activity does have negative consequences and because environmental solutions will require collective governmental action and intrusive regulations.
Posted by: Ex-drone | March 25, 2007 11:17 PM
Kevin, I have noticed that while you regularly complain the lack of substantive argument. You never initiate such arguments and seldom take part in them when they do occur.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 26, 2007 12:05 AM
Could be an expression of loyalty to the Party/Party line/Party ideology. The less clearly it's supported by Science - thus obviously wrongheaded - the more loyal they are showing themselves to be. This is not unique to the Right but when it comes to global warming the short and medium term financial interests of a lot of mega corporations are perceived to be at risk. Australia's coal industry is so much seen as tied to economic prosperity that any suggestion of a need to restrict it brings a storm of disbelief and outrage from mainstream politicians - not exclusively on the Right. The really unfortunate aspect is that funding and support for the development of low emission alternatives, at a scale that says this really is serious isn't there. We'll see more spent propping up coal exports, fighting regulation that could restrict it's sale to certified low emission end-users than will get spent trying to develop low cost alternatives that might make coal unprofitable.
Posted by: Ken | March 26, 2007 12:35 AM
Why read an article when I can analyse my own brain.. so, why do I reject climate change/science ?
This is going to be a ramble so stick with me..
Before I start I should state that I believe that maybe climate change is probably happening and it is probably man-made (dragged kicking and screaming). However I do read alot of Tim Blair and other sceptic blogs. They have a point. There is alot of unnecessary alamism being created to try and get the population behind it.
Anyway back to my story..
By nature I am conservative. I like things the way they are. I don't complain about government, because things are good.
This extends into climate change.
Climate Change might change the way I live my life.
I find myself embracing climate change skeptisism whenever I read it with a whole heart, even though I know the argument is probably lost.
Why ? Because I want it to be wrong.
I want to pour masses of CO2 into the atmosphere with no adverse affects. Why wouldn't I ? This means we can grow the world's economy without a worry in the world. It means we don't need to change anything.
I absolutely guarantee you, the article you mention is totally wrong. We want global warming to be a lie. It is not out of loyalty to a controlling cabal.
Wouldn't you prefer it if there was no global warming ?
It's a bit like Iraq. I wish it had been smooth and worked - even if it didn't. Why would anyone want it to fail ? Of course I will embrace good news.
By the same token, don't you think it's strange how the left loves climate change ? They want it to be real.
Why does the left like it so much and embrace bad news with such enthusiasm.. let's see..
I think because it proves to their psychology that there is something wrong with the world and the way it is structured. "See! We were right. There's something wrong with the world. Let's change stuff.. not just green house gas emissions, but other social/economic institutions"
I guess it's a bit like leftys pretending Multiculturalism/Diversity "makes us stronger" etc. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you want it to be true even if studies always show it making us weaker.
These are just my thoughts, I'm not trying to push an agenda. I find left/right psychology interesting.
Please try and be objective instead of point scoring.
Posted by: RightWinger | March 26, 2007 1:28 AM
There's another explaination for the GOP's denial of climate change. It's a problem that requires government intervention to begin to solve. Once they hear "government intervention", or hear about a "government plan" or a treaty, they reflexively oppose it, because the government can't do anything right. Those few conservatives who do acknowledge the problem insist that the magical hand of the free market will solve the problem.
Posted by: Chad | March 26, 2007 2:41 AM
These are good explanations for why republicans reject the conclusion that global warming is man-made, but there is another reason for their imovable inertia when faced with the irresistable force of evidence. The answer lies in the "Psychology of Persuasion" where Robert B. Cialdini describes the six factors that influence our decision making: commitment/consistency -- They do not want to appear to be flip flopping on an issue. This is why they held up flip-flopping to be such a great sin in the last Presidential election. Another factor, social proof, also comes into play where groupthink is as great an influence in their rejection of science as it was in their belief of WMD's in Iraq. The factor of likability -- they simply do not like Al Gore. The factor of reciprocity -- obvious when you track the campaign finances. The scarcity factor -- the romantic notion of the single voice of reason promoting an alternative climate change theory while everyone else is hopping on the CO2 bandwagon somehow lends more value to the theory with minority support. In their eyes cosmic rays and sunspots becomes greatly valued like Galileo's sun-centric vision and Wegener's theory of plate tectonics. And the factor of authority -- they blindly follow the ideological anti-scientific leadership.
It also reveals that it will be the science of persuasion and not the science of climate that will eventually win the policy battle.
Posted by: AdrianJC | March 26, 2007 6:52 AM
Could you direct me towards some of these studies? I mean... have they taken, say, Switzerland into account? As long as people don't confuse being entitled to their own opinions with being entitled to their own facts, I can't see anything here to be afraid of.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 26, 2007 7:41 AM
People love a good conspiracy theory, especially if it reinforces their ideology. This is why so many on the extreme left think that Bush had something (active) to do with 9/11. This argument is usually based on something like "airpleanes can't explode like that," which is equivalent to the rabid right's "CO2 is life."
Because their president--and their ideology--has been under attack, many Repuiblicans have retreated and hardened their stance. In the same way the extreme left sees a conspiracy in 9/11, the Republicans see a conspiracy in climate science. The difference is that there seem to be a lot more in the hard right camp than in the hard left.
The middle ground trusts scientists, and I can't see how the right's denial of the science will not weaken the party for years to come. Not that I'm complaining about that.
Posted by: Abe G. | March 26, 2007 8:07 AM
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmY3M2E1YjI2ZGZkMjVkMTQzZWU0YzlhM2RmMDhjYTI=
Posted by: Tim Worstall | March 26, 2007 8:22 AM
Al Gore's testimony was so strong that only 24% of Rasmussen respondents reckon he has any expertise on the subject.
http://tinyurl.com/2goae2
Posted by: Jack Lacton | March 26, 2007 9:25 AM
None of what's being said in this ongoing dialogue is necessarily wrong, but I want to emphasize a central factor that seems to be largely overlooked: The successful quest on the right to create an alternative "knowledge" environment that is in line with their political beliefs: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/why-republicans-distrust-b44254.html
Posted by: Chris Mooney | March 26, 2007 10:26 AM
Err, Tim W, don't you think that posting that to Planet Gore kind of undercuts your argument?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | March 26, 2007 10:46 AM
Tim W. says in his link:
"This is the heart of my opposition to the Goracle's message: it's his extremism, his brushing aside of the actual science (both of climate change and economics) which makes him so dangerous."
Do you have any actual evidence that Gore is brushing aside climate science?
Posted by: Abe G | March 26, 2007 10:51 AM
RightWinger: Let me take a crack at addressing what I see and the main theme in your post. You embrace the deniers because it is what you want to believe. While I can understand this, that idea has no place in what is essentially a scientific argument.
To continue on with your Iraq example, I would love for it to be a democracy with a strong national health, education and security program. One where free and fair elections were held and a country that agreed to do their best to curb terrorism (and actually did). Now, although I would like this, I think that the reality is that there is a large amount of sectarian strife, a not insignificant insurgency, and a lack of health and education. Now, the real question is which do we use to make policy? The two scenarios lead to very different foreign policy actions so which one should we use?
That is the issue we see here. I would love to see some real evidence that global warming is not happening and is not a problem. But there isn't any and thus basing policy on that assumption is not rational.
In regards to alarmism, I find that a great deal of alarmism is generated by people like Tim Blair selectively quoting or news makers trying to - well - make news. In my opinion, a good example of alarmism is this http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2211566.ece. I agree that talking about methane fireballs tear across the sky, causing further warming. is alarmist, but show me a peer-reviewed document that claims it will happen.
Let me leave you with a quote from Fermi: Whatever nature has in store for mankind, unpleasant as it may be, men must accept, for ignorance is never better than knowledge.
Posted by: John Cross | March 26, 2007 10:52 AM
And in Tim W's preceeding post, he calls Gore the "Goreacle" and the "Inventor of the Internet". He doesn't "hate" Gore, he just calls him names and spreads lies about him instead of engaging with his arguments.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | March 26, 2007 10:54 AM
Rightwinger - thank you for your honesty. Like John, I can definitely understand how denial (I don't want it to be true, so it isn't) can be extremely seductive. Trust me, I understand. However, in the real world, denial only makes things worse - it takes away the ability to understand and try to head off/fix/deal with the problem. It's fundamentally irresponsible. We're all grown-ups here - our job is to deal with the world, not hide from it. Think of it like a bill. Pretending the bill didn't really come in the mail/not thinking about it is an effective short-term strategy for reducing anxiety. So is ignoring the subsequent bill, and further such correspondence, and screening the phone calls to avoid the collection agency - except that each step makes the problem worse and worse, until what probably could have been handled relatively easily becomes a giant credit-destroying nightmare. Global warming has a similar dynamic. We already have to deal with it. But the longer we put it off, the worse it is going to get.
"By the same token, don't you think it's strange how the left loves climate change ? They want it to be real. Why does the left like it so much and embrace bad news with such enthusiasm.. let's see.. I think because it proves to their psychology that there is something wrong with the world and the way it is structured."
This may in fact be true for some small percentage of the non-global warming deniers who are in fact on the left. And indeed, the idea that this isn't necessarily the best of all possible worlds does mean that it's easier to recognize possible problems. But almost all of us (at least almost all) we would love it to be wrong, too. It's just that - well, y'know, our desires don't determine reality. If the overwhelming majority of astronomers, etc. said that there was a giant hunk of space rock headed our way, I would really want that to be not true, but given that the sober, safe, conservative thing to do would be to assume that the world's astronomers were as close as we have to a source of accurate knowledge (if not instant and total Truth), and make an immense, worldwide effort to deal with the problem. No?
Posted by: Dan S. | March 26, 2007 11:32 AM
I seem to have left out some commas in my previous comment. Ah, well.
Posted by: Dan S. | March 26, 2007 11:35 AM
Dan S., I think the punchline of this comic makes your point perfectly.
Posted by: Davis | March 26, 2007 2:29 PM
Ian:
I make plenty of substantive arguments; the replies typically don't rise to the same standard which is discouraging.
There remain three independent reasons why, for example, the Lancet study is inconsistent in the face of the Nature report on it and public statements of the authors. No one has substantively answered any of those, but I certainly caught plenty of rhetorical flak for pointing it out. Why it's cool for the authors of a study not to know what their interviewers did is beyond me. How that wouldn't entail suspicions about the objectivity of their results and how closely interview protocols were followed to prevent biased replies or questioning is a mystery too. Oh well, let's see some more speculation on why I want Lancet to be all wrong.
Coturnix: And exactly what substantive reply to this sort of psychologizing nonsense is preferred? Do you really need me to point out that there is no valid way for the author of the article to accurately psychoanalyze the zeitgeist of the decidedly non-monolithic group of people who are skeptical of AGW? Did you think his analysis was right on? If so, there isn't much of substance that you are going to find relevant.
Posted by: Kevin | March 26, 2007 4:10 PM
Davis, that's a great little comic.
Kevin - whether or not one agrees with Chait's piece, there's actually rather little psychoanalysis going on. Much of the focus is on political strategy:
"The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with"
The actual bit of psychoanalysis involved (Gore, Hollywood liberals, and the left in general as "hate figures": global warming must be wrong because they worry about it) seem fairly reasonable -see Tim W. babbling about the "Goracle," etc.
And is it me, or is that an odd use of the word "zeitgeist"? Isn't it generally considered to be, literally, the spirit of the time (or age, or era), in reference to broad and overarching intellectual cultural trends across an entire society, rather than developments within one small and specific (if allegedly diverse) group of global warming denialists?
Posted by: Dan S. | March 26, 2007 4:53 PM
Rightwinger: "Because I want it to be wrong."
This is a natural human tendency and personally I try to compensate for it.
For example, one reason I'm an agnostic is that I can see the powerful non-rational appeal of a belief in an afterlife.
To take the case of Iraq, it would have been personally embarrassing to be proven wrong - but that would have been a trivial matter if the pre-war claims of a democratic, prosperous peaceful Iraq had eventuated.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 26, 2007 6:39 PM
Kevin, your response is all about the Lancet study.
Strangely, I thought that in criticising an article about global warming (which mentions Iraq briefly in passing) you were talking about global warming.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 26, 2007 6:43 PM
RightWinger, I don't love climate change. There aren't very many educated people who do. I'll grant you there is a tiny minority of environmentalists who think it's really cool, seeing it as something like the wrath of their god. But this is a tiny minority. For myself, I am willing to accept the scientific work (and the actuarial work--the insurance industry believes in climate change; they are paying claims on it), and go on from there. There's some satisfaction in being validated in my environmentalism, but I'd happily give that up if we could have New Orleans back, let alone avoid all the problems that are coming. And I think that, in a changing world, it is best to be ready to change.
Posted by: Randolph Fritz | March 26, 2007 8:25 PM
Many of these people have got so much invested in denial that it is virtually impossible for them to change their tune at this point.
They have defined themselves -- in their own minds and the minds of others -- as "crusaders against the lefty evildoers (like Al Gore), using words like "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind" to characterize their foes. It's hard (if not impossible) to back away from such an extreme position without looking both stupid and foolish -- irrelevant, really.
To say nothing of the fact that many of these people have undoubtedly actually convinced themselves that global warming is a hoax.
Posted by: JB | March 26, 2007 10:24 PM
Maybe people are just tired of Gore's wild exaggerations, as Lomborg pointed out here: http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/energy/21mar/lomborg_testimony.pdf
Posted by: nanny_govt_sucks | March 27, 2007 12:18 AM
Well, I'm tired of Lomborg's lies. I don't think you can take Lomberg's misrepresentations about the IPCC report in that document as anything other than a deliberate attempt to deceive. I've covered this before on this blog, but if you want a different take, read Bob Somerby.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | March 27, 2007 1:44 AM
Tim, does Gore exaggerate or does he not?
Posted by: nanny_govt_sucks | March 27, 2007 2:56 AM
The previous post there under my name was not in fact written by me. No way of proving or showing this of course, but you might note that authorship has been reassigned to the person who did write it. I'm unsure about how posting to Planet Gore that I don't hate him undermines my point that I don't hate him, no, sorry, I don't. As to evidence that Gore is brushing aside climate science, well, yes, it's there in the post. It isn't, from the stated point of view of a climate scientist (James Annan) a crisis. Gore says it is.
Posted by: Tim Worstall | March 27, 2007 5:48 AM
Nanny: What a surprise! You are backpedaling and changing your position. Lets be clear here, are you saying that Gore "exaggerates" or "wildly exaggerates"?
Tim Worstall: If you read further down the link to James, you can see this paragraph.
Although some would no doubt find grounds to disagree, I don't actually think that the current rate of climate change (0.2C/decade) is especially disastrous (it may on balance be harmful overall, and I'm sure it is to some species/people). The really big issue is making sure it doesn't double or worse, and hopefully bring it down a bit. I'm also not sure that "stabilising climate" is really a meaningful or useful goal - if we could get the warming rate down to 0.1C/decade or below then that would buy rather a lot of time and maybe the problem would pretty much go away in another couple of generations.
While, as he says the current trend is about 0.2C per decade, this is expected to accelerate. Thus I think that the important phrase is The really big issue is making sure it doesn't double or worse.
So I can agree that it is not a crisis if you can agree that keeping the rate below 0.2 per decade is the really big issue.
Since James sometimes reads this blog I am sure he can correct me if I have not understood his points.
Posted by: John Cross | March 27, 2007 8:24 AM
nannygovtsucks says: "Maybe people are just tired of Gore's wild exaggerations,"
Starting way back in the 90's with his "I invented the internet" exaggeration, right?
I hate to break it to you, but Republican rejection of the science behind global warming is clearly about much more than Gore.
Many of those questioning global warming think the whole thing is a hoax, for God's sake. That doesn't mean they think Gore or anyone else exaggerated. It means they think the whole thing was invented by some liberal cabal! -- which is wacky beyond words.
And its not just global warming that they question. It's stem cell research, evolution, and a number of other scientific issues.
If you think this is merely about Gore, I'd say you have not been following the issue very closely (if at all). You are clearly trying to make it all about Gore, but that's another matter entirely.
Posted by: JB | March 27, 2007 8:44 AM
I realise that James sometimes read this blog. It was this blog that directed me to James' blog in the first place, so that it now sits in my RSS reader.
I also realise that this might be a little difficult for some to comprehend. Yes, I am a contributor to Planet Gore. Also to TCS Daily (Techcentralstation as was). However, even given the opportunities for ad hominems there I do think that the climate is indeed changing, it's getting warmer, and that via a combination of land use changes and fossil fuel emissions that we humans are responsible for a lot of it (no, I won't even try and cry that solar variability or cosmic rays are really to blame. Even if they are that just makes the problem worse, not better).
So, I'm pretty well in line with the consensus view of the science of the climate. Where I disagree with the proposed actions is, well, in what we ought to be doing about it. I'm a big believer in that rather cynical branch of economics, public choice theory. Feeding good science into the political process does not lead to a scientifically good outcome. See corn ethanol in the US, or bio diesel in the EU.
I'm prepared to believe that in theory it is possible for there to be international governmental action which will solve this problem. I'm not sufficiently a believer in the ability of governments to actually deliver such a result to think that it will ever happen in practice.
I'm thus much much more interested in 1) advancing technology and 2) adaptation. In my day job I'm peripherally involved in 1) (which I suppose, if I were nakedly self-interested would have me screaming for more government subsidy, but I don't).
Posted by: Tim Worstall | March 27, 2007 10:47 AM
Tim,
There are certainly several contributors to Planet Gore (and elsewhere on NRO) that are very much not in line with the consensus. Iain Murray, Chris Horner, Roy Spencer, Mark Steyn, that last piece from Fred Thompson, etc. They in fact find the consensus ridiculous. The tenor of the Planet Gore blog is that Senator Inhofe and the British documentary are right, and the whole thing is a swindle. Why do you not take issue with them on that?
Posted by: sjc | March 27, 2007 12:00 PM
I still don't see a response. Would anyone like to answer?
Does Gore exaggerate/wildly exaggerate or does he not?
JB, Chait is reflecting on the reception that Gore received. I'm merely pointing out that Gore's (wild) exaggerations could be the primary reason why he is treated so skeptically, and maybe only to a lesser degree is the skepticism because of the flawed science behind AGW.
Posted by: nanny_govt_sucks | March 27, 2007 12:06 PM
"Feeding good science into the political process does not lead to a scientifically good outcome."
I assume you meant "necessarily lead"(?)
True enough, but one thing is for certain, if you don't feed in good science (ie, if you feed in no science or junk "science" that holds that "Global warming is a hoax"), there is absolutely zero chance that you will ever have a scientifically good outcome.
The problem with the "debate" about global warming is that it has been completely unreasonable. Many Republicans have been "debating" the science (something they know almost nothing about), figuring that if they could use the uncertainty card to "cut the science off at the pass", that would be the end of the trail. In that case, they would never even have to debate the policy.
It is only very lately (after debating the science became completely untenable -- idiotic, really) that the sands have been shifting and some have started to say that "Yes we accept the science, but what we really wished to debate all along is the policy" (Yeh, right).
Posted by: JB | March 27, 2007 12:11 PM
JB, if you wish, you can go and look through the archives of TCS for my pieces. I haven't changed my stance since I started writing publicly in early 2004 (same on my blog). If you care to mine the usenet archives, I was saying much the same thing before that. I was trading commentary with William Connelly of this parish (Science blogs) on much the same terms in the years after Lomborg published. My position has always been that I accept (with minor provisos) the basics of climate change and yet I worry about policy to correct it. (A minor point but I'm not a Republican, not even American. Politically a classical liberal.) Necessarily, well, perhaps. I'm enough of a cynic that I think that the possibility of an optimal result from the political process is tiny, whatever the information fed in. The distortions are such that we're as likely to get a good result by feeding crap in as we are good information. But I agree, that is indeed excessive cynicism. BTW, did you note this piece? http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2U3NmJhNjU1MzQ1YjMyZThmZjFiNjllZGEyMDg3YTc= Iain Murray, myself, George Monbiot and the CEI, all agreeing that current policy on bio fuels is insane? And my argument would be, in fact is, that this entirely counter productive situation has come about precisely because we fed good information (we'd like to decarbonize the transport system, for good reasons) into the sausage grinder that is the political process, where it got hijacked by rent seekers. So I may be too cynical, but I think that many others are not cynical enough.
Posted by: Tim Worstall | March 27, 2007 12:45 PM
Tim Worstall said" if you wish, you can go and look through the archives of TCS for my pieces. I haven't changed my stance since I started writing publicly in early 2004"
I never claimed you had, but it is clear (to me, at least) that there are some who have.
Posted by: JB | March 27, 2007 1:53 PM
" It means they think the whole thing was invented by some liberal cabal! -- which is wacky beyond words."
Interestingly, there is a pseudoscientific movement that was more or less invented by a cabal (and is indeed wacky beyond words) - that is, the Intelligent Design creationism movement. Of course, that's on the right, not the left (and also proves that it actually is hard to pull off an airtight conspiracy, especially if you drop off your manifestos at Kinko's to get copied and can't stop yourself from preaching around the other true believers, even if you're on record . . .
And of course, there's industry-funded global warming denial, which I guess could be considered as a somewhat cabal-based product. Is it all just a big case of projection?
Posted by: Dan S. | March 27, 2007 2:05 PM
Actually, there is a critical distinction between the global warming and ID cabal cases.
In the case of global warming, the cabal would have to involve thousands of climate scientists throughout the world (a wacky claim, if ever there was one).
In the case of ID, the cabal only has to involve a relatively small number of scientists who are providing the the "scientific" basis for the ID claims being used by others (considerably more likely than the former case -- and hence, the claim that "there is a cabal of right wing nuts pushing ID" is much less wacky)
Posted by: JB | March 27, 2007 2:43 PM
Ian:
You asserted I don't make substantive commentary, and I replied with evidence to the contrary. On this article in particular, no substantive commentary is needed. It makes no substantive assertions WRT to AGW except for a poorly founded claim that the IPCC SPM is evidence that the science of AGW is becoming more definitive. Outside of that lone sentence, the rest of the article is devoted to speculating about how and why the right must condemn AGW, which I find to be invalid logically.
Dan S.: The thrust of this whole article is Chait analyzing his own speculations about Republican thought. He appears to be pretty clear about it. And if you don't think that different people have different reasons for being skeptical of AGW, despite the group in question being Republican, I think the burden of proof would lie upon you to prove it.
Posted by: Kevin | March 27, 2007 2:54 PM
nannygovtsucks: "I'm merely pointing out that Gore's (wild) exaggerations could be the primary reason why he is treated so skeptically, and maybe only to a lesser degree is the skepticism because of the flawed science behind AGW."
Nice try, but not very convincing.
Check the title of Tim's post again: "Why Republicans reject climate science".
The title is not "Why Republicans reject Gore".
Though they clearly do not like Gore and are clearly using him as a punching bag for the policy (eg, emissions controls),they would undoubtedly reject that policy even if Gore had never been born (or is it born again?).
Someone who believes that "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind", will manage to find some bogeyman to fixate on, no matter what.
Gore is merely convenient because the American media (eg, NY Times) think he is a big boob as well. If Gore did not exist, then the Republicans would either have to focus on someone else or actually invent someone like Gore to use as their punching bag.
Posted by: JB | March 27, 2007 3:07 PM
nanny said:
"Does Gore exaggerate/wildly exaggerate or does he not?"
I'm not aware of Gore exaggerating. People say he exaggerates, then they provide an example based on something he never said. (e.g. 20 feet sea level rise by 2100).
Tim W. said:
"As to evidence that Gore is brushing aside climate science, well, yes, it's there in the post. It isn't, from the stated point of view of a climate scientist (James Annan) a crisis. Gore says it is."
I hardly think a subjective opinion on what is or is not a crisis constitues "brushing aside the actual science." Further, Gavin Schmidt sees AGW as a crisis:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2938707&page=1
I'm sure other scientists do as well.
Posted by: Abe G. | March 27, 2007 5:22 PM
Tell you what Nanny, since you claim that Gore frequently exaggerates, why not pull out three or four of the most egregious examples so we can judge for ourselves.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 27, 2007 5:58 PM
Whether the situation is a crisis or not is a subjective call that the science alone can not decide.
While the decisions about whether there is a crisis and what to do about it can be advised by the science, they can not be decided by the science.
Those are policy questions and surprise, surprise, Al Gore is a politician who has spent most of his career making and deciding on policy.
One of the top climate scientists in the US -- NASA's James Hansen -- also thinks there is a crisis (how else can one interpret his statement that the next ten years are a window of opportunity that may be closing thereafter?).
Hansen has more credibility than most when it comes to making projections into the future. He has a proven track record of making correct temperature projections at least a decade ahead of time.
Hansen also said recently that Gore got the science basically right, by the way -- as has Gavin Schmidt, also at NASA.
The idea that Gore is out there in left field just making up the science as he goes along is itself a myth. It's pure fiction.
There are a few things that Gore could have been more careful about in his movie -- the implication that Hurricane Katrina might have been made worse by Global warming than it otherwise might have been, for example.
The jury is still out on whether global warming will lead to more intense storms (some scientists think it will, some think not) and climate scientists may never be able to say whether an individual storm has been worsened by global warming, at any rate.
But Gore got most of the science right.
Posted by: JB | March 27, 2007 6:20 PM
I cannot see any reason to believe that most Republican members of the US government are so dull witted or unread as not to see that AGW is clearly established as a cause that badly needs to be cut down. Surely it is more likely that asked a survey question they just respond with what seems to be politically smart, or survivable, or safe at the moment. They are public figures, not exactly a random samlple of Americans. What would anyone expect them to say, that of course AGW was a serious threat to the way of life and Bush should be sent to eco kinder garten? Since no such figures present when questions are coupled with advocacy of nuclear power, that can just as easily be considered as proof they know the situation and belief it is currently safe to affirm it if tied to a postive program Bush and co are on record as favoring. No body needs a survey to know that Bush is a bully, surrounds himself with the same kind of political snakes that Nixon did (remember the"Cobra" who has resurfaced in the same functions but as a NGO "born again" figure), and continually seeks political revenge. So it is still safe and the wisest course politically to say I don't believe. Best thing is to chase the corporations, have City Councils send letters to corporations, how much do you produce and what are you going to do about it. Currently, ground swell campaigns will be absolutely sure fire. Also campaign to have Deniers indicted, and if it is said there is no law, call for a law. What they do is a lot more harmful that nasty remarks against Jewish people. Just proposing it will galvanize a lot of citizens.
Posted by: garhane | March 27, 2007 6:22 PM
The interesting thing about all the 'deniers' (I know, you hate that term..)is that there is a pathology or worldview which most of us don't share, as Ken and Dan.S have pointed out. The best way of seeing this in action is to have a look at the threads of many of the articles posted on RealClimate, or BadScience for example (the Comment is Free section of the Guardian after George Monbiot's articles on the Warming Swindle programme was the perfect case).
The poster would normally start off with a comment such as 'the eco-fascists/green Taliban/nanny state' and then go on with the usual points which appear on Deltoids GW Bingo page. After this, you post some links which might help them, such as RealClimate or even a government website or two. They then reply very quickly (having almost certainly not looked at any of the points you raise) with more of the same, possibly culled from the usual sites, such as JunkScience, etc. In relation to TGGWS, you ask them about the people taking part, the graph, etc; and fairly quickly you realise that this programme, like the usual sites they mention, is canon.
Any time you mention the backgrounds of people like Fred Singer, you are involved in blackening their names. The graph is the graph, and Al Gore, James Hansen and Michael Mann are evil. And so it goes on. They never answer any of your points, but instead make vague attempts at hairsplitting about 'consensus' and '90% certain means its 10% uncertain', etc. Any attempt to counter the stuff they spout is answered 'Please try and be objective instead of point scoring'. At which point you give up. Its a cult. Think of it that way and it all makes sense. Despite the arguement that AGW is some sort of religion, its actually the deniers who hold their worldview together through faith. Its not about facts, or peer-review, or probability, because none of it matters to them. We might as well be speaking Cornish, because they don't want to hear. Rightwinger should be thanked for admitting why he feels as he does, because its honest. A number of people have already pointed out its flaws, but it helps us to understand why they believe what they believe, despite all the evidence. Perhaps we should change tack. Its not enough to simply use facts, because they ignore them. Scaring the hell out of them with AGW (and by God, it is scary) doesn't work, because you are accused of overstating the case (although Hardacker and Co. seem to do that anyway), so perhaps we should try something else. We had better do something, because by what I've seen in the last few weeks on various messege boards, there are a hell of a lot of them out there. If you don't belive me, try looking at the reader reviews for The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1596985011/sr=ARRAY(0x60e0ecec)/qid=ARRAY(0x5fca6b78)/ref=cmrevnext/002-7309279-7568851?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=41&qid=ARRAY%280x6093ec60%29&qid=ARRAY%280x623af760%29&qid=ARRAY%280x6179d1b0%29&qid=1175075635&qid=1175075635&sr=ARRAY%280x60d36c2c%29&sr=ARRAY%280x60d96f70%29&sr=ARRAY%280x6172bab4%29&sr=8-1&sr=8-1 - there are a lot of people who want to believe, and they vote.
Posted by: MikeB | March 28, 2007 12:25 PM
"Its not enough to simply use facts, because they ignore them. Scaring the hell out of them with AGW (and by God, it is scary) doesn't work, because you are accused of overstating the case'
I think the best tactic is merely to point out to others that the facts don't matter to these people -- and to point out what they are really up to.
Some may be just deluded, but I suspect that many (probably most of the ones leading the parade) are not -- which means they are simply lying.
Posted by: JB | March 28, 2007 1:27 PM
MikeB:
Despite your claims about "all deniers":
I am aware of several peer reviewed studies which cast doubt on claims made AGW supporters, including some few which would apparently require some major revision of AGW theory.
I am aware of several influential environmentalists plainly making the pragmatic case, made decades before some people who have currently made minor points about the need to exaggerate, for lying to the public at large in service of saving the planet, "green cathedrals," animal species or whatever they believe is more important than the literal truth.
I am aware that the nature of paleoclimatology is itself highly speculative, far from settled and I think being brought to legitimate questioning on several fronts.
I am aware that the UN and many governments of the world are far more inclined to support redistributive wealth plans involving wealth transfer away from the US than they ought, and that the policy implications of most plans in the marketplace of global warming ideas involve just that.
Unlike having belief sans evidence, i.e. faith in no AGW, I simply think the AGW supporters have made a poor causal case for their claim and have made it from an ideologically and rhetorically suspect position. Not being a climatologist it is obviously hard for me to evaluate the primary arguments being advanced. Apparently, according to some critiques I have seen of a number of peer reviewed articles, it is also hard for other scientists, including other climatologists, to accurately evaluate one another's work.
Introduce sound indication of ideological bias into the mix, and I think Mann's wrt MBH 98 & 99 is established, and I really need a higher level of proof for AGW than I might have required otherwise. Wegman's critique of Mann is plain and pretty devastating. The isolation of the paleoclimatology community from the larger statistical community is itself a barrier to my uncritical acceptance.
I say this from a position of being fine with reducing my "carbon footprint" as most of the ways I would do so also make sound fiscal sense. I like gas efficient vehicles. I like not wasting energy and saving money as a result. Rational people should.
If there is a cult of anti-AGW folks out there there is also a cult of AGW supporters out there trumpeting every heat wave and hurricane as proof of AGW and every skeptic as a fringe lunatic, true believer. Most of all, people like you making blanket claims about the irrationality of all deniers, is not likely to convince anyone of anything. You are at best preaching to the choir and at worst alienating anyone who finds rational argument more persuasive than logically invalid, armchair psychoanalysis.
Posted by: Kevin | March 28, 2007 2:35 PM
Kevin please document all these claims you're "aware" of so we can be aware of them too.
Oh and I've pointed this out before but if you want to represent yourself as the moderate rational face of climate skepticism you might want to leave out the UN World Socialism conspiracy stuff. Otherwise we'll end up with you denouncing Thatcher as a dirty commie once again and defining socialism as essentially everything other than some libertarian utopia.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 28, 2007 2:41 PM
Kevin: you feel that "Wegman's critique of Mann" is devistating, so how do you feel about his statement that we should base our knowledge about global warming on what the climatologists think?
Posted by: John Cross | March 28, 2007 2:57 PM
Kevin is resurrecting a tired argument that has been addressed ad nauseum here and elsewhere.
Kevin needs to do a little research because if he did, he would realize that the case for AGW does not depend on the work of any one individual (Mann or anyone else). It is a very large body of work and it all points to one thing: that most of the warming over the past 50 years was caused by human activities (ie, emissions). If the papers by Mann magically vanished into thin air, the conclusion about AGW would not change one bit.
Posted by: JB | March 28, 2007 7:50 PM
No time to read all of this conversation in detail but I get the drift. So some of you might find this tale of a 'real-life', official IPCC reviewer interesting. He tried, my God, how he tried, to do his job and the copies of his correspondence with the IPCC officials and scientists make for an interesting insight. Having read it, I can only ask, would you buy a second-hand car from any of these people?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640#more-640
Posted by: David Duff | March 29, 2007 5:00 AM
I sure as hell wouldn't buy one from Steve McIntyre.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | March 29, 2007 5:26 AM
Why