Okay, explain to me again why there's no "Republican war on science" when 84 percent of a sample of congressional Republicans polled by National Journal questioned anthropogenic global warming, whereas 95 percent of congressional Democrats affirmed it....
Meanwhile, if you want to know how such a divide is possible, look no farther than the conservative media echo chamber that continues to feature James Inhofe and make his stance appear credible.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Where once it was the province of against-the-establishment rebels and citizen media types, major institutions are now taking wide advantage of blogging technology to promote their message or to expand their audience. And it's not just major media outlets like the Washington Post or the NY Times…
I didn't watch the Republican debate last night, so I can't be sure that climate change got short shift, but seeing as I couldn't find more than a hint of the subject in this morning's coverage on the net -- and heard only a passing reference in a NPR report listing the "other" subjects addressed…
As you are undoubtedly aware, this year's Nobel Peace Prize is being split between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore, in recognition of "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures…
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,…
Chris, you'll not be surprised to hear that I blogged about this:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/5/161237/0931
Look beyond the raw poll numbers, at the comments. Many of the GOP comments accept AGW, but not as the sole cause; or disagree about the degree of certainty.
And the GOP comments in the policy section in my opinion are more intelligent and insightful than the Dem. comments.
1. On the subject of global warming, there were two articles in todays Washington Post, an Op Ed by Rober Samuelson and a letter to the editor by C. Boyden Gray. I am posting a link to the former; the latter is not yet available on the Posts' web site.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/06/AR20070…
Gray basically backs biofuel production and carbon capture of coal burning; Samuelson backs carbon taxes to encourage conservation and alternative energy sources. Although some of the ideas proposed are helpful, they don't go far enough. It would seem that the following ideas should also be pursued.
1. Development of plug-in hybrids. ?This will require programs to develop better and cheaper battery technology. This approacy has been proposed by such conservatives as Frank Gaffney and James Woolsey who not even Mr. Harbison can accuse of being left wing Democrats.
2. Development of methods to extract natural gas from coal. If this can be done in an environmentally friendly manner, the resultant natural gas can be burned in power plants to replace the burning of coal. Natural gas has a much lower coal profile then does coal. Such a replacement would have an immediate effect on CO2 production because both China and the US have large coal deposits and produce much of their electricity from coal combustion. As Samuelson points out, China will pass the US in CO2 production by 2009 unless something can be done about coal combustion.