How many people are confused by the fact that there is a debate about “human-made” global warming? I keep wondering why this is a debatable fact. In other countries, arguments about global warming like those made by many Republican politicians and radio talk show hosts are not in the spotlight. Global warming is considered an indisputable fact by the majority.
Over dinner one evening this past summer, I asked 4 Swiss friends if people-created global warming was debated in Switzerland Switzerland
When I posed this question, they looked at me stunned, jaws dropping to the floor.
"No," they laughed. "The existence of global warming is not debated in Switzerland
"Why not?" I asked.
"Because we hike to the glaciers every year and it's completely evident that they are receding. The Swiss people see that they have to hike further every year to get to the glaciers."
"So it's not a debatable fact at all?" I asked again, disbelieving their response.
"No."
(Check out this news: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/melting-snow-prompts-border-change-between-switzerland-and-italy-1653181.html)
Unbelievable! What a relief to hear that.
I have been walking around for the last few years trying to understand why, in the United States of America
How can the work of thousands of scientists from around the world who collaborated on a United Nations/World Meteorological Organization report known as the “IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fourth Assessment Report” be called junk science? (The size of this collaborative effort itself is worthy of note). Am I supposed to believe that thousands of scientists from around the world who contributed to this report (1) are really not credible scientists, and/or (2) are in cahoots with the U.N. to convince us all of this hoax -- that global warming is human-made and a serious problem. And they created this hoax because....? Because they feel like it? What a great joke!
Upon examining the evidence for the claim made by the conservative media that global warming is a hoax, one finds that it rests on the assertion that it is a liberal belief, a liberal view of the world. It is not a scientific fact they claim, but a belief propagated by liberals and Democrats in the United States
What the conservative media has done (and many Republican politicians have followed suit) is to take a scientific claim that humans are responsible for global warming and make it into a political issue. They have taken a social problem and made it into a political issue that cuts across party lines. The problem of global warming has been re-cast by the conservative media as an issue that pits Republicans against Democrats. This headline from one of Rush Limbaugh's shows demonstrates the politicization and liberalization of global warming: "Despite Cooling Temperatures, Liberals Still Sell Global Warming" (February 16th, 2009 ). The result of the media’s politicization of global warming is that it is now viewed by many not as a problem facing humankind or even this nation, but as a liberal movement threatening the freedoms of Americans. What an amazing accomplishment to take the problem of global warming, a problem that affects us all, and make it a polarizing political issue.
The divergence between Democrats and Republicans with regards to global warming has increased significantly over the past decade as GALLUP poll data demonstrates (see Riley E. Dunlap, Gallup Scholar for the Environment, “Climate-Change Views: Republican-Democratic Gaps Expand” March 29, 2008). When asked in 1997 their views on when the effects of global warming will begin to happen, 48% of Americans said "they have already begun to happen," whereas when asked in March of 2008, 61% gave this response. However, while over three-fourths of Democrats (76%) believed in 2008 that global warming is already happening, only 41% of Republicans shared that view.
“The resulting 35-point gap stands in stark contrast to 1997, when nearly identical percentages of Republicans and Democrats (47% and 46%, respectively) indicated that global warming was already happening. Thus, despite all of the attention given to global warming in the media, including coverage of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports, Republicans have become less likely over the past decade to believe that global warming is occurring.”
“Republicans' belief in human-induced global warming has declined 10 percentage points from 2003 to 2008 (from 52% to 42%), Democrats' belief has been steady (possibly even rising slightly, though the increase from 68% to 73% is not statistically significant). The result is a substantial 31-point gap between adherents of the two major parties.
“After experiencing only minor fluctuations from 1997 to 2006, this year there was a small but noticeable rise in Republican agreement that global warming is a serious threat -- reaching 29%. Yet the increase among Democrats was greater, from 36% to 50% -- fully half of Democrats in this year's poll. A current gap of 21 points between Democrats and Republicans is the result.”
And, according to Lydia Saad of GALLUP, from 2008-2009, Republicans who believe media coverage of global warming is exaggerated grew from 59% to 66% while the rate among Democrats remained close to 20%.
It is now the case that self-identified Republicans are more likely to believe that human-caused global warming is untrue.
A second question must be asked. Why would the conservative media and elected officials take the problem of global warming and make it a polarizing political issue? Because it gives them something to talk about? Aren’t the stakes too high to play this sort of game?
Perhaps they have fallen prey to Big Oil’s campaign to create doubt about the science of global warming. It now appears that Exxon’s strategy to spend millions of dollars to recruit and support scientists to discredit the IPCC report in the media has been very effective. Below are a couple of highlights from a 1998 Exxon internal memo that articulates their goal and plan of action.
“Victory Will Be Achieved When
· Average citizens “understand” (recognize) uncertainties in climate science: recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the “conventional wisdom.”
· Media “understands” (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
· Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current conventional wisdom”
· Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy
· Those promoting the Kyoto
Current Reality
Unless “climate change” becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto
It appears that GALLUP
The entire copy of the memo can be viewed on the Environmental Defense Fund’s website:
The debate about global warming has been fueled by corporate greed and political partisanship. But how can any corporation, political pundit or politician repudiate this science for short-term self-gain? It seems so extremely immoral. Are they sociopathic? The following characteristics of a sociopath are adapted from: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html):
A Sociopath
- Manipulative
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly domineering - Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." - Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. - Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. - Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. - Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. - Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
In response to the campaigns of Big Oil, conservative pundits, and many elected officials, a continuous effort must be made to get the facts about global warming to the people using numerous forms. A continuous educational campaign on this subject must continue in the media and at the grassroots level. Tangible solutions must be provided so that people can make changes to significantly reduce greenhouse gases. Voters should be informed about which candidates see global warming as a serious problem that needs to be addressed immediately. I will provide more on this in the coming weeks.
I agree it is very discouraging that there is a debate about “human-made” global warming. I believe this is a great example of two big forces. The first, it is a great example of how our political leaders, as well as the media, take stances against one another. There are few issues the parties see eye-to-eye. This certainly should be one of them.
ReplyDeleteWhich leads to the next big force. Politicians are influenced by those who support their never ending reelection fund. I think your point on Exxon is right on. Energy companies (oil, gas, coal, utilities) and transportation companies (auto industry, trucking) influence our economy and our politicians probably more than any other sectors. These businesses have a ton to lose if we were to make changes to reduce global warming. It would be interesting to see how much money is spent by Exxon and those organizations which are discrediting the science and analyze that data against how much money they give each political party. Increasing the miles per gallon requirement faced similar hurldes. Didn't it take 35 years to update the MPG requirements?
I believe most European countries and some Asian countries (Japan comes to mind) don't have the same quantity of fossil fuel reserves the U.S. has. Thus, there isn't as great a push by oil, gas and coal businesses to discredit science. Rather, the opposite is true. Both Japan and Germany are leaders in both efficiency and renewable energy. This is not only good environmental policy, but it is also a good energy policy for them. If they want to see their economy grow, they need to seek alternative energy solutions, which they have done and continue to do.