Which issue surprises you as being so politically partisan?

Ah, yes, another "why is everyone so gosh darn partisan" argument.

There are a wide range of issues on which people simply do not reach a consensus. Most of the time, people come to one of two (rather than 3 or 4 or a million) general opinions on said issue. Like global warming: you either think it is probably happening and something should be done about it, or you think it isn't and that nothing needs to be done.

People who fall onto one particular side of an issue tend to fall onto the "same" side of other issues, as well: that is, the side that other people on their side of the first given issue also fall. This isn't due to brainwashing by "the media" or other purveyors of "partisanship." This is just the way that people's opinions naturally shake out on the major issues facing our society today.

In addition to lamenting "partisanship" in your post, you also appear angry that issues like global warming have become "political." First of all, every important issue becomes "political": people disagree on the best policies for addressing an issue. Thus, it becomes political.

And yes, each person's general worldview and economic interests inform their analysis of objective scientific data. If you have a financial and personal stake in an economic enterprise that produces greenhouse gases, you of course are going to view the data on global warming differently than a person who does not.

This scientific issue may be divided "along party lines," but the problem isn't with the party system or "partisanship." But of course you're right that some people seem to be ignoring overwhelming scientific data. And I think we're getting pretty close to a consensus that global warming does, in fact, exist. Good luck finding a politically workable approach to mitigating it, though.

short sighted business interests. pretty simple really....

To be fair, dude, he wasen't making an argument. He was asking a question. I have a feeling that the general willingness of people to "answer" every question that comes before has something to do with it.

Then again I might be wrong.

Politicians are afraid (perhaps rightfully) that GDP is intimately tied with greenhouse gas production. In addition, they don't know exactly what the danger limit is. Anything related to GDP will automatically become a political issue, and the fuzziness of the boundaries make the arguments even more intense. This is on an absolute scale. On a relative scale, the problem is more, "Who should pay for the damage we've done?"

Liberals get worked up about it, because it fits with a narrative of greedy businesses engaging in immoral practices at the expense of the common man.

Conservatives are less likely to believe in global warming because they tend to think that the free market solves everything, whereas climate change is a game theory problem, that can only really be addressed through regulation (if it is happening).

There's also the cultural attitudes toward the environment. Conservatives are more likely to have the Biblical view that the environment is a resource that we have been given to use. Liberals are more likely to see man as a destructive parasite in an otherwise perfect world.

Can you show me a study that shows, with 99.5% accuracy, that man is responsible for causing global warming? Please make it from a legitimate source.

Next, please show me a study that shows, with 99.5% accuracy, that we are actually ruining the world through global warming (hint- Al Gore's movie will not work).

Then, please show me a study, with 99.5% accuracy, that shows it is actually cost effective to "combat" global warming.

you're on to the real issue.

1. if we agree that global warming is underway

2. if we agree that man is causing or exacerbating the situation

3. if we agree that there is something we could do to reverse or slow it

even if we agree to this point, which is not a consensus by any stretch, we would have to get china, india, brazil, and the remaining economic growth engine (not the US and Europe and Japan) to agree to give up their growth, which is highly unlikely. otherwise, we're left in a very uncompetitive posture in the global marketplace. (if wealthy western countries will not pay significantly more for clean and green, why would some dude in rural china trying to make enough money to send his kid to college?)

western carbon footprints are paling quickly. how many coal power plants is china building in the next few years? who is buying the oil that is keeping prices high? wake up to reality and be pragmatic (conservative) or continue to pretend that the US government can fix it with higher taxes, carbon offsets, ethanol, and other feel good policies (liberal).

It's also good when people put their own emotion into situations. Apparently global warming is so trendy that people will speak out against it because they don't like the people the other side represents. Often referring to people who talk about global warming as hippies, tree huggers, green, or idiots.

They remind me of pot smokers who quote "scientific" articles about how pot smoke is good for you.

Why does this surprise you? Liberal vs. Conservatism is simply big government vs. little governement. If there is global warming, then the liberals want to create a new government enforcement agency to stop or control global warming. Although hard to tell with this administration, true conservatives want less government, so it behooves the political opinion that if it isn't happening, then keep the govt. out. Even conservatives want to avoid sticking their noses up and saying "who cares?" to global warming.

Personally, I don't think the data is sufficient, accurate, or has been collected long enough to make the presumption that humanity can have that big of an effect on something like global warming. However, I do use compact flourescents, recycle, and drive a hybrid. Why? It just doesn't make sense to me to be wasteful just because I can.

Even if someone doesn't believe in global warming (having never visited a glacier or Europe) does that person also not believe in pollution?

Isn't environmental sustainability essentially a good idea regardless of how one feels about earth temperature?

I guess what I am asking is :

1) Can every person agree that pollution is bad?

2) Can everyone agree that resources are limited?

3) Shouldn't we try to preserve our current quality of life by protecting limited resources, reducing pollution and influencing others to do the same?

It seems to me that anyone that is capable of logical thought would agree on these things. I don't think they are inherently political questions.

This is what global warming boils down to at this point. For eons man has complained about the weather. "It's too hot." "It's too cold." "Why is it so rainy this April, it wasn't last April."

Well, now politicans have found a way to tap into that natural tendency to complain -- they place the blame on their political opponents (and, they believe, increase their own chances of keeping their job).

It was the cleverest idea these jerks had come up with since tapping into the "why does that guy have more stuff than I do, I work as hard as he does ..." sentiment.

Luckily enough for you an me these same poiticians think that the higher government revenues are, the better society is. They have lost sight of the fact that we don't exist to fund the government. Now they've found a way to tax the very air we breathe, and there's no way to disprove that we're not "helping the environment."

do not delete, you've asked a great question, one that I've often asked myself over the years. The answer is that truth depends on ones belief structure and perception of the world. Thus, two people can look at exactly the same event and see two different "truths." It's actually a fascinating study of human behavior. Do a search for "cognitive biases" or check out the "list of cognitive biases" on Wikipedia. Confirmation bias, for example, is when a person selectively listens only to opinions or facts that support their opinion, while ignoring facts that don't support their opinion. One that is left off the (rather expansive) Wikipedia list is displacement of attention. You will see a lot of displacement of attention surrounding climate change. When people are faced with issues that they cannot control, they displace their attention. For climate change it works like this. The deniers believe we can't control the climate, so they deny that it's changing at all. The climate control activists can't accept that we (the USA and the EU) can't fix the climate, so they come up with all sorts of "fixes", like Kyoto, carbon caps, compact fluorescent bulbs and so on, while ignoring the elephant in the living room that makes all these efforts futile... the rapid increase of CO2 emissions by China. The fact is that if we converted every household light bulb in the US to CFLs, our decrease in CO2 emissions would be offset by China's increases in 15 weeks.

If the USA ceased to exist, thus eliminating 100% of our CO2 emissions, that decrease would be offset by China in 12 years. If the US and THE REST OF THE WORLD met the Kyoto targets for reduction, that decrease would be offset by China in 8 years. These facts blow the arguments for CFLs, carbon caps, and Kyoto out of the water, so the climate change activists totally ignore them... displacement of attention. On the other side of the argument, the climate change skeptics ignore the IPCC report and to some degree at least here in Tennessee, their own eyes. The activists also ignore the IPCC report, shouting that it's going to be far worse than the IPCC report has outlined.

As Mulder used to say in the X-Files, "The truth is out there." A better statement might be "truth is in the eye of the beholder." I'm not sure that I answered your question, but that's my best shot.

800 dude wrote:

Conservatives are less likely to believe in global warming because they tend to think that the free market solves everything, whereas climate change is a game theory problem, that can only really be addressed through regulation (if it is happening).

Uh, 99% of people in the US have no idea what free market means, so I don't think that is it.

Ever heard of erring on the side of caution?

Covers both side of the argument. Its that simple.

Tommmy2Nuts wrote:

Ever heard of erring on the side of caution?

Covers both side of the argument. Its that simple.

no, it doesn't, and isn't.

caution loses most races. bold moves win. it's about being competitive. if france is cautious while germany is aggressive, germany wins. if the western world is cautious while emerging growth markets are aggressive, the western world loses.

now that should be simple enough to understand. going down fighting is better than the alternative.

Let's see if the original poster is right. Based on the tone of everyone's post, pro or con on global warming, I'm going to guess whether you are liberal or conservative. Let's see if this truly follows party lines, or will we find some conservatives who believe global warming is real and liberals who are skeptical. Some of these posts were difficult to categorize if the poster tried to be objective. I've tried my best to read through the lines.

I'm guessing these people would classify themselves as liberals or Democrats:

please dont delete

scientist.......

Mr. Price

zgdsfsd

800 dude

Grad Student

jorvack

Free Stuff For Everyone

fisky

Surprise!

I'm guessing these people would classify themselves as conservatives or Republicans:

kjasdnfa;o

just a thought...

xiang shu

William J. Clinton

Tommmy2Nuts

gloamer

Well? Let me know how I did.

Wrong.

Blast! Your comment about conservatives having a Biblical view sounded too stereotypical. It sounded like you were painting all conservatives as religious, so I assumed you were liberal.

Of course you could be an independent...but if that's the case I would argue you only think you're an independent and I was just picking up on some bias in your writing.

OK, enough talking out of my ass. I'm off to bed.

So it looks like on one side we have Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, and on the other side hundreds of climate scientists (now including those IN THE PAY OF THE OIL COMPANIES!).

Climate change is going to mean a big change in prevailing weather patterns in the US and the West in general. The midwest may become arid, while Europe may freeze (as it is currently warmed by ocean currents).

Politicians and talk show hosts should keep their noses out of science.

www.realclimate.org