One big reason our fractured society finds it difficult to arrive at the consensus needed to address big problems is that there is a disagreement about basic facts, a big disagreement about what constitutes reality. The dispute over basic facts is particularly obvious on matters of science, particularly with disagreement with the scientific community’s findings concerning global warming. Many of the deniers of science have coalesced within the newly formed “Tea Party.”
The chart below shows meteorological readings over the last 120 years that shows global warming is real. Yet there are thousands of people who dispute this basic fact.
A Yale University study, “Politics and Global Warming,” published earlier this year, based on in-depth interviews with 809 people shows a big division among political groups: “Majorities of Democrats (78%), Independents (71%) and Republicans (53%) believe that global warming is happening. By contrast, only 34 percent of Tea Party members believe global warming is happening, while 53 percent say it is not happening.”
Of course, if you don’t think global warming is happening, you have no reason to think there is any danger that global warming will lead to any harm:
Nearly half of Democrats (45%) say that global warming is already harming people in the United States, while 33 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of Tea Party members say it will never harm people in the United States.
The big question, if global warming is real, then, what is causing global warming?
While 62 percent of Democrats say that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, most Tea Party members say it is either naturally caused (50%) or isn’t happening at all (21%).
Other Findings of the Yale Study:
- A majority of Democrats (55%) say that most scientists think global warming is happening, while majorities of Republicans (56%) and Tea Party members (69%) say that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening.
- A large majority of Democrats (72%) worry about global warming, compared to 53 percent of Independents, 38 percent of Republicans, and 24 percent of Tea Party members. Over half (51%) of Tea Party members say they are not at all worried about global warming.
- Tea Party members are much more likely to say that they are “very well informed” about global warming than the other groups. Likewise, they are also much more likely to say they “do not need any more information” about global warming to make up their mind.
- Majorities of Democrats, Independents and Republicans support requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources, even if it cost the average household an extra $100 a year. A majority of Tea Party members, however, oppose this policy, with 39 percent strongly opposed.
- Likewise, majorities of Democrats, Independents and Republicans support an international treaty to cut carbon dioxide emissions. A large majority of Tea Party members, however, oppose a treaty, with 55 percent strongly opposed.
- Majorities of Democrats and Independents support paying 5% more on their monthly utility bill to get their electricity from renewable sources, changing zoning rules to promote energy efficient apartment buildings, mixed use neighborhoods to encourage walking, and decreasing suburban sprawl. Majorities of Republicans and Tea Party members oppose these local policies, with Tea Party members much more likely to strongly oppose them.
- Tea Party members are more than twice as likely than any other group to say they don’t want to change the light bulbs in their house to energy-efficient compact fluorescent lights (CFLs).
- Democrats are more likely to believe that human beings evolved from earlier species of animals (62%), compared to Independents (57%), Republicans (51%), and Tea Party members (34%).
See related posts:
- The Gaia Theory: The Earth Has A Fever — Climate Change Will Cause The Death Of Billions Of Humans, posted on August 25th, 2011
- 97.5% Of Climatologists Blame Global Warming On “Human Activity,” posted on May 19th, 2010
- The Truth About Energy/Climate: Sponsored by the Dayton Tea Party, posted on January 16th, 2010
Another headline misrepresenting the facts of the article. Tea Party members don’t deny Global Warming or climate change for that matter. They are skeptical of humans causing it.
RWE — According to the Yale study cited above, 53% of the people who identified themselves as part of the “Tea Party” answered “NO,” when asked, “Do you think global warming is happening?” You may have a point that the majority of tea party members don’t have this view, because, the study said that, statistically, the range is 10% more or less, so the range is 43%-63%. Still, 43% is a significant amount. I, also, am surprised by this finding. Polls are always open to more analysis, but this is what the Yale study says.
RWE — An addition to this comment. Recently Kevin Coughlin — a former Republican state legislator from Cuyahoga Falls, who is seekiing the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, to oppose Sherrod Brown — stated in a speech that humans don’t cause global warming. Politifact shows on their “truth-o-meter” that Coughlin’s statement is false. They write, “While a few skeptics out there disagree, there’s clear scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that humans contribute to it. Disagreement on the subject is scant enough that we rule Coughlin’s statement is False.”
There is science and there is where people are emotionally. It is exceptionally difficult for these two to coalesce as science becomes incomprehensible and based on computer models crunching data, things like quantum mechanics that can’t be expressed with words but only with math we can’t do, and things that are either too small (quarks), too big (superstrings), or too alien (the first nanoseconds after the big bang) for us to experience. Accordingly we have an uneasy tolerance of science. We like it that it makes out light bulbs and computers and medical treatments work as we expect, but we may not like it when it intrudes on our comfort zone. A comfort zone is fragile in a time of unprecedented change and threat. Evolution makes sense, but if you need for the Bible to be literally true as the basis of your life, or if evolution seems too cruel for the God you believe in to engage in, you may not care how valid scientists say the theory is. Similarly if you face unemployment you believe is due to restrictions on energy use, or even if the politicians you loathe are arguing for policies you disagree with, it won’t matter what the science is. We also live in a world where 1. special interests are making short term profits from the way things are and won’t want to change; 2. the media and internet are not necessarily good at evaluating things. Anyone can get a few sound bites, some one else gets a few saying the opposite. It may be an entertaining use of space, but how do you evaluate. Same with the internet. Everyone cites people who agree with them. Even those who work to learn more may not be able to. After all all these experts spent years getting their credentials. 3. There is always uncertainty out there. What science accepts can sometimes change, or be subject to question and gaps in understanding. Religions and philosophies are subject to similar problems, but people can more easily choose to avoid them, or to decide on seeming contradictions with this view or that. With all this uncertainty, people will turn to their emotional state, what comforts them, what scares them, what they trust, what they don’t. Political parties, particularly in the era of the Big Sort where people spend their time among people they agree with, can result in diametric opposition on values issues, with little common ground to work from. Rationality, reality base, education itself mean different things depending on how rewarding they are to you and where you are in your life. Of course, at some level reality will eventually bite us even if we are in denial about it. However it takes a certain psychology to motivate us to make big changes, particularly a narrative that works and hope for reward that is reasonably obtainable. The political parties do not have a shared narrative, have radically different hopes and radically different ideas about what should be obtained. Science does not intrude well into this state of affairs.
Stan, you say, and I agree, “There is science and there is where people are emotionally.”
It seems true that as humans our natural bent is to believe what makes us feel secure, what validates our behavior. There seems to be a lot of truth in the old observation, “Where I stand is a function of where I sit,” meaning, one’s view of what constitutes reality is based on what makes one less fearful, what brings advantage or comfort or that rationalizes one’s behavior. To think for oneself and to question one’s own prejudices requires a rare strength of character.
So, 175 years ago, if you were a slave owner, you probably rationalized your behavior as being OK. You could justify slave ownership by citing scripture, or, by articulating a sophisticated philosophy about “the natural order,” and you would be supported in your POV by impressive church and intellectual authorities. Fear overrides rationality. The denial of rational thinking by slave owners was fear based, and the denial of rational thinking on many topics is fear based.
The huge issue that needs closer inspection is the question of authority. It seems, tragically, that here in 2011, most humans have little confidence in the authority of reason and instead depend on the authority of “experts,” or the authority of scripture. Children graduating from our system of public education have not been empowered to think for themselves, but basically have been indoctrinated into a POV that makes them vulnerable to all types of marketing and propaganda and religious hype. A huge question for education is how to empower the building of authentic character in students.
There is a big industry in climate denial spending millions of dollars. Oil and coal companies fund think tanks that produce a flood of misinformation concerning global warming and provide impressively degreed spokespersons who pose as sources of scientific authority. There is a parallel between the well funded global warming denial industry and, from fifty years ago, the well funded tobacco / cancer denial industry.
What seems an amazing development here in 2011, is that there is a major political party in the United States whose members seem propelled by an anti-reality, anti-science POV — and whose POV is catered to by demagogues who certainly must know better, and by pundits, such as George Will, who, in denying the science of climate change, seek their approval. But climate denial is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. There is an expanded POV — the standard Fox News view of reality — that supposedly is a POV of rationality, but, in truth, is emotionally based.
Does everyone here know that the earth has been cooling for the last 11 years or so? The ones who deny that humans are not a significant cause of global warming are not some group of yahoos who will believe a study that was funded by coal or oil groups. Through several scandals, especially the one that involved that university in England, it has become apparent that many global warming supporters was faking data, using flaws models, flawed assumptions and actively sought to suppress contrary views. Yet there are thousands of scientists who do deny that humans are a significant cause of global warming. It is just that they get no publicity or grants.