Why do liberals believe in global warming but not conservatives?

[PrincessFrosty]

I don't understand, what does global warming has to do with politics and whether you accept it or not depends on whether you're republican or democrat?

It certainly doesn't depend on your politics, but it does seem to be influenced by it.

The cause and effect here are somewhat the wrong way around though, the science comes first and then government interpret the science and try and make policy off the back of it, and then people can either agree with that policy or reject it. Liberals tend to run to the government for everything, they're very pro-control of other people and so it's not surprising they tend to believe that government is solely capable of dealing with climate change.

The problem is that climate science is extremely young as a science, there's a good physical understanding of the processes involved however there's really not good data on measurements of what exactly is happening. Because that data is so noisy on small time scales it's hard to predict long term trends. So we use a lot of computer models to make predictions by combining and manipulating a lot of different data sources, and many of them show "catastrophic" results, but at the end of the day computer models aren't science.

We've seen a lot of anti-science in fact, a lot of appeals to numbers/authority and such like, there's all these stupid myths floating about that the science on global warming is settled when it's far from it, and so making policy based on that is at the very least, premature.

As others have said there's sound loud people who are dead set against global warming and the media and major players in the science have labelled these people "deniers" and then anyone who is sketpical about the science is bundled into this position as a way to shame them. Needless to say that government shouldn't have anything to do with science because we want science to be unbias, but they shove millions into research on the subject which causes conflict of interest.

 

[sandorski]

It certainly doesn't depend on your politics, but it does seem to be influenced by it.

The cause and effect here are somewhat the wrong way around though, the science comes first and then government interpret the science and try and make policy off the back of it, and then people can either agree with that policy or reject it. Liberals tend to run to the government for everything, they're very pro-control of other people and so it's not surprising they tend to believe that government is solely capable of dealing with climate change.

The problem is that climate science is extremely young as a science, there's a good physical understanding of the processes involved however there's really not good data on measurements of what exactly is happening. Because that data is so noisy on small time scales it's hard to predict long term trends. So we use a lot of computer models to make predictions by combining and manipulating a lot of different data sources, and many of them show "catastrophic" results, but at the end of the day computer models aren't science.

We've seen a lot of anti-science in fact, a lot of appeals to numbers/authority and such like, there's all these stupid myths floating about that the science on global warming is settled when it's far from it, and so making policy based on that is at the very least, premature.

As others have said there's sound loud people who are dead set against global warming and the media and major players in the science have labelled these people "deniers" and then anyone who is sketpical about the science is bundled into this position as a way to shame them. Needless to say that government shouldn't have anything to do with science because we want science to be unbias, but they shove millions into research on the subject which causes conflict of interest.

What a load of crap.

 

[Grooveriding]

Unfortunately you still see uninformed and ignorant people buying into denial of reality because they are partisan drones who have allowed a political faction to make the reality of climate change caused by man to be a political position rather than a scientific one. You can see a hack right here making an ass of themselves in this thread.

To put it politely, a lot of people have not been exposed to doing research and having enough involvement with some form of scientific pursuit in their lives, that I do not think they understand that it's not a truth that can be twisted like you see things twisted in politics, outside of the political hacks and ignoramuses attempting to do so. They're unable to understand how much weight the support for it in the scientific community who works in this field brings. So they are easily misinformed and taken for a ride when their programmed partisanship tells them it's a hoax. I've seen people try to deny evolution as well, there are just those who don't care about reality and value their dogma more. From what I've observed it's part that partisan idiocy and part Dunning-Kruger in full effect making them ignore the 99.9% of the professional community who work in this field, excepting the paid shills, confidence in the empirical evidence supporting anthropomorphic climate change. Instead they'll put their neophyte partisanship ahead of them.

It's like needing to go in for surgery, disagreeing with your surgeon that you need your appendix out and instead saying you read on google your symptoms present a problem with your gall bladder and to remove that, when your work experience in life is as a sandwich artist at Subway.

 

[OverVolt]

Unfortunately you still see uninformed and ignorant people buying into denial of reality because they are partisan drones who have allowed a political faction to make the reality of climate change caused by man to be a political position rather than a scientific one. You can see a hack right here making an ass of themselves in this thread.

To put it politely, a lot of people have not been exposed to doing research and having enough involvement with some form of scientific pursuit in their lives, that I do not think they understand that it's not a truth that can be twisted like you see things twisted in politics, outside of the political hacks and ignoramuses attempting to do so. They're unable to understand how much weight the support for it in the scientific community who works in this field brings. So they are easily misinformed and taken for a ride when their programmed partisanship tells them it's a hoax. I've seen people try to deny evolution as well, there are just those who don't care about reality and value their dogma more. From what I've observed it's part that partisan idiocy and part Dunning-Kruger in full effect making them ignore the 99.9% of the professional community who work in this field, excepting the paid shills, confidence in the empirical evidence supporting anthropomorphic climate change. Instead they'll put their neophyte partisanship ahead of them.

It's like needing to go in for surgery, disagreeing with your surgeon that you need your appendix out and instead saying you read on google your symptoms present a problem with your gall bladder and to remove that, when your work experience in life is as a sandwich artist at Subway.

That would be great and all if climate science was a real science.

Its less of a science than psychology.

 

[OverVolt]

It certainly doesn't depend on your politics, but it does seem to be influenced by it.

The cause and effect here are somewhat the wrong way around though, the science comes first and then government interpret the science and try and make policy off the back of it, and then people can either agree with that policy or reject it. Liberals tend to run to the government for everything, they're very pro-control of other people and so it's not surprising they tend to believe that government is solely capable of dealing with climate change.

The problem is that climate science is extremely young as a science, there's a good physical understanding of the processes involved however there's really not good data on measurements of what exactly is happening. Because that data is so noisy on small time scales it's hard to predict long term trends. So we use a lot of computer models to make predictions by combining and manipulating a lot of different data sources, and many of them show "catastrophic" results, but at the end of the day computer models aren't science.

We've seen a lot of anti-science in fact, a lot of appeals to numbers/authority and such like, there's all these stupid myths floating about that the science on global warming is settled when it's far from it, and so making policy based on that is at the very least, premature.

As others have said there's sound loud people who are dead set against global warming and the media and major players in the science have labelled these people "deniers" and then anyone who is sketpical about the science is bundled into this position as a way to shame them. Needless to say that government shouldn't have anything to do with science because we want science to be unbias, but they shove millions into research on the subject which causes conflict of interest.

Science isn't an authority, but the way people are using science sure is biased. The golden age of science breakthroughs is actually long gone. The paper that discovered DNA was 1.5 pages. Nobody had any doubts about that one.

 

[brycejones]

That would be great and all if climate science was a real science.

Its less of a science than psychology.

Science isn't an authority, but the way people are using science sure is biased. The golden age of science breakthroughs is actually long gone. The paper that discovered DNA was 1.5 pages. Nobody had any doubts about that one.

wow, just wow

 

[K1052]

Science isn't an authority, but the way people are using science sure is biased. The golden age of science breakthroughs is actually long gone. The paper that discovered DNA was 1.5 pages. Nobody had any doubts about that one.

I was unaware the length of the paper announcing a discovery determined it's level of bias.

 

[Paratus]

I just see the same sort of hubris and smugness here that we all saw in the mainstream press over the last year or so. "it's settled,

Well the science is settled. Sure details continue to evolve but as your girl Judith Curry said, "All things being equal more CO2 means more warming." If it wasn't, why you could win yourself a Nobel prize for over turning thermodynamics.

(Found that quote here Link where she predicts decades of cooling 3 or 4 years ago. Her prediction is not looking so... hot so far )

But apparently hubris turns you off to science. So what politically correct speech could I use to not trigger you when talking about science?

Trump will never be the Republican nominee" or "everyone knows that Trump really isn't serious" or "Trump just can't be President" or "the Paris Climate Accord is a done deal and no one disagrees with the science behind it"

Sorry, but there's plenty of disagreement and controversy about it, you just have a hard time wading through the mainstream bullshit to find it. Quite frankly the party that is now in charge of the Senate and House and soon to be Presidency and Supreme Court agree more with my views and Dr. Curry's science then this forum.

Yes a few people stir the pot for financial reasons but here's a secret. If Judith and the few others like her were correct and had the scientific theory to back it up they would be the mainstream. That's how science works.

Is climate science the only science you deny or is there other mainstream science you disagree with like vaccines not causing autism, homeopathy not actually working, actually landing on the moon,etc?

That last part though, you do realize that scientific theories don't change because a different party is in office? Or maybe you think having some politicians with no skin in the game on your side is a good thing.

Cause if that's the case. I feel pretty good that I'm on the side of

• 
  
  • over 97% of practicing climate
  • the pentagon who know climate change causes destabilization as Jasklas mentioned above (thanks Jasklas)
  • the insurance industry who's going to be on the hook for paying for the damages

She's testified to both the House and the Senate over the years, invited by both Democrats and Republicans. Check out her Curriculum Vitae and see if you'd rather believe her (a real climate scientist) or a cut and paste spammer like Paratus. Read her blog and check out for yourself. You'll find a wealth of information. You'd think that after our recent experience with the media and our most recent election that you can't take the time to research the skeptic and opposition sites.
"
JUDITH A. CURRY
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
curryja@eas.gatech.edu

GENERAL INFORMATION

Education

1982 Ph.D. The University of Chicago, Geophysical Sciences
1974 B.S. cum laude Northern Illinois University, Geography

Professional Experience

2002- Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
1992-2002 Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Environmental Studies Program
1989-1992 Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Penn State
1986-1989 Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University
1982-1986 Assistant Scientist, Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Awards/Honors

2006 Georgia Tech Sigma Xi Award, Best Faculty Paper Award
2004 Fellow, American Geophysical Union
2002 NASA Group Achievement Award for CAMEX-4
1997 Elected Councilor, American Meteorological Society
1995 Fellow, American Meteorological Society"
1992 Henry G. Houghton Award, the American Meteorological Society
1988 Presidential Young Investigator Award, the National Science Foundation Councillor
Professional Activities (last five years)

World Meteorological Organization / International Council of Scientific Unions / International Ocean Commission / World Climate Research Programme

Global Energy and Water Experiment (GEWEX) Radiation Panel (1994-2004 )
GEWEX Cloud System Studies (GCSS) Science Steering Group (1998-2004 )
Chair, GCSS Working Group on Polar Clouds (1998-2004 )
Chair, GEWEX Radiation Panel SEAFLUX Project (1999-2004)
Science Steering Group, Arctic Climate System (ACSYS) Programme (1994-2000)
Steering Committee, IGAC/SOLAS Air-Ice Chemical Interactions (2003- )

American Meteorological Society

Executive Committee of the Council (1998-2000)
Councillor (1997-2000)
Awards Committee (1995-1997)
Editor, Journal of Applied Meteorology (1993-1996)

National Science Foundation

Panel to review NCAR (2002)
Co-Chair, Science Working Group, Surface Heat Balance of the Arctic (SHEBA) (1993-1996)
Atmospheric Sciences Observing Facilities Advisory Panel (1994-1997)
Arctic System Science (ARCSS) Steering Committee (1993-1995)

Department of Energy

Executive Committee, Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program (93-96) Chair (1997-2000) and Member (1993-2000), Science Steering Committee, ARM Alaska site

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Lead Mission Scientist, FIRE Arctic Cloud Experiment (1996-1999)
Technology Subcommittee of the Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee (1997-2003)
Review Team, Earth System Science Pathfinder Missions (1998-1999)

NAS/NRC

Climate Research Committee (2003-2006)
Space Studies Board (2004-2007)

NOAA

Steering Committee for the Postdoc Program in Climate and Global Change, 1994-1998
Council on Long-Term Climate Monitoring 2002-2004
Climate Working Group 2004-2008

Other

Executive Committee for AGU Board of Heads and Chairs (2004-)
External Review Committee, Environmental Sciences Department, Rutgers University (2000-2001)
External Review Committee, Dept of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue Univ (2003)
Nominating Committee, AGU Atmospheric Science Division (2004-)



RESEARCH GRANTS

Current Research Grants

Towards the Understanding and Parameterization of High Latitude Cloud and Radiation Processes. DOE ARM, 12/01/02-11/30/08, $720,000 (PI)

Applications of Aerosondes to long-term measurements of the atmosphere and sea ice surface in the Beaufort/Chukchi sector of the Arctic Ocean, NSF, 9/1/99-8/31/06, $3,997,402. (PI)

Arctic Regional Climate Model Intercomparison Project: Evaluation and Interpretation of Cloud and Radiation Fields Using Data Products from FIRE.ACE. NASA, 12/03-12/07, $525,000. (PI)

UAV Systems Analysis for Earth Observations: Education and Outreach. NASA, 3/05-3/08, $350,000 (PI)

Global analysis of ocean surface fluxes of heat and freshwater: satellite products, NWP analyses, and CMIP simulations. NASA, 10/1/05-9/30/10, $1.4M. (PI)

Parameterization of cloud particle activation and diffusional growth. NASA, $450,000, 11/1/05-10/31/08 (PI)"

So no research in the last 8-10 years but plenty of blog posts!. Hmm

 

[Jaskalas]

Her site and whatsupwiththat are the go to climate "skeptics".

They've been pretty quiet since the satellite record they hung their hats on hit a record high this year:

And the ground stations:

And the ocean heat content:

(This is a fun one. 30x10^22joules of energy over 40 years equals about 200 A bombs going off every minute for those 40 years)

Strangely this extra heat didn't come from an increase in solar irradiance. In fact solar output is down a little.

But hardcore "skeptics" have their faith in a global conspiracy by all climate scientists, except the few who choose to make money off their skepticism.

The land temperature record just measures suburban sprawl and development.

A person can try and nitpick all day long, but that is a preponderance of evidence.
So what if land temps are contaminated by development?

• Sat temps (higher altitude measurement) are still rising.
• Ocean temps (both surface and depth) are still rising.
• CO2 is still rising.
  
• Measured W/m² is still rising.

The problem with opposition is it all the data fits together.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

"So no research in the last 8-10 years but plenty of blog posts!. Hmm"

Not accurate, but par for your course. She's still actively publishing peer reviewed papers

 

[boomerang]

That would be great and all if climate science was a real science.

Its less of a science than psychology.

Exactly.

Liberals and especially progressives believe because it represents the ultimate in control for them. Little is more appealing to them than controlling large groups of people but the climate of the planet, well that's control on an epic scale! It appeals to the bottom rung on a visceral level. The religious, cult-like based fear of destruction and death of the orb that sustains us drives them. It appeals to the big Kahuna's because it gives them the control they need over huge swaths of the populace. Some of them undoubtedly harbor climate related fears at various levels but for most, it is the very thought of controlling both the people and the climate of an entire planet that is so intoxicating.

Regardless, with Trump at the helm these needs are going to go unfulfilled for the next eight years. We'll be drilling, digging coal and tapping energy sources at a frantic pace.

Invest in Pfizer and grow rich over the next two terms. Maybe you can make enough to move to Mars.

 

[1prophet]

The solution offered is to penalize inefficiency. Carbon is the product of the energy industry with the lowest energy state. If you have a better solution, let us know. In the meantime, the irony of this debate is that you're fighting against an increase in the overall standard of living. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Easy to penalize inefficiency when you have rules, regulations and the enforcement to go along with it, but Americans who don't want anyone shitting in their back yard don't mind if Corporate America moves their plants overseas bypassing rules and regulations so they can enjoy their cheap throwaway products at the expense of someone else's environment not to mention labor and safety laws.

No one is entitled to a better standard of living at the expense of someone else, when people can come to terms with that is when you will be able to solve all the environmental issues affecting the planet.

 

[K1052]

Regardless, with Trump at the helm these needs are going to go unfulfilled for the next eight years. We'll be drilling, digging coal and tapping energy sources at a frantic pace.

Unless Trump is going to very heavily tax natural gas production coal is a dead man walking.

Also the economical recovery of a crap ton more fossil resources at a time when wholesale electrical prices are half what they were a few years ago, oil is less than half what is was a few years ago, and natural gas flirting with historic lows seems...shall we say unlikely.

 

[agent00f]

"So no research in the last 8-10 years but plenty of blog posts!. Hmm"

Not accurate, but par for your course. She's still actively publishing peer reviewed papers

Unsurprising you're completely unfamiliar with previous her policy positions, ie outside of what right wing media tells you*, but feel compelled to mouth off anyway.

*that's not a great source for science.

Science isn't an authority, but the way people are using science sure is biased. The golden age of science breakthroughs is actually long gone. The paper that discovered DNA was 1.5 pages. Nobody had any doubts about that one.

Why would anyone care what someone who doesn't know anything about science think about it?

 

[Jaskalas]

We'll be drilling, digging coal and tapping energy sources at a frantic pace.

Why would we dig coal with coal plants shut down?
One does not simply "order" them reopened. Where natural gas has replaced it, coal is not coming back.

 

[agent00f]

It certainly doesn't depend on your politics, but it does seem to be influenced by it.

The cause and effect here are somewhat the wrong way around though, the science comes first and then government interpret the science and try and make policy off the back of it, and then people can either agree with that policy or reject it. Liberals tend to run to the government for everything, they're very pro-control of other people and so it's not surprising they tend to believe that government is solely capable of dealing with climate change.

The problem is that climate science is extremely young as a science, there's a good physical understanding of the processes involved however there's really not good data on measurements of what exactly is happening. Because that data is so noisy on small time scales it's hard to predict long term trends. So we use a lot of computer models to make predictions by combining and manipulating a lot of different data sources, and many of them show "catastrophic" results, but at the end of the day computer models aren't science.

We've seen a lot of anti-science in fact, a lot of appeals to numbers/authority and such like, there's all these stupid myths floating about that the science on global warming is settled when it's far from it, and so making policy based on that is at the very least, premature.

As others have said there's sound loud people who are dead set against global warming and the media and major players in the science have labelled these people "deniers" and then anyone who is sketpical about the science is bundled into this position as a way to shame them. Needless to say that government shouldn't have anything to do with science because we want science to be unbias, but they shove millions into research on the subject which causes conflict of interest.

Co2 in this case is a pollutant, and it's simply a matter of reality that gubmint is the entity to deal with it.

Also, the government is the funding source for much of basic research.

Seems this isn't a topic you, or to be more precise your sources, knows anything about.

Exactly.

Liberals and especially progressives believe because it represents the ultimate in control for them. Little is more appealing to them than controlling large groups of people but the climate of the planet, well that's control on an epic scale! It appeals to the bottom rung on a visceral level. The religious, cult-like based fear of destruction and death of the orb that sustains us drives them. It appeals to the big Kahuna's because it gives them the control they need over huge swaths of the populace. Some of them undoubtedly harbor climate related fears at various levels but for most, it is the very thought of controlling both the people and the climate of an entire planet that is so intoxicating.

Regardless, with Trump at the helm these needs are going to go unfulfilled for the next eight years. We'll be drilling, digging coal and tapping energy sources at a frantic pace.

Invest in Pfizer and grow rich over the next two terms. Maybe you can make enough to move to Mars.

Interesting this is how all these people think about science, evidently never accused of being competent at it in their life, but never to miss an opportunity to pontificate about a technical matter they literally know nothing of.

 

[K1052]

Why would we dig coal with coal plants shut down?
One does not simply "order" them reopened. Where natural gas has replaced it, coal is not coming back.

Trump can repeal all Obama's regulations and gut the EPA but if NG stays anywhere near $2-$3 per MMbtu there will be another huge wave of coal plant closures in the next two years. This is just sheer economics.

 

[PokerGuy]

A person can try and nitpick all day long, but that is a preponderance of evidence.
So what if land temps are contaminated by development?

• Sat temps (higher altitude measurement) are still rising.
• Ocean temps (both surface and depth) are still rising.
• CO2 is still rising.
  
• Measured W/m² is still rising.

The problem with opposition is it all the data fits together.

Opposition to what? Opposition to the fact that temperatures are rising? Yes, it seems clear to me that the temps are rising. Far less clear is what we can do about it, and what options we realistically have to do accomplish anything. Also far less clear are the potential impacts and how it all plays out in terms of overall impact to humans. That's where the politics comes into play. It's not the science that's the issue, it's the politics misusing / abusing science for political ends.

 

[PokerGuy]

Trump can repeal all Obama's regulations and gut the EPA but if NG stays anywhere near $2-$3 per MMbtu there will be another huge wave of coal plant closures in the next two years. This is just sheer economics.

I don't have any problem with coal disappearing as a big energy source if that's what the markets and economic forces do. If the price of NG makes it the logical choice, then wonderful, the market will go that direction. I have a problem with the govt trying to manipulate the market and drive it towards certain pre-determined solutions instead of logic dictating how the industry works.

 

[K1052]

I don't have any problem with coal disappearing as a big energy source if that's what the markets and economic forces do. If the price of NG makes it the logical choice, then wonderful, the market will go that direction. I have a problem with the govt trying to manipulate the market and drive it towards certain pre-determined solutions instead of logic dictating how the industry works.

The public is increasingly demanding renewable energy. It is broadly favored by the population at large and even among a majority of Republicans. Companies are telling utilities that they only want to buy renewables and even going to far as installing enough renewable generation on their own to offset anything they have to buy. This coupled with state and local renewable portfolio standards is going the drive the trajectory of the energy market for decades. From the look of things now natural gas will be a long term bridge to wind and solar (which is growing very quickly).

 

[agent00f]

I don't have any problem with coal disappearing as a big energy source if that's what the markets and economic forces do. If the price of NG makes it the logical choice, then wonderful, the market will go that direction. I have a problem with the govt trying to manipulate the market and drive it towards certain pre-determined solutions instead of logic dictating how the industry works.

Funny given how much the gov troubles itself overseas to stabilize oil/energy prices to the benefit of american business.

 

[Paratus]

I don't have any problem with coal disappearing as a big energy source if that's what the markets and economic forces do. If the price of NG makes it the logical choice, then wonderful, the market will go that direction. I have a problem with the govt trying to manipulate the market and drive it towards certain pre-determined solutions instead of logic dictating how the industry works.

In this Ars article link they mention the amount of global subsidies to both the fossil fuel and renewables industries:

...and a drop in the subsidies given to fossil fuel use, which fell to $325 billion. Subsidies to renewables rose to $150 billion

So would you say governments are manipulating the market by reducing subsidies for fossil fuels and increasing them for renewables or is it the fact they subsidized one or both industries

Or is this not the kind of market manipulation you were referring to.

I'm actually just curious as to what you meant.

 

[PokerGuy]

The public is increasingly demanding renewable energy. It is broadly favored by the population at large and even among a majority of Republicans. Companies are telling utilities that they only want to buy renewables and even going to far as installing enough renewable generation on their own to offset anything they have to buy. This coupled with state and local renewable portfolio standards is going the drive the trajectory of the energy market for decades. From the look of things now natural gas will be a long term bridge to wind and solar (which is growing very quickly).

That's all fine, like I said, I don't have a problem with whatever the direction the market is driven. If consumers want something and companies respond, or if marketplace economics drive a change, that's perfectly normal. I object to artificially trying to create such directions.

 

[K1052]

That's all fine, like I said, I don't have a problem with whatever the direction the market is driven. If consumers want something and companies respond, or if marketplace economics drive a change, that's perfectly normal. I object to artificially trying to create such directions.

The government already distorts the market in a lot of ways through subsidies, tax treatment, and things like the ethanol mandate (agribusiness sends it's thanks).

 

[PokerGuy]

Funny given how much the gov troubles itself overseas to stabilize oil/energy prices to the benefit of american business.

Stabilizing energy markets, regardless of the source, is an obvious concern to government as it has a tremendous impact to the economy. Stabilizing and safeguarding markets against disruptions (terrorist attacks on supply etc) seems like a logical thing for government to do.