Climate: Rs and Ds from different continents

[Luddly Neddite]

On Climate, Republicans and Democrats Are From Different Continents

MAY 7, 2014


Differing Views on Climate Threat
Percentage of residents who call global climate change "a major threat." (Americans are broken into two groups, based on self-identified political party.)

Source: Pew Research Center, 2013
Americans are less worried about climate change than the residents of any other high-income country, as my colleague Megan Thee-Brennan wrote Tuesday. When you look at the details of these polls, you see that American exceptionalism on the climate stems almost entirely from Republicans. Democrats and independents don’t look so different from people in Japan, Australia, Canada and across Europe.

According to Pew Research Center surveys conducted last year, 25 percent of self-identified Republicans said they considered global climate change to be “a major threat.” The only countries with such low levels of climate concern are Egypt, where 16 percent of respondents called climate change a major threat, and Pakistan, where 15 percent did.

By comparison, 65 percent of Democrats in the United States gave that answer, putting them in the same range as Brazilians (76 percent), Japanese (72 percent), Chileans (68 percent) or Italians and Spaniards (64 percent). If you combine Democrats and independents into one group, 52 percent called climate change a major threat, according to Pew. That’s the same broad range of concern as in Germany (56 percent), Canada and France (54 percent), Australia (52 percent) or Britain (48 percent).

Over all, between 40 percent and 45 percent of Americans in recent Pew polls have called climate change a major concern (with a similar share of independents giving that answer).

The Republican skepticism about climate change extends across the party, though it’s strongest among those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party. Ten percent of those aligned with the Tea Party called climate change a major threat, compared with 35 percent of Republicans who did not identify with the Tea Party.

Not surprisingly, these patterns match recent political events. In international negotiations, the United States has been less interested in taking steps to slow global warming than many other rich countries. President Obama and a majority of Democrats favored a bill that would have raised the cost of emitting carbon, and such a bill passed the House of Representatives in 2009. Strong opposition from Republicans in the Senate, as well as some Democrats from coal-producing states, defeated the bill there.

So, how long are we going to let the willfully ignorant 3% screw with our future?

Excellent graphic at the link.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Live what you preach. Do the environment a favor and stop using electricity. Don't post here on this board because doing so consumes electricity and that makes you a contributor to the problem

Inspire us by your example. Stop posting and we'll learn a lesson by your decision and that'll make us all better people.

 

[Crick]

He didn't do any preaching. He is simply reporting the results of polls. That leads us to wonder why you would make such suggestions. The hostility is self-evident. The cause, not so much. Do you not like it pointed out how far out in left field your views fall?

 

[bripat9643]

He didn't do any preaching. He is simply reporting the results of polls. That leads us to wonder why you would make such suggestions. The hostility is self-evident. The cause, not so much. Do you not like it pointed out how far out in left field your views fall?

We have no objection to you pointing out the fact how we are immune to the brainwashing that you so easily succumbed to.

 

[Old Rocks]

More like immune to reason, logic, and education.

 

[bripat9643]

More like immune to reason, logic, and education.

When you post some, we'll let you know.

 

[RollingThunder]

More like immune to reason, logic, and education.

When you post some, we'll let you know.

How on Earth could YOU let anybody know about that when educated reasoning and logic are completely beyond your very limited comprehension, you poor retarded halfwit. As your rejection of the world scientific consensus on AGW clearly demonstrates.

 

[bripat9643]

More like immune to reason, logic, and education.

When you post some, we'll let you know.

How on Earth could YOU let anybody know about that when educated reasoning and logic are completely beyond your very limited comprehension, you poor retarded halfwit. As your rejection of the world scientific consensus on AGW clearly demonstrates.

The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. Anyone who uses it is an ignoramus.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Calling climate change a "threat" in the title kind of advertises the bias don't you think?

We're not all gonna die if the earth is a couple degrees warmer.

 

[RollingThunder]

More like immune to reason, logic, and education.

When you post some, we'll let you know.

How on Earth could YOU let anybody know about that when educated reasoning and logic are completely beyond your very limited comprehension, you poor retarded halfwit. As your rejection of the world scientific consensus on AGW clearly demonstrates.

The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. Anyone who uses it is an ignoramus.

LOLOLOL.....so says the ignorant retard who knows nothing about science.

Scientific consensus
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

 

[bripat9643]

More like immune to reason, logic, and education.

When you post some, we'll let you know.

How on Earth could YOU let anybody know about that when educated reasoning and logic are completely beyond your very limited comprehension, you poor retarded halfwit. As your rejection of the world scientific consensus on AGW clearly demonstrates.

The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. Anyone who uses it is an ignoramus.

LOLOLOL.....so says the ignorant retard who knows nothing about science.

Scientific consensus
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Wikipedia. Need I say more?

 

[mamooth]

Bri only accepts Conservapedia as a source.

 

[bripat9643]

Bri only accepts Conservapedia as a source.

Wikipedia is edited by an army of Obama drones. You can't believe a thing in it that is even remotely political. Nothing could be more political than the definition of a term like "scientific consensus," which didn't even exist until the whole AGW brouhaha began.

 

[mamooth]

That's right Bri, everything that disagrees with your sacred party dogma is part of the VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy.

Oh wait, it's not. You're just a conspiracy cultist.

You've been power-pouting for years now. Has it gotten you anywhere? No. Hence, you might want to rethink your strategy of pouting even harder.

 

[bripat9643]

That's right Bri, everything that disagrees with your sacred party dogma is part of the VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy.

Oh wait, it's not. You're just a conspiracy cultist.

You've been power-pouting for years now. Has it gotten you anywhere? No. Hence, you might want to rethink your strategy of pouting even harder.

So if Free Republic is the source of information about some scumbag Democrat politician, you won't question it?

 

[mamooth]

Wow. You just keep getting crazier. It's an impressive talent you have.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow. You just keep getting crazier. It's an impressive talent you have.

In other words, "no," you wouldn't accept anything that came from Free Republic.

We all know what a colossal hypocrite you are. There is no need to keep proving it.

 

[Crick]

Wikipedia is edited by an army of Obama drones. You can't believe a thing in it that is even remotely political. Nothing could be more political than the definition of a term like "scientific consensus," which didn't even exist until the whole AGW brouhaha began.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAaaaaaa