Democrats and Republicans increasingly divided over global warming

Gosh, we never would have figured this out on our own. The conclusion is stunning:

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In response to our first research question, we find a sizable political divide between

liberals/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans in the American public on the issue of global warming. Just as elites are politically divided on this issue, so too is the general public. Liberals and Democrats are more likely to hold beliefs about global warming consistent with the scientific consensus and to express concern about this environmental problem than are conservatives and Republicans. Furthermore, this divide has grown substantially over the past decade.

/sarc

Previously from the same professor: Study: Women more likely than men to accept global warming

From Michigan State University

EAST LANSING, Mich. — Despite the growing scientific consensus that global warming is real, Americans have become increasingly polarized on the environmental issue, according to a first-of-its-kind study led by a Michigan State University researcher.

The gap between Democrats and Republicans who believe global warming is happening increased 30 percent between 2001 and 2010 – a “depressing” trend that’s essentially keeping meaningful national energy policies from being considered, argues sociologist Aaron M. McCright.

“Instead of a public debate about different policies to deal with global warming, a significant percentage of the American public is still debating the science,” said McCright, MSU associate professor and primary investigator on the study. “As a result, we’re failing to significantly address one of the most serious problems of our time.”

The study is featured in the spring issue of the research journal Sociological Quarterly, online now.

McCright and Riley E. Dunlap of Oklahoma State University analyzed 10 years of data from Gallup’s environmental poll, making the study the first of its kind to use multiple years of data. The Gallup poll, conducted annually, consists of a nationally representative telephone survey of at least 1,000 people.

According to the MSU-led study, people on the right of the political spectrum increasingly deny the existence of global warming, while people on the left generally believe in global warming more now than they did 10 years ago. Among other things, the study found:

  • Of those who identify as Republicans, about 49 percent said in the 2001 Gallup survey that they believe the effects of global warming have already begun – a number that dropped to 29 percent in 2010. Meanwhile, the percentage of Democrats who believe global warming has already begun increased from about 60 in 2001 to 70 in 2010. All told, the gap between these “believers” in the two parties increased from 11 percent in 2001 to 41 percent in 2010.
  • A similar trend held for people who identify as either conservative or liberal. When it came to believing that global warming has already begun, the gap between conservatives and liberals increased from about 18 percent in 2001 to 44 percent in 2010.
  • Among liberals and Democrats, having a college degree increases the likelihood of reporting beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus. Yet, among conservatives and Republicans, having a college degree often decreases the likelihood of reporting such beliefs.

According to McCright, these results are consistent with the prevailing theory that explains how political polarization occurs in the general public. “In the last few decades political elites have become polarized on climate change. This has driven the political divide on this topic within the American public, as regular citizens have taken cues from ideological and party leaders they trust.”

McCright said the process has been magnified over the past decade by the emergence of media outlets where citizens can seek out news and ideas that reinforce their values and beliefs. He said citizens at either end of the political spectrum can get daily information – albeit very different information – on global warming that further strengthens their opposing beliefs about what is real.

“Unfortunately, this is not a recipe for promoting a civil, science-based discussion on this very serious environmental problem,” McCright said. “Like with the national discussion on health care, we don’t even agree on what the basic facts are.”

This political polarization on climate change is not likely to go away in the near future, he added.

“Many Republican Party leaders have moved further to the right since the 2008 presidential election. We’ve also seen attacks on climate science by Tea Party activists. It seems like climate change denial has become something of a litmus test for Republican candidates,” McCright said.

“This continued elite polarization on climate change means that the general public will likely remain politically divided on climate change for a while.”

###

Michigan State University has been working to advance the common good in uncommon ways for more than 150 years. One of the top research universities in the world, MSU focuses its vast resources on creating solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges, while providing life-changing opportunities to a diverse and inclusive academic community through more than 200 programs of study in 17 degree-granting colleges.

Full paper here (PDF)

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mike Bromley

Yup, there’s that growing consensus thing again. So there. Time to act, because it’s growing. Better hurry before it shrinks.
/sarc

jae

LOL.
“Despite the growing scientific consensus that global warming is real, Americans have become increasingly polarized on the environmental issue, according to a first-of-its-kind study led by a Michigan State University researcher.”
I do hope that this brilliant DOCKTOR will finally realize that the rest of his rant is completely at odds with this statement! Dare I say moron, here?
All part of the effort to “present the MESSAGE more clearly,” I suppose.
Let’s just hope he doesn’t get past “associate professor.”
LOL, again!

Louis Hissink

Which basically means the issue was political from the start and thus the latest occurrence of a political hijacking of science for other goals. And some of us thought it was all about bad science. tsk, tsk, tsk.

Tez

As I have suspected for a long time, AGW is politically motivated, with biased science backed predictions as an attempt to legitimise their policies.
As the prophetic Ten Years After once sung:
Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more?
I’d love to change the world
But I don’t know what to do
So I’ll leave it up to you

Lady Life Grows

Thank you very much for publishing this here. This is important factual information, and gives us an idea of the formidable machine we are up against.
A hundred years from now the warmists will be laughed at, but that does not save any lives now. For the alarmism has no track record of successful prediction, which makes it a pseudoscience not a science. The facts of photosynthesis remain, both as to its inputs and its optimal temperatures.
And burning our corn is killing thousands of people, just in the riots, not counting the hunger created. Those people have a strong material interest in the truth. We need to reach out to them.


Glad I went to University of Michigan, home to Ann Coulter and a decent football team (at one time).

If the science doesn’t work – label unbelievers as politically motivated – nice. There is a similar vibe going on over here (only on this occasion associating phrenology and ‘progressives’ or the others).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/28/political-allegiances-brain-structure-study
“An experiment has found differences between the brains of progressives and conservatives.
Head scans of students at University College London, conducted by neuroscientist Geraint Rees, showed a “strong correlation” between thickness in two regions, the amygdala and the anterior cingulate, and political viewpoint.
Rees said he was “very surprised” by the finding because the experiment was a lighthearted item commissioned by Colin Firth for his guest-editing slot on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
The actor has said he no longer supports the Lib Dems, and joked about Nick Clegg: “I think we should have him scanned.””

brc

What I don’t get is how these guys always, and I mean always, get it back to front.
They see an increasingly skeptical public.
They see increasingly skeptical politicians on one side of the spectrum.
They conclude the politicians have influenced the public, failing to realise that the politicians have picked up on the increased skepticism of the public and adjusted their stance accordingly. At no point do they contemplate that maybe, just maybe, a large proportion of the public came up with their own conclusions.
The same goes for the pro-warming communicators. They keep bashing us over the head with armageddon scenarios, and then conclude because public ‘belief’ is falling, it’s because some nefarious deniers are out spreading misinformation. At no point do they consider that perhaps they are trying to flog a product nobody wants to buy.
The whole sorry charade has been caused because in the last 5-10 years, a lot of people mistook nodding heads for people who would back up their vague agreement with real action.

Mark Allinson

How amazing, that the “progressive” side of politics thinks that a scheme to hobble capitalism, increase taxes, and re-distribute wealth is one we should support. Surely any “science” that could be used to support such a scheme, say the liberals, is right and should never be questioned – gift horses should not have dental inspections.
And just as amazing that conservatives should look more closely at the “science” and notice all the holes in it.
I wonder if the penny will ever drop with these folk that there is a political divide on this issue because it is purely and simply a political matter. If only it wasn’t – we could then follow the science in and for itself, without all the nasty name-calling.

rbateman

All this Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Catastrophe is about is simply one of many excuses they are using to justify more taxation and entitlement spending. Not a penny will go to the real problem: The National Debt and the Negative Credit Rating handed out by S&P.
Meanwhile, the Canadian and Midwest wheat crops are reeling from late snows and cold, a thing of the past according to the ‘concensus’.
Regional cooling at its finest.

crosspatch

I consider myself more libertarian than liberal or conservative. The issue for me is that the current changes noticed in global climate appear to be well within the usual range of natural variation that we have experienced during the Holocene.
We have seen nothing to indicate anything extraordinary is going on that might be directly caused by human actions.
I *do* see the political left attempting to misinform and use fear and ignorance in order to get “buy in” for policies that are “sold” as being related to climate but which actually are used as levers to further their socioeconomic goals.
It is so frustrating to see how easily people are persuaded and it is really no surprise as the teachers in our schools seem to be the vanguard of the global socialist movement. It really is sad because I fear their “idealism” will actually result in a lot of suffering and misery for a lot of people. Maybe they honestly believe they are “helping” people when I see it as just the opposite. They are “helping” people to death.
So now we must “conserve” energy due to shortages that exist only due to policy decisions taken without any sound basis in reality.
I honestly fear for the generations behind me.

David Falkner

Wow Maue, you went to blue? Must be awful these past few years during bowl season. Of course, you can always take comfort in the fact that I am a ND fan. If I were an OSU fan, I’d really have to give you the what-fer.
As to the subject of the story, I would not be surprised. I think that some of the left treats AGW like some of the right treats creationism. And then you have the general outliers (panderers) who fall in between. Not a big shock.

jae

(For those who missed the point, the “consensus” seems to be moving in the opposite direction of the “intellegencia” think it is). You now have to be an absolute dunce to believe in CAGW! LOL, once again!

caipira

“EAST LANSING, Mich. — Despite the growing scientific consensus that global warming is real,[…]”
Ok, I see where the article is going, so I don’t have to read the rest, right? 🙂
Someone will end up suggesting a vote to decide if global warming, oops, climate change, oops again, global climate disruption is real or not. You know, to decide things democratically. Because, obviously, consensus equal scientific fact… right? (sarc tag is implicit, right?)
Loved the hot-left/cold-right image, Anthony. It just fits!

Jack Greer

Ryan Maue said April 19, 2011 at 9:42 pm”
“Glad I went to University of Michigan, home to Ann Coulter and a decent football team (at one time).”
An ardent fan of an opportunistic yet fading attention harlot ideologue, and of a team whose seniors, if they lose this year, will never have beaten MSU … that, plus the fact that UofM professors in applicable disciplines are absolutely no less convinced of the AGW threat. Great points, Ryan.

Steve Oregon

Here in Oregon, home of Jane Lubchenco and with an unfair disproportianate share of lunatics it’s essentially a complete party line- AGW vs skeptics split.
Especially with Democrats. They have run every agency in the state for many years and have pushed the AGW into nearly every policy.
Our left wing democrat politicians, academia and bureaucratas have further to fall with the collapse of AGW than any just about any other state.

Steeptown

“a “depressing” trend”. It may be depressing to an alarmist, but not to normal folk. This McCright chappie is only a lowly associate professor, so that accounts for his lack of understanding of the world.

pat

Hmmmm. I think the Dems were at the “Peace Rally” during science classes.
But, heh. They mean well.
So long as they are comfortable.

rbateman

I have a Global Warming game to play.
It works like this:
You take out a loan for 1,000,000 dollars. I buy a red marker pen.
We spread them out on a very big table.
You mark 400 of the dollar bills as CO2.
The rest we leave unmarked.
The 400 bills marked vs the 999,600 unmarked represent CO2 in the atmosphere.
If you believe that CO2 causes warming, then you keep those 400 marked bills and sequester them. I keep the unmarked bills.
Have you passed out yet?
Great. Next!

Hugh Pepper

People who read objectively and who are not seduced by “beliefs”, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, acknowledge the reality of climate change. The evidence is overwhelming for these people. FOX news followers, who are mostly Republicans, are still arguing about the “theory of evolution”, gay marriage, and abortion. The only reason that there is any skeptical discussion about climate change and global warming, is because the (mainly) “skeptical PR barrage has succeeded in creating an impression that there is still doubt in the scientific community regarding these critical issues. This “doubt” is slowing down the change process and creating circumstances which are becoming increasingly dangerous.

Ian H

This politicization is unfortunate. Where does it leave people like myself? I find republican politics repulsive. I reject the global warming notion not for political reasons, but for scientific ones.

AHThatcher

I just finished attending a city council meeting tonight where a staffer proceeded to discuss all of the climate change plans that this city and the neighboring 10 cities are all embarking on. Most of the cities already have legislation in place requiring emission reductions and other actions to support actions to minimize climate change. So, even if people finally suceed in getting the majority of Americans to realize that anthropogenic climate change is a non issue we’ll still be stuck with legislation across the country driving us down the same road. I think we may have already missed the boat.

snowshoedude

Have we always been at war with Eurasia?
I wonder what the political breakdown of that question would be….
Winston Smith

pat

Hugh Pepper.
You are a moron. The climate changes daily. It is called “weather”. The question is not whether Earth warmed from 1979 through 1998. it did. But rather the cause.
It has cooled a bit since. ….And appears to be cooling a bit more.
If you cannot understand that the AGW hypothesis is in total shreds, then you must be Al Gore.
Or at least took science with him.
“You can’t always get what you want.” The Rolling Stones.

Hugh Pepper, you say: “People who read objectively and who are not seduced by “beliefs”, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, acknowledge the reality of climate change.”
Is that why the climate alarmists foisted a fake graph upon us that claimed the climate was static for a thousand years prior to industrialisation, when all sane people knew the climate always has and always will change, that it was hotter in the medieval warm period, colder in the little ice age, and so on?
/naivety
Come on now, you haven’t studied this for yourself at all, have you? You haven’t investigated the theory (that CO2 causes more water vapour and then a rising tropical hotspot, and that in reality, the hotspot, the mechanism that MUST be present for the theory to work, well, ISN’T.) Thus the theory is disproved. Heard any of that? Or that the main heat dissipation mechanism is convection, to which adiabatic gas expansion places a maximum temperature gradient through the atmosphere and the Earth is and always has been more or less exactly on that maximum value, thus making impossible any further heating?
Do you know anything about that at all? Why should anyone here have to put up with your nonsense?
Oh, and no, we do not disbelieve AGW because the news has created an illusion that scientists are still undecided. Almost every last skeptic here has investigated the case personally for themselves. Unlike gullible you, obviously. The opinions of “scientists” for us, as is always the case with true science, doesn’t matter one jot. Evidence, tests of theories, that is what matters.
If you want to stick around, then please accept this simple challenge: Post ANY evidence that CO2 causes dangerous atmospheric warming. Anything at all. With all that “consensus” out there that you tell us about, it shouldn’t be too hard. It’ll be fun to actually discuss science for once instead of mindless blather about counting how many global warming scientists fit on the head of a pin.

materialist

HP: “People who read objectively and who are not seduced by “beliefs”, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, acknowledge the reality of climate change. The evidence is overwhelming for these people. ”
Wow! What a devastating argument to level against us poor benighted folks who draw different conclusions from the available evidence! I really didn’t know that I was incapable of “reading objectively” and that I was “seduced by [you left out the adjective “false”] ‘beliefs'”. What is left for intellectual losers like myself but to bow to your self-acknowledged superior wisdom and join the millions of “climate refugees” who, as our intellectual superiors assure us, are fleeing the populated coastal centers even as we speak. They are, aren’t they?

Christian Takacs

I believe it is self evident that when an argument uses an appeal to scientific consensus (educated elite athorities) to negate the right to self determination, private property, and liberty , that a con is taking place as well as a blatant grab for power. I don’t care what the “experts” say, they can’t have my freedom just because their “unquestionable facts” tell them enslavement is more efficient and good for the environment. I am amazed how naieve college educated people are concerning a very thinly veiled appeal to absoulute centralized authority painted over with a gloss of scientific jargon and egalitarianism. Too bad educated elite don’t learn about what happened in Germany on Jan 30, 1933… it might give them pause before they try to ‘save’ us.

Martin Brumby

Hey, cut the associate “Professor” some slack!
“Previously from the same professor: Study: Women more likely than men to accept global warming.”
Coming soon:-
“Coffee Drinkers more likely to be sceptical than Tea Drinkers”
“Men who dress to the left more likely to accept consensus view of Climate Change”
“Twinkie Bar fanciers more likely to believe Al Gore than Beer Drinkers”
There’s a whole career path mapped out there for Sociologist “Researchers”!

John

*Sigh* *face-palm*
Well, I guess it is useful — in some ways — to have empirical evidence…..very long, detailed empirical evidence of the bleeding obvious.

Mike McMillan

David Falkner says: April 19, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Wow Maue, you went to blue? Must be awful these past few years during bowl season. Of course, you can always take comfort in the fact that I am a ND fan.

I was stationed awhile in ND when I was in the Air Force. Nice people, but mighty cold up in Minot. I don’t recall they had much of a football team, but it’s nice to know they have a few fans.

Harold Pierce Jr

Hugh Pepper says on April 19, 2011 at 11:02 pm:
“People who read objectively and who are not seduced by “beliefs”, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, acknowledge the reality of climate change. ”
After watching weather reports on the TV for about 60 years, I have concluded that there is no climate change. That is to say, the patterns of weather in the various regions of the earth are about same. Weather can be variable year-to-year, and there can be exreme weather events such as prolonged drought. But over the long haul weather usually settle downs back down normal.
You should take a trip into the countyside and ask the old folks about climate change.
What do the white-coated wisguys in NYC really know weather and climate?

Dodgy Geezer

Of COURSE the scientific consensus is growing! Let us look at the trends.
We don’t have data earlier than about 1985, but I can extrapolate the trend using a computer model to show that there was no warming consensus whatsoever in 1970 – in fact, there was a belief that an ice-age was due.
Now we have at least 20% belief in global warming. That is a significant positive trend. I predict that by the year 2300 EVERYBODY will believe in global warming.
Can I have my grant money now…?

Harold Pierce Jr

Mark Allinson says on April 19, 2011 at 9:55 pm:
How amazing, that the “progressive” side of politics thinks that a scheme to hobble capitalism, increase taxes, and re-distribute wealth is one we should support. Surely any “science” that could be used to support such a scheme, say the liberals, is right and should never be questioned – gift horses should not have dental inspections.
FYI: Such schemes are now operating in BC. In July 2008, BC enacted the “Climate Action Plan” (CAP) and started Phase One of the Plan: A carbon tax on fossil fuels at $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. This tax will increase to $30 per tonne on July 1, 2012. I currently pay a ca 20% tax on the commodity price of BC nat gas.
The BC gov will soon introduce Phase Two: Laws regulating the emission of GHG’s from all sources. When the Climate Action Plan is fully “entrenched” in law, the BC gov has the “legislative authority” to:
1. Indirectly, seize control of all means of production.
2. Indirectly, control the production of all goods and services.
3. Use the carbon tax scheme to redistribute wealth via tax cuts to busineses and corporation and to taxpayers with incomes less than $120,000. Individual taxpayers and families with incomes much greater than $120,000 get no tax breaks.
4. Control every aspect of the affairs and lives of the people of BC. For example, banning the sale of certain incan. lightbulbs.
NB: The terms “entrenched” and “legislative authority” are used in the CAP.
What is really scary about the CAP is that the clueless folks in BC have swallowed the CAP hook, line, sinker, beaver, bear, and bluejay. There have been no complaints so far about the CAP.

I’ve been hearing about the “growing”, “overwhelming” scientific consensus for more than ten years. Given the claims of growth, it should have reached 3000% of all scientists by now.
I also don’t see the growth in Democratic support or liberal support for AGW claims. Instead, more and more self-described liberals are standing up and calling BS when they see it.
This appeal to popularity is about as unscientific as it gets. When I ask about the claims of Special Relativity, I never get the reply that Relativity is supported by an overwhelming consensus, or that anti-Relativists are supported by evil Newtonians to deny the truth of Relativity. I just get references to experiments designed to falsify Relativity that repeatedly show that despite Relativity’s counter-intuitive claims, every properly done experiment shows that Relativity’s claims are correct to high accuracy.
See http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html for example.
The claim of consensus means the evidence is weak and the greater the consensus claimed, the weaker the evidence.

rbateman

Dodgy Geezer says:
April 20, 2011 at 1:27 am
That Coming Ice Age that was all the rage in the 1970’s is still just as due now as it was then. It will take 10-12 thousand years to get to the icy bottom, but who wants to debate messy details. We’ll all just go into cyrogenic freeze and set the timer for 80,000 years when the next Interglacial is due. Better yet, lets build rockets and travel to Alpha Centauri, only 60,000 years one way.

Laws of Nature

Hi Anthony,
any time I see articles like this, I feel that there are nutcases on both sides.. For example there is scientifically no doubt whatsoever, that additional CO2 in the lower atmosphere traps outgoing radiation. The question what that exactly means for the climate is a different one! (The direct effect for the CO2-doubling is somewhere near 1° Fahrenheit according to actual scientific knowledge)
A few posts up here was one seeming to ignore this fact.. It is important to point out any wrong posts in your blog .. otherwise deniers are watering down valid skeptic arguments!

cedarhill

My favorite thought experiment is to have a group of warmist and skeptics travel to the top of the Empire State Building and tell them that global warming consensus has is that if you jump the rising hot air due to AGW will cushion you and you will float gently to the ground, avoiding all those elevators. After all, it’s consensus.

Tez to quote your first sentence – “As I have suspected for a long time, AGW is politically motivated, with biased science backed predictions as an attempt to legitimise their policies”
Surely, then, the view that anti-AGW is politically motivated, with biased science backed predictions as an attempt to legitimise their policies, is equally supported by the article, OR is this confirmation bias on your part?
http://mitigatingapathy.blogspot.com/

Simon

“According to McCright, these results are consistent with the prevailing theory that explains how political polarization occurs in the general public. “In the last few decades political elites have become polarized on climate change. This has driven the political divide on this topic within the American public, as regular citizens have taken cues from ideological and party leaders they trust.” ”
This may apply to the periphery of each party (the true believers), but I don’t think political and ideological leaders are the primary-driver of the divide. Politicians aren’t all fools – they know when the public mood is changing and when to follow suit – and that change can be based on many things, particularly with such a complex issue as AGW.

Jimbo

People’s views of global warming apparently changes with the temperature on a given day!
http://www.livescience.com/13604-weather-affects-global-warming-acceptance.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/08/3186411.htm

DirkH

The left has hijacked the word science by promoting AGW. Face it, the word now means something else.

Stefan

Kinda fits the notion that one side is trying to package their political values inside a shiny wrapper of “scientific objectivity.”
This is why they are so adamant that “the science” is beyond question – you’re not supposed to [snip] question it — that’s the whole point!!!
It is the modern version of claiming you have god on your side – nobody is supposed to disbelieve god.
Denialists! Heathens!
Well stretch that tactic too far, corrupt god for your political aims, corrupt science for your political aims, and well, just see what happened to “god’s authority.” Few believe in that anymore.
I mean, I long for a day when we can resolve differences, but we’ll do that by thinking at a higher level (thanks Einstein) than we do now. You can’t solve the left-right and conservative-progressive polarities by just beating the other side down, you solve it by thinking at a higher level where you can integrate constructively what each side has to offer, as appropriate to the problem at hand.

Otter

What deniers do you see here, laws ‘o nature? Can you point some out on other blogs, say, on JoNova’s for example?

Alan the Brit

Slurp of coffee, ah….that’s better. Now for my twopence-half-penny’s worth. Pronounced “tuppence-hapenies” worth. (And apologies for being a bore yet again)
1925 Pocket Oxford Dictionary…..Consenus:- Agreement of “opinion” on the part of all concerned…..& “Opinion”:- Belief based upon grounds short of proof! View held as probable! What one thinks of something, e.g. “what it seems to me”! A disputable point! Definitely sounds like settled science to me then, sarc off!
Why is it people arbitrarily stick the word “science” after a subject to try & increase its dubious value, e.g. Social Scientist, (in other words Social Historian, but history (elsewhere touted as an art form) can be very subjective, so call him a scientist, it sounds better & lends more weight to it! It pees me off when I hear people quoting their degrees like “a degree in Political Science”. Utter tosh. What they mean is a degree in how to exercise influence & control over others in society, IMHO. Science is science, politics is politics, never the twain should meet, lest there be a complete disaster.

1DandyTroll

So, essentially, the study only shows that its authors belong to the far left right hippie green Goebbels industry and is trying to try try again.
It’s kind of cute how they so ardently use cheap political propaganda tricks from their “golden” days to claim the opposition is politically motivated.

eadler

Laws of Nature says:
April 20, 2011 at 2:04 am
Hi Anthony,
any time I see articles like this, I feel that there are nutcases on both sides.. For example there is scientifically no doubt whatsoever, that additional CO2 in the lower atmosphere traps outgoing radiation. The question what that exactly means for the climate is a different one! (The direct effect for the CO2-doubling is somewhere near 1° Fahrenheit according to actual scientific knowledge)
A few posts up here was one seeming to ignore this fact.. It is important to point out any wrong posts in your blog .. otherwise deniers are watering down valid skeptic arguments!

Be careful. If you use the D-word, to often, you may be banned from posting.
You also have the direct effect of CO2 wrong- it is 1Celsius, which is 1.8F.

Jimmy Haigh

I was a liberal until I grew up. I think I was about 13 when I realised I’d been wrong all my life.

DEEBEE

IMO these are all manifestations of willingness to accept “authority uber alles”. But to explain it that way would not create grants and studies. Shrouding it in the “shamanic” mysteries of gender, politics etc is more intriguing

Joe Lalonde

Anthony,
What is making more people skeptical is that science tied itself to politics and in doing so has left the door wide open for being lied to mentality. How many, many , times has political promises been made and the goal NOT achieved.
Again, many, many times.
I don’t think I’d be surprised is stoning politicians would be brought up as they are NEVER accountable for their decisions.

Allen63

As Ron House points out, many of us here are Scientists with appropriate backgrounds and others are bright folks who have studied the problem and “done the math” for themselves.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a “problem” we should be trying to “solve” — is the conclusion most of us reach.