Shared publicly  - 
In Germany, anthropogenic global warming is pretty much accepted as a fact - including by most German conservatives. They have seen and acknowledged the science just as the other political groups have - what happens now is a debate on what to do about it.

In contrast, in the USA people like this guy seem to be a tiny minority among conservatives. Why?
Derek Thorson's profile photoScott McDaniel's profile photoJoseph Slade's profile photoCameron Hays's profile photo
Because science and reason are indeed enemies of religion ;-).
+David Röll: I don't buy that. There are plenty of religious people over here who aren't that nutty.
Easy, our life style is what's causing global warming. And there are many, many, many business in the USA that do not want us to change our life style. It is very easy for a corporate body to put pressure in some politicians just to avoid passing laws that will hurt their Q results.
Conservatives in the US -- backed by corporations -- are hellbent on discrediting science (and intelligence) at every point that intersects with their behaviors. They want to freely pollute, so the very fact of global warming turns people against them. Easier to make people stupid by teaching god-belief in the schools and making the right to vote damn near impossible if you're mobile.
Well, there are certainly two more aspects in this, climate change would recquire government regulation ("socialism", "big government"), and would allow less profits in certain industries.

However, just replace "Global Warming" with "Evolution" and you have the exact same behaviour.
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. And also epistemic closure.
It's a straw man that conservatives ignore the science on the issue. Leftists choose to conflate policy consensus with scientific consensus.

What is widespread is the notion that the leftist remedies for climate change are more damaging than the predicted effects of climate change themselves.

The poor performance of climate scientists isn't a matter of opinion either - it's a matter of record.
I'm as rational and logical as you can get...but I don't trust anyone's word whose livelihood relies on the business of Climate Change. A scientist doesn't need to be driving a Ferrari to have their livelihood affected by the grants that they are given to study climate change. They are in the business of Climate Change too...and so are many of their peers. That is fundamentally flawed science. This is why I question the need for such radical change. I'm not denying that there is climate change...I question that we are the primary cause of it.

Skeptics are a needed in science...skeptics improve science. Please show me proof that humans are the primary cause of global warming...proof that isn't produced and peer-reviewed by people who have a financial stake in seeing Climate Change as entirely humans fault. I really want to believe everything I read in the article...I do...but I can't take someone seriously when they will benefit financially from the message they profess.
"Give me proof! No, not that proof! Other proof!"
+Derek Thorson: Do you know of any climatologist who drives a Ferrari? Honestly?

Climatologists derive their wages from the fact that they are doing new scientific research - and usually at public research institutes with wages that aren't particularly spectacular. Climate Change Denial, on the other hand, is significantly more profitable.
You want science but not from scientists, and you call people names? I think I'll mock you whenever I feel like it.
This website is a pretty good start - these folks always do cite their sources:

As for non -peer-reviewed proof... I'm sorry, but that's simply not how science works. If you can't be bothered to submit your research to your scientific peers - if you can't even do that much - then no scientist is obligated in any way to take your work seriously at all. Peer review is not a Conspiracy, it's the bare minimum of process scientists must follow.
+Jürgen Hubert I was referring to the article with that comment about Ferrari's. That was a particularly outlandish statement that needed a response. And no I do not, but I know there are plenty of people looking for scientific ways to prove that humans are the cause for global warming. There is plenty of going into research to prove/disprove that.

+Justin Mohareb I asked for proof...I am a mocked me first...I have no tolerance for people who respond as you do. Please inform me and set me right rather than mocking me. I welcome the opportunity to become informed. You should welcome the opportunity to set someone straight....everyone here should. Are my opinions misinformed? Please tell me why. I want to become informed and make up my own mind. This is why I read the article in it's entirety.
+Derek Thorson you would probably hate to admit it, but what you're doing here is very close to constructing a baseless conspiracy theory. The scientific evidence is accessible, it comes from multiple strands and across many disciplines. Suggesting that all of these talented scientists depend for their livelihood on one particular well founded scientific fact is insulting to their talents and skills, which would make them much more money in private industry.

So stop treating them like liars and thieves. If you don't like the implications of global warming, admit it. Don't use that distaste as an excuse for false accusations of dishonesty.
+Tony Sidaway Yes, I have no proof for my claims...they're opinions based on what I read and hear. I'd like to believe that is not the case. It's rather hard to believe differently when what I do read and hear from supposedly trustworthy sources ends up somehow tied to a financial stake in a solution to the problem.

And No, I do not like the implications of global warming...who would? I'm just saying there is lots of money on both sides of the fence. Getting clear unbiased information is difficult these days. I can spend hours researching something only to learn what backs it up may turn it into a less than reliable source. I asked for proof here as I'd like to believe other people reading this story are intelligent people who might be willing to share their sources of information. Perhaps I was a bit more blunt than I should have been...for that I apologize. I'd still like the information though...or I can just spend a good chunk of my time chasing down leads that misinform me or discourage me. I'd like to avoid that if possible, like yours, my time is valuable to me.
+Derek Thorson I think both sides can devolve pretty quickly into straw man arguments and ad hominen attacks quite quickly.

However, if you look at the money provided to peer reviewed scientific journals vs. the money made by the industries that would be hurt by anthropogenic climate change it seems one side has significantly more money that can be used to manipulate perception to defend their interests than the other.

I think the biggest failing of the rational right on this issue is to provide rational and fair free market solutions to these problems. Cap and Trade was an idea with solid legs. I don't know why it was thrown under the "socialist" bus so quickly.
I see it like this: I am a scientist by training. And though I am a physicist (with a PhD in Computational Materials Engineering), not a climatologist, I do know how the whole scientific process works.

And on one side I see the vast majority of all peer-reviewed climatological research and publications... and on the other I see lies, distortions, and statistical tricks more often than not. At one point I set to examine the claims of one especially prominent global warming denier - one Christopher Monckton, who often shows up on TV on such matters. Here is what I found:

From what I have seen, this is not an isolated incident - tricks like these are systematic on the denier side. Thus, I have come to the conclusion that this is not a debate about science, but an effort to sway public opinion. The real scientific debate about global warming is how drastic it will be, and how it affects different regions - not whether it happens at all, or whether humans are the cause.
The most convincing case for global warming for me is my failed search for a rational alternative explanation of the evidence. The papers that should exist establishing the existence of such alternatives, and putting strong cases for their validity, simply don't exist, whereas the greenhouse warming theory has a strong scientific basis going back to the 1850s and beyond. Of course scientists don't leave it there, they're continually researching all plausible alternatives, but the evidence perpetually gets in the way.

On RealClimate, a blog about climate science by climate scientists, oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf took the opportunity of April Fools the other day to produce a satirical presentation of the failed alternatives. It's called "Wrong Sign Paradox Finally Resolved?"
Thank you both for those links.

+Jürgen Hubert nice job with that analysis.

+Tony Sidaway though I'll have to study that April fools joke a bit more for me to understand it completely...the site itself looks good to I'm using it as a start. Thanks again.
The weirdest conversation I ever had with a conservative on climate change went like this.
Them: "No one believes in that climate change unicorn anymore! That's ancient history."
Me: "Really? Scientific consensus doesn't favor climate change anymore?"
Them: "Of course not! You're ignorant! Haven't you been paying attention?"
Me: "Huh. Could you give me the name of one meteorologist who doesn't believe in it?"
Them: "..."
Me: "Can you give me the name of one meteorologist at all?"
Them: "..."
Me: "Please tell me you know what a meteorologist is, we live next to NCAR (the National Center for Atmospheric Research)."
Them: "It's a scam!"
People who research climate change have a vested interest in proving climate change therefore it is suspect unless people who don't have a vested interest research it but then they'd have a vested interest.
Goto 10.
+Scott McDaniel The problem is no one researches climate change. People research the climate and have determined that it is changing.
Meteorologists have a vested interest in climate change in the same way I (as a historian) have a vested interest in how the 1st Crusade ended. Their job is to look at shit; how that shit behaves is interesting, but ultimately has no bearing on their funding. Now, if you want to follow the money, you should look at where the people who deny man-made climate change are getting their money: watch fossil fuel money at work.
Add a comment...