Jonathan Chait of Common Dreams raises a good question: why do Republicans disagree with climate scientists more at a time when climate scientists are accruing new terrifying evidence that human activities are truly responsible for warming the atmosphere?
Last year, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and House members: “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?” Of the respondents, 23% said yes, 77% said no . . . So, the magazine asked the question again last month. The results? Only 13% of Republicans agreed that global warming has been proved.
As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans are actually getting more skeptical. . . . How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. It’s certainly true that many of them are. . . But the financial relationship doesn’t quite explain the entirety of GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.
The truth is more complicated — and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement . . .Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.
In other words, the thinking process of most Republicans is worse than random. How is it that more evidence for global warming makes Republicans less convinced? Chait’s article suggests Republicans are merely being obstinate. There is a deeper explanation, however, and it has to do with the multiple functions of language. First, start with the assumption that denying global warming is bad science. Start there, but don’t end the inquiry there. Continue the analysis by treating the denial of global warming as dogma.
Dogma wears two hats. First of all, dogmatic words can convey literal meaning that often flies in the face of the evidence. Consider religious dogma, for instance. That Mary was a “virgin” is nonsensical; it is even self-disproving. So why say such a thing? The answer relates to dogma’s second function: dogma facilitates bonding.
The assertion of group-approved-nonsense looks and sounds ridiculous to outsiders, but uttering it loudly in the presence of one’s group proves one’s loyalty to those insiders. The more nonsensical the dogma is, the tighter the bond it is capable of generating among those willing to utter it. Consider, for instance, the correlation of the absurdity of the dogma and the strength of bonding in Unitarians (less absurd, less bonded) and Mormons (more absurd, more bonded).
Uttering officially-approved nonsense in front of one’s group identifies one as a bona fide member of that group. Uttering absurd things is a display that one desires to be a member of that group so incredibly much that one is willing to utter the sorts of things that will trigger social ridicule from learned outsiders. It’s a social version of the peacock’s tail–a display much like the the types of things Darwin pointed out in his theory of sexual selection. It’s saying “I am willing to pay the price of saying this idiotic thing in order to prove my loyalty to the group.” It’s a group “badge.” See here , here and here. There are non-verbal versions of dogma too. Letting one’s pants droop to expose underwear can be a strong sign of group loyalty on the streets; piercing sensitive parts of one’s body facilitates bonding among the like-minded in high schools.
Therefore, uttering nonsensical dogma is not primarily about conveying the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, it’s about sending out a sonar signal in order to identify allies and enemies. It is a herding mechanism.This deep need to be accepted by a group is so deeply wired into humans that, in most people, it even overcomes the urge to follow evidence where it leads. Unfortunately, the literal meaning of the dogma doesn’t entirely dissipate. Therefore, we have lots of Republicans who still refuse to act on the threat of global warming.
To summarize, Mary is a virgin, there are three person in one God, dead people continue to live and, of course, global warming is being dis-proved by new evidence that actually proves it. Not really, of course. None of these things is true. But the utterance of such claims works as a powerful drug among those of us who intensely crave the comfort of a group (interesting note: scientists appear to be less groupish, more independent, and thus less susceptible to dogmatic utterances).
Raising one’s hand to swear allegiance to scientific nonsense is usually done in full view, but such it actually functions like a secret handshake.
If you want to feel the glow of acceptance by a big group of Republicans, all you’ve got to do is say the magic phrase: “Global Warming has not been proven.” Say it just often enough to piss off Democrats. Don’t say it too often or too loudly, or even the Republicans will think that you’re wierd. With those magic words denying global warming, you’ll get smiles and pats on the back from total strangers who will buy you drinks and regale you with stories about how they outwitted stupid Democrats; they’ll laugh at your jokes and they’ll tell you that you’re smart. As long as you keep uttering “Global Warming is hype” (or “Abortion is the same thing as murder” or “Government is incapable of doing anything other than wasting money”), you’ll continue to be invited to continue basking in the warmth of all those new friendships. And as long as you bask in the warmth of all of those inanities, aggregate power will continue to accrue to the intellectually misguided group. Bonding is powerful–it enables groups to accompish many things that its members, acting individually, could never accomplish.
Here’s an experment that demonstrates what I’m claiming. Take a Republican off to the side and talk to him one-on-one. Be cordial and non-threatening. He’ll eventually settle down and you’ll find him somewhat reasonable on many topics. Then allow him to wander back to his group of fellow Republicans and listen to the dogma start to fly again–the same guy who (minutes ago) was starting to make sense (when it was just the two of you) is now spouting nonsense like he’s absolutely sure of himself. The same thing happens to those many church-goers who pronounce virgin birth to be a certainty, but only while in the company of other church-goers. On their own, they find the idea of virgin birth to be not interesting (how can that be?) or even nonsensical. I’ve seen this over and over in my conversations with devout Christians, including several priests. Over my lifetime, several priests have admitted to me that they are agnostics. Yet when the lights come on and the curtain goes up, they hit that pulpit without a doubt in the world.
So, how do you get people to recognize what they are in a group trance? How do you get them to relax about the need to bond and to start following the evidence where it leads? I haven’t the faintest idea.
If you’ve got any ideas, speak up now, so we won’t have to wait until 2008 . . .
You know, this isn't really that hard to understand. Accepting the findings of scientists forces two points on Republicans that they simply cannot accept politically. One is, that scientists, even when what they say runs counter to popular belief, are reliable. Secondly (and this follows on the first) if scientists are reliable–and correct–it means we have to Do Something.
Now, we already have a sharp division in this country between haves and have-nots. In the way of Republican thinking, the Doing Something is going to worsen that, and in fact will probably cost lives. Jobs will be lost as industries retool–and cut their labor forces to be able to afford it–to deal with the problem. Ways of doing business will have to change and whenever that happens, try as we might, people get shoved out of sincure, out of jobs, out of their lives. It will also make us==perhaps–less competitive globally.
Now, all these points are arguable, but history does show us that massive alterations of the status quo more often than not result in catastrophe for certain segments of the population.
The metrics being weighed are not so much the fact of global warming, but the consequent costs of doing anything about it. Which we may in the long run not really be able to. We burn things to make eneregy. We need energy to live the lives we have (and I don't mean luxuries now). CO2 is indeed a major factor in global warming, but so is just plain heat. The problem is one all scientists are agreed on, but the ultimate solution? Well.
So politically, Republicans–representing their constituency–obfuscate in order to stay in office, in order to maintain a system that, more or less, works for now.
This is not entirely their fault. Long term thinking has never been an American strength.
The groupspeak we hear about so often in Bush's White House is another example of loyalty trumping wisdom. Bush has surrounded himself with people who are loyal to him by systematically purging his staff of people who disagree with him, even if they were right and he was wrong. Gone, for example, are Colin Powell and Admiral Shinseki, both of whom disputed White House lies about Iraq. Gone, more recently, are a large number of U.S. attorneys, whom the Bush Administration appears to have fired for putting justice ahead of Republican political goals during an election year (see http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1109).
Returning to Erich's point: loyalty to dogma can be a good thing (parents admonishing their children to "look both ways before crossing the street") or a bad thing, depending upon how a leader uses it. Bad leaders use it in a bad way, good leaders in a good way. Thus, dogma is not the problem; bad leadership is.
Actually, there have been modern examples of "virgin mothers". If one defines "virgin" as a female who has not had sexual intercourse, then "virgin birth" is very possible. Sperm that lands on the vulva can make it to the fallopian tubes to fertilize an egg, without actual intercourse. q.v. http://www.menstrual-cycle-period.com/pregnancy_w…
The resistance to the facts on global warming is the conditioned response of the corporate world when confronted with the possibility that they might have to internalize costs they have hitherto successfully externailized:
Deny (the facts)
Delay (taking actions)
Dupe (with bogus science)
Divide (the public and the poliiticians)
How about the dogma, "Humans cause global warming"? Naming something a dogma has nothing to do with how true it is. It only expresses your point of view. The word 'cult' is similar.
If you actualy take time to dig up the science papers on global warming you find that there is no consensus and the science is still very young. Unfortunately the science papers are difficult to read unless you have lots of practice. Several theories of global climate will be tested in the next 30 years and then we will have a much better ability to predict the future.
rk: You claim there is no consensus on global warming? I'm sorry. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to a consensus of people who vote republican. I was referring to a consensus of scientists who have devoted their lives to studying global warming. Or, perhaps, do you get your science news on FOX?
Out of 928 recent peer-reviewed scientific articles on global warming, all of them point to human activities as factors in heating up the atmosphere. See http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=199
Rob Kinyon: are you suggesting that Jesus was conceived in the manner you describe? How delightfully creative, but I don't remember any such passage in the Bible (nor do I recall any accurately translated Bible passage that specifies that Mary was ANY sort of virgin. Not that the lack of evidence will stop many people from believing in this purported miracle . . .
There is no doubt among qualified scientists that the world is warming.
There is no doubt that it has been warming (on average) over the last 10,000 years.
There is no doubt that the CO<sub>2</sub> levels in the lower atmosphere air have dramatically risen in the last 2 centuries, at a rate never seen in the ice-core record, and is comprised primarily of fossil carbon (incidentally screwing up carbon dating for anything younger than 150 years).
There is no doubt that the CO<sub>2</sub> level is at least partially responsible for the apparently accelerating warming.
There is no doubt that human activity is warming things up.
There is significant doubt that humans are the sole cause of this long-term warming trend.
There is some doubt that the current accelerating warming will lead to catastrophic changes within a generation.
Given these grains of doubt, politicians and businesses can argue reasonable doubt to the vast majority of the voting populace that don't know the difference between a scientific theory, and a personal opinion.
Here's some good news and bad news for rk. The "good" news is that the Bush Administration is working hard to muzzle climate scientists. The "bad" news is that the Administration has been busted:
For the full news article, click here.
Despite these findings (which will be released to the public tomorrow), rk has characterized the scientists as "dogmatic."
And whatever you do, don't say the word "polar bear" – not if you work for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, that is. The Language Log has an article on the new P-word:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archiv…
Another reason why Republicans are more dogmatic than ever on global warming: changing one's mind is often associated with effeminancy – "the woman's perogative." If a politician changes his or her position based on evidence, that would be Kerry-ish "flip-flopping."
Vicki: What a perfect, incredible, illustration.
Here is a similar post which just popped up at scienceblogs…
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/03/why_repub…
A funny thing happened today.
I had a conversation with friend who happens to be a Republican and the topic of Global Warming came up. The topic of "free" trade also came up. I got him to admit he has no freaking idea what is "free" in free trade. He never stopped to think about it.
First off, let me say that I do not disparage people either because they are Republican or because they do not "believe" in Global Warming.
However (that said), what was funny was that he was pulling out silly talking points that are obviously being pontificated on some right wing radio talk show:
1. People breathe out CO2 & therefore GW activists want to kill off all people.
2. Weather models have not been perfected and therfore they must be entirely wrong.
My Republican friend did admit that GW is happening. However he disputed the "cause" of the GW. He was falling back on the "it's not our fault" argument and also on the "it is not CO2 that is causing it" argument.
I did not make a convert today. But I did find it strange how appealing some of these talking points are with Republicans.
BTW, my friend is a scientist. He has a degree in one of the hard sciences. I have a number of friends who have science degrees AND are hard core Republicans AND deny GW. One thing (science) has nothing to do with the other (disbelief in GW). It's a loyalty thing. It's all about being part of the brotherhood. "Real" men don't allow the guberment to tell them what to do.
By the way, God DOES have 3 heads: the reptilian, the limbic and the neo-cortical layers.
Pray silently to your God tonight.
See who actually listens.
Yes they heard "you".
(But who is "you"? That is the real question. Read "The Naked Brain" by Dr. Restak. You will never be you in quite the same way after that.)
You guys *do* know that termites have been producing more CO2 than the human race, right? That may only apply to exhalations (I don't have a recent update), but our technology is *not* the primary source of CO2, let alone the main cause of GW. There is evidence that we are simply emerging from the last remnants of the last Ice Age, which would mean it's supposed to happen. That said, check out igreens for some suggestions on how to most effectively cut (world) CO2 emissions. (No, I'm not an igreen, just thought you would be interested)
Timothy needs to look at the historical CO<sub>2</sub> curve. Everything was running pretty uniformly for 10,000 years before humans started burning coal and then oil. Now, exponentially more CO<sub>2</sub> is staying in the lower atmosphere.
The receding Ice Age has been going on over that whole period. The isotopic ratio of the new CO<sub>2</sub> level indicates that the recent (150 years or so) increase is mainly produced from very old sources of carbon. Termites cannot do that. They only "burn" relatively recent wood.
Termites produce more methane then humans (about as much as cows). But methane (a stronger greenhouse gas) is consumed (burned) fairly quickly. I doubt that all the termites in the world could produce more CO<sub>2</sub> than does a single state worth of coal-burning power plants.
Some links to carbon curves related to my last response:
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/…
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarm…
Wow, what a bunch of crap. The increasing evidence is that global warming has been overhyped and may be due to the sun's radiation. Otherwise I'd like to hear how earth-bound SUVs are causing the current global warming on Mars.
I'm a skeptic because the science has not only not been settled, but because any results that show global warming is much less than projected, will have a smaller result, or might not be manmade gets summarily stuffed by global warming advocates. Yet they're still true. So why do the global warming advocates continue with their agenda? Not for any good scientific reasons.
I nominate "Schroddfather" as Exhibit A to my post.
The controversy about global warming is as silly as it is sad.
Global warming itself is not silly, nor is the concern. It is the controversy that is absurd.
It is used to avoid the issues, to confuse and to deny the need to do anything.
But in fact, the key responses needed for significant results against global warming should be done anyway. Even if there weren't global warming, they are valuable, necessary and urgent.
Aside from Global warming, we have problems with the supply and cost of energy, dependence on foreign oil, pollution (aside from CO2) which we get from burning stuff. We are thrown away a lot of money. We suffer balance of payments problems, other economic problems and problems with global competitiveness. For all of these reasons we need to get cracking on the fossil fuel waste.
It is sad to get all wrapped up in the controversy because, while the "What global warming?"folk don't understand, neither, it seems, do the "do something about global warming" folk. If anyone had thought a little, they would not have let themselves be drawn into a silly wasteful controversy.
By the way, you do know that the global production of oil is expected to peak between 25 and 40 years from now? And current estimates are that the world will have burned up all current known oil deposits in about 40 years?
So, aside from other reasons for going after global warming, the costs of fuel will be unbelievably high shortly and there will not be any gas for those Hummers.
Not unless we all stop the mad muddle and get wiht the program.
The good news is that we have right now the technology and the resources to fix most of the problems. They don't require ethanol or photovoltaics or the great waste of soil, water nor do they produce run-off pollution. They can be done the old fashioned way using known, clear, established and functioning technology. They aren't really expensive, either. New existing energy installation are producive energy at costs competetive with the least expensive fossil fuel plants.
Some other established technologies cost about one-half of the photovoltaics installations.
And they work well are known and quick and easy to do.
There have been some very new developments of tremendous potential. Which are not being discussed. Most of the discussions are out of date by 1 or 2 or 10 or 20 or more years.
Other breakthroughs are forseen to be coming soon.
The "talk the controversy" scam has worked for global warming as it has for tobacco, for acid rain and for religion in the schools.
It has led folk completely off of the cliffs.
Stop the sillyness.
Schroddfather (and any other GW skeptics reading):
Even accepting that there is a slim chance that human activities are not the primary cause of GW, which is admitted by the consensus of reputable climate scientists, and allowing that no one is certain how cataclysmic the effects of GW will be, we still have many reasons to change our habits of energy consumption:
The fossil fuels that we burn to produce CO2 are a limited supply, and we need to have technologies in place to be ready for their eventual failure.
The burning of fossil fuels causes many problems on this planet besides CO2 increase: we are poisoning our own air and water.
The economic cost of changing our ways does not need to be prohibitive: it has always been good for the economy to develop new energy productions.
The potential cost of not acting is catastrophic. Agriculture can no longer rely on things like regular and predictable precipitation patterns to keep the water table high enough for irrigation. Disease-bearing insects (like the mosquitos which carry malaria) are expanding their range to areas where people have no resistance. Flowering plants are blooming too early for their natural pollinators to be available. Island nations have already begun to simply disappear under the waves.
Why should we wait for "certainty"? The scientific process being what it is, certainty will come too late. Uncertainty is built into the system. The odds are good enough to act, the cost of acting is less than the GW-deniers would have us believe, and the effects of GW that are already happening are scary enough – we don't need the extremists who worry that New York is going to disappear under a glacier to see the real and current costs of GW.
If the skeptics are right and none of this is caused by human activity, we're screwed but at least if we get off our addiction to fossil fuels we can have a clean hot planet instead of a dirty one. If the VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists are right, we have a chance for a much better future than following current practice will allow. So what's the benefit of doing nothing?
Shades of 1984. What was that single word that descripes what you just wrote of?
Seems to me that my personal Republican friends (all of them males, so this might be skewed) are REALLY more freaked out about NOT being invited to parties.(if there are females there…it is a party).
So…. it just seems to me that that my said Republican friends would NATURALLY (bad pun) be ambivalent over global warming.
No parties.
Pull in some great looking chicks (that will somehow at least TRY to listen to their sad stories) and I am sure they will sign on to global warming.
Why else do you think that the "Bush women" were recruited?
Seriously, trying to discuss global warming with a Republican that is in the middle of market manipulation of natural gas in Canada is a TOUGH project!
Besides…. real estate in Canada is to boom from people fleeing huge areas of the US when the sea level rises….from global warming.
jeanette
If you had a telescope… you would be better equipped to see the SUV tracks on Mars. We (go team!) even found evidence of possible life there.
http://www.seds.org/~spider/Spider/Mars/mmetlife….
Submitted to netscape, 120 comments and counting
http://politics.netscape.com/story/2007/05/10/why…