A new survey finds that 70 percent of Americans believe the climate is changing.
The poll from Monmouth University, released Tuesday, found a stark partisan divide on most issues surrounding climate change, including whether it is happening, how serious it is and what should be done about it.
The research, conducted mostly before nearly 200 nations voted last month in Paris on an international climate accord, found that Democrats (63 percent) are much more likely than Republicans (18 percent) to see climate change as a very serious issue . . . . . But the support is complicated. Pollsters found that only 27 percent of respondents agree . . . . . . . that human activity is the main cause of climate change.
“The data exposes the extent to which this has become a partisan political issue in the U.S. rather than a scientific issue,” Tony MacDonald, director of Monmouth University’s Urban Coast Institute, said in a statement accompanying the poll results.
The survey did find support for actions to stop climate change, though the questions were worded mostly to focus on the effects of global warming, like rising sea levels and increased extreme weather.
“The polling shows that Americans believe we are all very much in this together,” MacDonald said. “Nearly two thirds of all respondents and three quarters of younger adults want action from our leaders, even if some in Congress don’t believe there’s a problem.”
Source for above text: The Hill, here.
The poll from Monmouth University, released Tuesday, found a stark partisan divide on most issues surrounding climate change, including whether it is happening, how serious it is and what should be done about it.
The research, conducted mostly before nearly 200 nations voted last month in Paris on an international climate accord, found that Democrats (63 percent) are much more likely than Republicans (18 percent) to see climate change as a very serious issue . . . . . But the support is complicated. Pollsters found that only 27 percent of respondents agree . . . . . . . that human activity is the main cause of climate change.
“The data exposes the extent to which this has become a partisan political issue in the U.S. rather than a scientific issue,” Tony MacDonald, director of Monmouth University’s Urban Coast Institute, said in a statement accompanying the poll results.
The survey did find support for actions to stop climate change, though the questions were worded mostly to focus on the effects of global warming, like rising sea levels and increased extreme weather.
“The polling shows that Americans believe we are all very much in this together,” MacDonald said. “Nearly two thirds of all respondents and three quarters of younger adults want action from our leaders, even if some in Congress don’t believe there’s a problem.”
Source for above text: The Hill, here.
Its not what the people thing about man-made warming. Its what the powerful left believes. Try to keep up.
ReplyDeleteYou are half right. Your are wrong as to the issue you left off and that is the electoral power of an unconvinced constituency. Belief in man-made warming is at a record low. 27% is so low a polling number that it might be a predictor as to the coming General Election.
Deletemore on the conspiracy...
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/01/07/after-record-shattering-december-u-s-has-its-second-warmest-year-in-2015/
Just last year, the Northeast experienced the coldest winter ON RECORD (http://www.weather.com/news/news/top-five-coldest-february-midwest-northeast).
DeleteSunday, we will see the coldest day in Minnesota football history at minus 23 degrees.
The only conspiracy, here, is the Left's orchestrated effort to criminalize debate on the subject of "global warming," and force the opinion of some climate scientists for the sake of wealth redistribution. EVERY deadline prediction for global disaster, by the fear-mongering Alarmist Community has failed.
ALL warming/cooling events are region, not global. More than this, "warming" is what happens between ice ages.
Since most conservatives reject evolution, we should revise the science to reflect public belief (ignorance).
ReplyDeleteThe problem with science deniers is that they can't accept that truth is measured by rational thought based on facts and evidence... truth is fluid, some very confident and probable, some less confident and less probable. The key here is: if you don't understand the evidence, or the science behind the evidence, you are unlikely to come to a similar judgment to one who does. People have different understandings and perceptions of evidence. The thing about science is that it has a very high probability of revealing truth, whether you believe it or not, assuming that the evidence can be tested and a reliable result is achieved. Science makes no pretension to the eternal or absolute truth, it is always open to new information, refinement, testing.
Take "science deniers" out of the above statement, and you have something with which I can agree. Scientific truth IS fluid, which means "what is 'scientific truth' today, may not be 'scientific truth' tomorrow."
DeleteYou write "Science makes no pretension to the eternal or absolute truth, it is always open to new information, refinement, testing." But YOU do just that. You ridicule and criminalize the debate that is opposition speech, whiled agreeing that science "makes no pretension to . . . absolute truth."
I think in probabilities based on observable facts and evidence. Is it probable that science has advanced in recent decades and has more data and technology? Yes. Is it probable that humans, just like all form of life on this planet, evolved from subspecies rather than being created in present form divinely? Yes. Is it probable that humanity has the ability to reverse a trend of planet warming consistent with activities of burning fossil fuels and other natural forces? Uncertain/untested.
DeleteFor me and most rationalists, science isn't tainted by politics, it's pure observation based data and probable conclusion. You have demonstrated repeated that you consider climate science a political agenda - even to the point of suggesting the US Military is in on the conspiracy - quite a stretch.
Those that deny basic science like evolution show they do not understand the science or the evidence and likely have an unrelated theological/political factor that cloud the issue. This problem is a tendency repeated in other issues relating to science. Further, ithas been proven by political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler that when misinformed citizens are told that their facts are wrong, they often cling to their opinions even more strongly with what is known as defensive processing, or the “backfire effect.”. This is the GOP religious right in a nutshell. That is why the religious are often the least flexible in their thinking.
1. "basic science" is a process, not a set of conclusions. And since science can be right-on today, and wrong tomorrow (your conclusion), the process is the only constant. The Big Bang is a conclusion of particular processes and, as a conclusion, is not absolute as conclusion/truth. Evolution is a conclusion, an explanation if you will, of the impact of time on living organisms.
DeleteALL conclusions used to explain evidence are subject to particular biases and may be debatable for that reason.
" it has been proven by political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler that when misinformed citizens are told that their facts are wrong, they often cling to their opinions even more strongly with what is known as defensive processing, or the “backfire effect" is an social observation that hardly needs expert opinion and applies equally to the Left's dogma.
You mention the Big Bang. That is an example of a theory that is misunderstood and is becoming outdated. Many see this as a 'something from nothing' paradigm, which it is not.
DeleteAccording to NASA, based on measurements from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy probe, as of 2013, data suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent. We can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe. http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html
Personally, I am uncomfortable with the belief that humanity has some direct and indelible connection to the creator of the universe, particularly when it seems that universe is infinite and did not require a creator. It sounds self aggrandizing and childishly limited in perspective to believe in man-made concepts of creation. I'd like to conceptualize the 'higher power' as something that transcends humanity, an order or force yet unknown to science, realities beyond the limited perception of space and time by man .... for example, that unknown binding subatomic force that CERN is searching for, the conflict and missing link between quantum mechanics and general relativity. When mankind can develop an accurate view of his own species history on the cosmic and geologic time scale, in a word - perspective, then we can discard these self serving ancient myths, unify as a species and endeavor to reach the potential of mankind. Putting stock in dark ages myths is counter productive and as Einstien said, "childish" ... which is the primary position of most elite scientists.
You write, ". . . . I am uncomfortable with the belief that humanity has some direct and indelible connection to the creator of the universe, particularly when it seems that universe is infinite and did not require a creator" . . . . . as if the imagined "infinite" state of the universe somehow contradicts the notion of a creator God.
DeleteHeat is a requisite condition for "life." No heat, no life. Well, it turns out that we are always moving from hot to cold and the process is irreversible. In other words, cosmic opportunities for the existence of life are decreasing as surely as the universe is spreading out and winding down. We are always moving from structure to chaos, according to the laws of physics, and, in that reality (as we understand it, today), there is the demand for a creator God.
Secondly, there is a casual relationship between spontaneous "creation" and particulate motion . . . no movement of particles, no opportunity for creation. If you reject God in some form, as a creator force, you must believe in the eternity of particulate matter and the "without beginning" notion of eternal or spontaneous motion. Matter and motion are your god, your eternity. In everyday language, this question becomes critically important to a god-denier: what is the cause of particulate motion; what started movement of particles?
The fact of the matter is this: godless science has no more reasonable explanation for the notion of origins than does the man of faith.
All of what I am saying gives us the irreversible reality that we are moving from structure to chaos, from light to darkness, from life to death . . . . that we are, in fact, devolving.
You said, "The fact of the matter is this: godless science has no more reasonable explanation for the notion of origins than does the man of faith. "
ReplyDeleteFaith already has an explanation for origin, a lazy one that doesn't require evidence:'god created the heavens and the earth.' I do not find this to be a 'reasonable' explanation.
Again, to suggest man is somehow 'special' and his 'god Jesus' created the universe ... it doesn't get much more silly and improbable. Look at the deep field view from the Hubble space telescope, or the trillion suns in our nearest galactic neighbor Andromeda, just one of a 100 billion galaxies we can detect in our limited view. Because of our limited perspective, we surely seem special. The avg Joe christian has no perspective. https://youtu.be/udAL48P5NJU
It is not reasonable to argue that something evolved from nothing, or that matter, in some form, has no beginning or end. It is not reasonable to argue that particle-motion preceding the existence of an atomic world, always existed without explanation as to particulate motion, a requisite function for atomic creation/energy.
Delete"It is not reasonable to argue that something evolved from nothing, or that matter, in some form, has no beginning or end."
DeleteFalse. Complex animals definitely evolved from single cell organisms, and science is becoming clearer on how and why.
Just because you can't wrap your mind around the concept of infinity, no beginning and no end, doesn't mean it's improbable. The science suggests the universe is infinite. The Law of Conservation of Matter.
For your and your readers education:
Single cell to complex animals:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/11/startling-new-discovery-600-million-years-ago-a-single-biological-mistake-changed-everything/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_2_na
Your argument is not "from nothing came something." I mean, a single cell IS something. Ask your girl friend. Where is she, btw ?
DeleteAnd, I must say that you really do not understand the rules of debate or the defining (not "definition") of logic. For starters, nothing in our physical world is without beginning or end . . . nothing. Now, because something is not reasonable does not mean that it is "not possible." When I write, "It is not reasonable to argue that something evolved from nothing, or that matter, in some form, has no beginning or end." You believe in these things just as I believe in God and His eternity, but neither the eternity of matter and motion or the eternity of God and His spirit reasonable, Your faith in the eternity of matter and motion, a point of "fact" you cannot prove, is no more reasonable than my faith in the eternity of a designer God.
You deny a Designer God but are forced to admit that everything in our physical/natural world has structure that appears to be of design.
"For starters, nothing in our physical world is without beginning or end . . . nothing"
ReplyDeleteUnless you mean "biological" instead of "physical"... which is what I think you mean, that is correct. The "physical world" ... as relating to matter, mass, etc... (as in physics) has no beginning and end - again, one of the most basic concepts - Law of Conservation of Matter. (Just because the earth didn't exist at some point, doesn't mean it's constituent matter didn't exist in some other form).
Yes I do believe there is a greater probability, based on science, that the universe is infinite in space and time, rather than the creation explanation given in the early pre-modern science writings of a 'johnny-come-lately' species - around for less than 2 million years - that an anthropomorphized 'god' that walked the earth created the universe. In order to believe the latter, you either have to be: 1) stubbornly invested in the dogma, 2) just not bright enough to conceptualize mankind's perspective in the universe on geo and cosmic time scale, and have no understanding or curiosity about science and a willingness to subscribe to traditional group-think.
In an infinite universe, there are infinite possibilities, life is understood to not be unique to earth based on complex organic molecules - including amino acids - found in space. The entire aim of astro spectroscopy and NASA's probes (like the Stardust mission) is to confirm what we theorize - that the earth has been bombarded with comets and meteors and these contain life and/or the building blocks of it. This is probability based on real science. Genetic studies have extrapolated life began before the earth was formed. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.3381.pdf
For the origin of life, what is more probable: ancient legends of a crucified savior / creator that comes down from the Dark Ages writings of man, or scientific theory based on observable facts? Which would take more effort to understand? Because you can't conclusively prove either, you have probabilities.
Let the readers decide:
One side: infinite universe/life elsewhere/panspermia - much science to support.
One side: a story whose evidence come from ancient writings, none current to the event, and rewritten a thousand times by men with agendas.
Which do you think would hold up in court, be more persuasive to a rational minded jury non tainted by dogma?
The answer is obvious. The quest for knowledge continues, except by those who are too lazy to be educated and would prefer to accept more easily understood myths and stories.
I will give an answer to your comment, but I need time. I will enter my response here, in this space . . . . maybe tomorrow. It will stress "logic" ( or that which is truly reasonable) as a point of consideration that has a mirrored reality. A postulate in math, for example, is a necessity to a particular mathematical issue but without proof or mathematical confirmation. Postulates are not provable, yet they work, and they are not logical, of and within themselves, precisely because we cannot give them a mathematical explanation.
DeleteQuinnipiac University. Dec. 16-20, 2015. N=1,140 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.9.
ReplyDelete"Would you like to see the next president support policies to combat climate change, or oppose policies to combat climate change?"
Support Oppose Unsure/No answer
ALL
69 23 8
Republicans
47 44 9
Democrats
91 4 6
Independents
70 22 8
...even a majority of Republicans
Strawman polling. If the question included Obama's policy for the end of coal, the shocking increase for winter heating, the high cost of electric cars, and continued dependency on Arab oil, the polling would be different.
Delete