Who You Calling Anti-Science?
Here’s the charge, from Chris Mooney:
Political conservatives in the U.S. today have overwhelming problems with science. They reject, in large numbers, mainstream and accepted knowledge on fundamental things about humans and the planet”“evolution, global warming, to name a few. I also recently posted about how systematically conservatives undermine science with respect to reproductive health.
And this is still just the tip of the iceberg.
Ken Green says WTF?
Before firing off his own rebuttal at AEI, Green counterpunched in the comments section (which I don’t see any way to link to) of Mooney’s blog. Green’s rejoinder, to my mind, has merit and is concisely and cogently made in this particular comment:
Chris’ argument is that the right is more anti-science than the left. I agree that many on the right reject science regarding evolution, and (somewhat) on climate change, both of which are bad. I’ve written about that at AEI. However, I think that the left is FAR more prone to present things as being “scientific” that are mostly pseudo-scientific nonsense, and they are very half-hearted about retracting them when they’ve propagated and caused harm.
Thus, if I were adding up the ledger, I’d score two “anti-science” points to the right for evolution and climate change, but about 20 “anti-science” points to the left for exaggerating the dangers of pesticides, herbicides, chemicals in general, radiation, conventional agriculture, plastics, paper, artificial sweeteners, vaccines, GM organisms, aquaculture, etc.
This is a valid counter-argument. Green is essentially saying that the anti-science manifestation on the Left (masked as pseudo-science) is different than that on the Right (which is outright rejection of established science). And that the Left has more anti-science strikes against it than the Right.
What Green fails to address is that an anti-evolution pose and climate change rejectionism have become closely associated with the GOP, because of the influence of religious conservatives and the Tea Party. There are no similarly high profile anti-science stances associated with Democrat leaders or policymakers. For example, President Obama, as Mooney pointed out, is pro-nuclear. Here’s another: The Obama administration has made regulatory decisions on GMO foods that have upset the lefty, anti-GMO types at Grist and Mother Jones. And so on.
So when looked at this way, there is no equivalence in anti-science attitudes between establishment Republicans and Democrats–as reflected in the kinds of science-related issues that are now fixtures in the political landscape. It’s pretty clear which party is getting the anti-science reputation and why.
It’s also understandable that Green and other science-respecting conservatives don’t like this label, but their beef should be more with the direction the Republican party has chosen.
Are you talking about rhetoric or policy?
The GOP are noted for their stances on evolution and global warming catastrophe because everybody takes every opportunity to quiz them on those subjects – it being a good way to get a potentially damaging sound bite. They must either alienate their own base, or the independents, or look shifty by dodging the question. Do you often get interviewers forcing such alienating statements from senior Democrats on pesticides or nuclear power? I’m sure you can point to some, but do they occur as often?
We also need to look at policy. Despite their long time reputation for disagreeing with evolution, it is the one mandated to be taught in schools. When the Republicans were last in power, under Bush, their official policy was that they believed in global warming as a problem, and they gave funds (unenthusiastically, I agree) to the UN IPCC, funded climate research, sent negotiators, etc. (Actually, I reckon that up until very recently the official policy of both parties was pretty much identical, and well summarised by the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Only the rhetoric was different.) Conversely, when it comes to pesticides and food additives and radiation regulation, we find piles of government regulations, restrictions, and bureaucracies to enforce the fear. The Democrat hierarchy don’t need to make high-profile statements on it because it’s already in place and taken for granted.
With the advent of the Tea Party, GOP policy has started to shift away from fear of AGW, with some funding being cut. I would argue that this is only because they now see scepticism as the more scientific position, with all that has been learnt in the meantime. While I’m sure you wouldn’t accept that as true, yet, I hope you could see that from our point of view, AGW-doom would actually be another point for our side, where the left are being anti-science, and in this case the party hierarchy are too. Time will tell.
If Obama was pro-nuclear, and genuinely believed in AGW doom, then there ought to be a couple of hundred nuclear plants under construction in order to transition as quickly as possible. (I think you need about 400 to supply your electricity needs, and they last about 40 years, so 100/decade would seem about right.) If France could do it, I’m sure the US has the capability. Getting rid of some of the disproportionate safety/planning regulation would be helpful, too. So, is Obama’s pro-nuclear stance rhetoric, or policy?
Green’s rejoinder has almost no merit. The issues he lists are entirely about technologies derived from science that are properly subjected to regulatory review.
Keith, you failed to cite the main point of false equivalency in Mooney’s post:
“When this kind of thing gets pointed out, there is one response you can count on: Someone tries to show that liberals do the same thing. This typically involves finding a few relatively fringe things that some progressives cling to that might be labeled anti-scientific. But usually, the allegedly anti-science position is not mainstream or has relatively little political influence. Sometimes, the argument is even weaker still, because science-related policy disagreements are confused with cases of science rejection, ignoring a very basic distinction that is central to any discussion in this area.”
I agree that there are a lot of wingnuts out there all over the political landscape bunking science. However, the Right pushes deregulation on pesticides, drugs, and just about everything else, using junk science to justify it. Lying about the reality of global warming is just their most serious example. I know right-wingers who buy into all kinds of absurb rubish, like chemtrails, and the anti-vaccine crusade. You can’t generalize left/right with any of these. But you can point to right-wingers fighting anti-global warming legislation a the worst offenders because they pour tens of millions a year into promoting propaganda to combat such legislation. It is the defining issue of this century and they are quite deliberately on the wrong side of it.
Keith: “So when looked at this way, there is no equivalence in anti-science attitudes between establishment Republicans and Democrats”“as reflected in the kinds of science-related issues that are now fixtures in the political landscape. It’s pretty clear which party is getting the anti-science reputation and why.”
Keith if this is what you believe then how can you also say that Green’s rejoinder has “merit”? It was largely a BS filled rant. Doesn’t say much for AEI that he works for them (but I don’t expect much of them).
Keith,
Only left-justified comments at SP provide comment links under day/time. Unfortunately, they crop all previous comments and only display following ones. Nested comments don’t have a link.
The population as a whole is not scientifically trained. The problem isn’t that people who vote Republican hold views that are unsupportable scientifically or run counter to scientific evidence, this is entirely expected.
The problem is some of those views are so pervasive they will not really consider you “one of them” if you don’t also hold those views and you’ll find it very difficult to get elected unless you also hold them.
You can try to pick any issue you want be it healing crystals, vaccinations or whatever and sure you’ll find people that vote Democrat that believe it. What’s much harder to find is an issue where you must reject science in order to be a “good Democrat”. I can’t think of any but there are several for the Republicans.
Rather than trying to pretend everyone does it the Republican party would do better to clean up its mess. These are not value issues where it could be considered acceptable to hold one position or the other depending, these are matters of fact and evidence where there is a “correct” and “incorrect” position.
@1
Nice mischaracterization of the dynamic. Republican politicians who are religious conservatives need no prodding from pesky Democrats or reporters to trumpet their views about creationism, climate change, stem cells, etc.. As you acknowledge, that is their base.
Lou (4),
Because the Left is known for its own ant-science positions on such issues as nuclear power, GMO’s, vaccines, etc. But you don’t see that reflected in Democratic policies or rhetoric. Hence the false equivalency.
53% of Republicans believe global warming is happening, according to the recent Yale survey, and 18% don’t know. How pervasive a shibboleth is it, really?
And while we might agree that these are matters of fact and evidence, we disagree on who the scientific evidence supports and who is “correct”. While there’s no point in us each trying to convince the other which side is the scientifically supportable one, I think it dangerous to say that only particular views are “acceptable”. The US practices freedom of belief and freedom of expression, and that doesn’t just apply to religion. Remember, any limits on acceptability of opinion can be applied the other way too, when Republicans are in the ascendant. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Keith (7): This is where I read the false equivalency –“Sometimes, the argument is even weaker still, because science-related policy disagreements are confused with cases of science rejection” per Mooney
On nuclear power, GMOs and vaccines I regard these as “science-related policy disagreements” or disagreements on how science is applied and not on the science itself. As Mooney says, there is a difference.
#7,
“Republican politicians who are religious conservatives need no prodding from pesky Democrats or reporters to trumpet their views about creationism, climate change, stem cells, etc.”
Some don’t, most have more important issues to discuss.
#9,
“disagreements on how science is applied and not on the science itself”
I’m not sure I see the distinction you’re making. Science says GMOs, pesticides, food additives, nuclear power stations, etc. are safe – are you saying that all the anti-GMO, anti-nuclear protestors also agree that they are safe and beneficial, they just disagree about how these perfectly safe technologies are to be applied? Why?
Lou (9)
I disagree.
While Nullius, like Green, downplays the ascendant anti-science attitudes of the Republican party, he is correct in his response to you.
“53% of Republicans believe global warming is happening, according to the recent Yale survey, and 18% don’t know. How pervasive a shibboleth is it, really?”
What matters is which group is in control of the political and policy making machine. Even if we accept those numbers it’s still clear the remaining 47% control who gets elected.
How? Because they’ve managed to convince the rest their choice is between an extremist that’s at least partially on their side and an extremist that wants to destroy America. They’ve managed to convince the Republican voting block that all the candidates are extremists of some variety, just that some are for them and some are against them.
We see the same strategy being employed here: They’re trying to pretend all the political candidates are against science in some way, just that some are for them and some are against them
“And while we might agree that these are matters of fact and evidence, we disagree on who the scientific evidence supports and who is “correct”. “
We have a very good idea of what the scientifically supportable view is on a range of topics. On climate change we know that “There is no warming”, “There is warming but we’re in no way responsible” and “Warming will likely be good for us” are not scientifically supportable views yet these views dominate in Republican voters and most especially in their candidates.
We also know that “Evolution is scientifically controversial” and “Intelligent Design is a scientific theory” are not scientifically supportable views but the same applies.
“I think it dangerous to say that only particular views are “acceptable” “
I disagree. Some views are frankly bullshit and should be labelled as such. I feel no need to pat people on the head and tell them what a good boy they are just for having an opinion.
If someone tells me 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush administration I tell them they’re talking bullshit, I don’t nod and say “Well both viewpoints have merit”
“The US practices freedom of belief and freedom of expression, and that doesn’t just apply to religion.””
The real world however does not. When you make policy predicated on reality working a certain way you better be sure it does work that way. If you’re going to burn fossil fuels right down to the last drop you can scrape out of the ground you’d better hope both that some sort of replacement is going to show up without you having to do anything and that you’re not doing irreversible harm to your own interests.
“Remember, any limits on acceptability of opinion can be applied the other way too, when Republicans are in the ascendant. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
I have literally no idea what this even means – if a viewpoint has genuine merit (as defined by good evidence to support it) then that’s fine regardless of politics. The problem is when politics, not evidence, becomes an overriding concern and this is the face of the Republican party today. You can either try to defend that because you don’t know how to fix it or the 53% (or whatever number) can say no more and take their party back.
Re: 12
“What matters is which group is in control of the political and policy making machine. Even if we accept those numbers it’s still clear the remaining 47% control who gets elected.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress
“I think it dangerous to say that only particular views are “acceptable” “
It’s dangerous to conflate climate science with climate policy and then imply if you disagree with the latter you don’t believe in the scientific method and must think climatologists are witches and are basically a mouth breathing bumpkin.
“It’s dangerous to conflate climate science with climate policy and then imply if you disagree with the latter you don’t believe in the scientific method and must think climatologists are witches and are basically a mouth breathing bumpkin.”
Hey great and when the debate is dominate by people that accept the facts but disagree over policy you’ll have a point. At the moment we have a large group of people that have decided what policy they want first and that any facts inconvenient for that policy are produced by a corrupt global conspiracy of scientists. That same group are also harassing working scientists by a variety of means trying to ensure they stop producing facts inconvenient to that policy.
The various Republican candidates do not accept climate science but disagree over policy. They reject climate science in its entirety just as they reject modern biology.
I would disagree with many of the characterizations here of opposition to certain technologies as anti-science, nor even to say that they are of the political left (many such impulses are deeply conservative). These are often risk management issues, not science-based policies. Science never says that things are “safe”, it gives guidance as to the potential impacts via certain pathways, and even then there is often great uncertainty over science’s ability to measure such things. Approaches to precaution are political- how do we deal with uncertainty?
To say that German opposition to pesticides in food means that they are anti-science would be grossly misleading. Likewise, the military planning procedures generally hedge on the side of precaution, even when information is wholly incomplete. So are we anti-science, too? Of course not, it’s poor wording and determination that truth only exists on one side, when in fact risk decisions are deeply political and reflect different values.
#12,
For those of us heavily involved in the climate debate – and for all I know, Democrats as well – who believes what on global warming seems to have great significance. But from what I can see of debates between actual Republicans (which I’m not), the primary issues are all about economic policy. Nobody cares about global warming, except to the extent that it is yet another ineffective waste of time and money. Nobody cares about their politicians believing in it, except to the extent they see it as buying into the opposition’s wasteful economic policies. They’d be quite happy with a default Byrd-Hagel-like policy.
Several of the positions you impute to Republicans and their candidates I’m pretty sure they don’t actually follow. These appear to be strawman versions, based on anti-Republican propaganda and stereotyped assumptions. The sceptical understanding of climate science, even down at the political end, is usually a bit more sophisticated and nuanced than that.
There is a whole spectrum of climate claims, ranging from basic physics through to scary predictions of imminent catastrophe. There is a constant effort on the part of believers to conflate the claims – so that accepting the basic physics is taken to imply the catastrophic predictions, and disagreement with the catastrophe is interpreted as denial of the basic physics.
There is some basic physics that is well-supported by science, some longer range extrapolations and predictions that are at least plausible but are not at all well supported, and a whole lot of catastrophism that is directly contrary to the scientific evidence, and yet which believers seem in the main quite happy to tolerate.
Rejecting the catastrophism, and expressing doubt about the extrapolations is not unscientific. It does not constitute a rejection of the basic physics, or of science generally. And Republican politicians and voters are no more required to have the scientific expertise to make such judgements on this or any other topic than their counterparts.
By exactly the same principle, I accept the right of Democrats to believe in unscientific predictions of global doom, and to incorporate them into their political platform, if they so choose. I’ll argue that they’re incorrect and unsupported by science, but I won’t argue that your policies must all be consistent with science as I understand it to be “acceptable”. It’s none of my business what you believe.
Freedom of belief must also require the freedom to believe things that are incorrect. Because they might not be incorrect, and we’ll never find out if nobody is allowed to disagree. That’s a basic principle of science, too.
Allow me to paraphrase:
At the moment we have a large group of people that have decided what policy they want first and that any facts inconvenient for that policy are produced by a corrupt global conspiracy of oil executives and creationist nut bars when the fact is that any serious mitigation strategy is politically and economically untenable no matter who’s in charge. As I pointed out above, in the 110th congress Democrats controlled both houses AND had a Democratic president who promised to slow the rising seas and there still wasn’t any policy passed.
I agree that Michelle Bachman is an idiot but it’s not her fault there isn’t any significant climate policy in place.
I actually think mentions of global warming in political discussion on both sides of the aisle have pretty much reached the level of ‘whirled peas’ in beauty competitions. We are seeing salutes to conventional wisdom both for an against, not engagement. And certainly no thought on the part of Republican candidates.
#15
“Nobody cares about global warming, except to the extent that it is yet another ineffective waste of time and money”
I don’t see how an admission that the alternative proposed by Republicans to “doing something about climate change” is “doing nothing about climate change” really helps your case.
“Freedom of belief must also require the freedom to believe things that are incorrect.”
I didn’t say there weren’t free to believe incorrect things, I said that incorrect things should be labelled precisely that.
The problem for the modern Republican party is that in the throes of a number of incorrect beliefs which make its policies increasingly irrelevant or dangerous to the real world. If you think that’s “anti-Republican propaganda” then I have no option but to tell you that you’re part of the problem.
lou Says:
September 24th, 2011 at 8:32 am
<i>On nuclear power, GMOs and vaccines I regard these as “science-related policy disagreements” or disagreements on how science is applied and not on the science itself.</i>
And so do I, but I’m a died in the wool hard core republican.
But in the efficient and sometimes lazy human mind the friend or foe identification mechanism tosses anyone who is a foe in any attribute into a giant great heap called ‘foe’ and no further examination is required.
Statements like ‘Republicans are anti-science’ are shear intellectual laziness. To democrats they are foes, and some of them have some ideas that don’t coincide with currently accepted science. So that great friend or foe identification mechanism in the human mind that we all need for basic survival transforms them all into ‘anti-science’ because it is efficient/lazy to do so.
Politico’s love to indulge in taking advantage of the ‘friend or foe’ identification mechanism.
Nothing better then creating an ‘us’ vs ‘them’ to keep those campaign coffers full.
Creationism of intelligent design is a ‘friend or foe’ identification tag for Evangelical Christians and Atheists.
The last I checked…atheists are a relatively small group in the US. http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Insuring one ends up being labeled as ‘friend’ by the evangelical Christians at the cost of being labeled ‘foe’ by atheists seems to make for good political math.
I seem to remember Jimmy Carter was an evangelical christian.
# 18
The problem for the Republican Party is that it is in the throes of a number of incorrect beliefs which make its policies increasingly irrelevant or dangerous to the real world.
I agree that too many Republicans incorrectly doubt evolution, it makes them look obtuse.
I agree that any policy they have on this is irrelevant; teaching evolution continues in all states the last I saw so who cares what they think?
I disagree that this is dangerous. Their fulminations on creationism are going nowhere & no matter what proclamations are issued by Republicans, they will not win on this.
The concern Democrats better have is on the economy & the national debt. That is where the next election will be won and the Democrats are vulnerable. The vast middle doesn’t give a hoot about the anti-science issue & while talking about this may make the Left feel superior, it will be next to useless on Election Day.
“I don’t see how an admission that the alternative proposed by Republicans to “doing something about climate change” is “doing nothing about climate change” really helps your case.”
The alternative – as expressed by the Byrd-Hagel resolution, used to be that they’ll only do something about it if it’s going to be effective – useless gestures that will have no appreciable effect on the climate but which are enormously expensive are a misuse of taxpayers’ money, and they won’t take part in them.
Nowadays, it is starting to shift towards “nothing needs to be done about climate change”. That’s a somewhat different position too, and not contradicted by the science either.
“I didn’t say there weren’t free to believe incorrect things, I said that incorrect things should be labelled precisely that.”
I won’t argue about whether that was what you said, I’ll just express agreement. That’s what we’re doing, too.
“The alternative ““ as expressed by the Byrd-Hagel resolution, used to be that they’ll only do something about it if it’s going to be effective ““ useless gestures that will have no appreciable effect on the climate but which are enormously expensive are a misuse of taxpayers’ money, and they won’t take part in them.”
Imagine applying the same logic to the space race or the development of the nuclear bomb. You won’t fund such a thing until the technology already exists to do it. You can easily see that in those situations a refusal to take action prohibits the certainty you require from ever arising. “When NASA knows how to go to the moon then I’ll fund them to figure out how to go to the moon”.
Solar, wind, tidal and other alternatives will never improve unless they’re funded, deployed and developed. Technologies to improve energy efficiency need widespread acceptance to make them effective, the folks that turn on all the lights in their house during Earth hour need not apply.
# 21
Imagine applying the same logic to the space race or the development of the nuclear bomb. You won’t fund such a thing until the technology already exists to do it. You can easily see that in those situations a refusal to take action prohibits the certainty you require from ever arising.
Agreed, this is why the Precautionary Principle is so dopey….
It wasn’t a question of technology, it was a question of international political will. You do know about Byrd-Hagel, don’t you?
We already have the technology. If they truly thought it was an emergency and the aim was to reduce carbon emission, (as opposed to wealth transfer or dismantling the industrial West,) then the obvious policy would be to transition to nuclear fast breeders as fast as possible. The fact that they haven’t even considered it speaks volumes.
I have been in plenty of battles on the left with anti-science lies about the fundamentals of the technology. And it is touching policy in the mainstream. Leftie foodies are hearing and acting on a wide range of information that is as flawed as creationism, and they use fringy paper of the quality of climate deniers to support their case in exactly the same manner.
I was in a major dispute with a foodie pundit (who circles in the grist/Nestle/Pollan group) about the Global Food Security bill. She was all bent out of shape that the word “biotechnology” had been added to the bill text, and made a range of ridiculous claims about the meaning of that. She was urging people to call Congress to block this bill.
The bill’s author had to make a statement to his colleagues about the misrepresentations that were being spread.
http://lugar.senate.gov/food/legislation/
“It has come to my attention that you may be receiving letters regarding S. 384, the Global Food Security Act, introduced by Senator Casey and myself, that misrepresent one of its provisions….Let me be clear. The bill does not require the use of GM technology by any farmers, implementing partners or government agencies. It does not condition the receipt of food aid on a recipient country’s adoption of GM. The use of any technology must ultimately be left to individual farmers based on their particular circumstances.”
They are so pulling anti-science rejection levers and using it against policy.
If we all took homeopathic remedies for our dyspeptic natures, I’m sure we could have a more placid conversation.
I don’t get this debate. General science knowledge in the US is very very poor. Mass ignorance does not discriminate between political groups, race, color, creed or previous condition of servitude.
While social and soft science tends to be left leaning and engineering and hard science tends to be right leaning, these groups are extreme minorities in society. The anti-science and science ignorant majority use their political and religious bias to shade their personal mythos of the world. As previously mentioned, there is a wide overlap between the political poles and shared fairy-tale sciency beliefs and conspiracy theories.
The real nutjobs think either the left or right owns ignorance.
Well I’m going to go ahead and vote for Howard for comment of the day.
Tom Fuller Says:
September 24th, 2011 at 1:27 pm If we all took homeopathic remedies for our dyspeptic natures, I’m sure we could have a more placid conversation.
LoL….would also help to give the greens what they want re polulation. I do believe quite a few of them would welcome the increased death rate by using remedies that were “natural” 🙂
# 26
Agreed.
Re. 25
Yes, let’s all relax with a nice cup of jasmine tea. But not too much:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=124944&page=1
#21
Solar, wind, tidal and other alternatives will never improve unless they’re funded, deployed and developed.
I understand there is very little that can be done to improve the efficiency of wind, tidal, bioenergy, geothermal etc. Props and turbines have been worked on for over a century. The only thing you can do to “improve” is to build more and build bigger.
The Chinese are pushing down the price of solar cells but also there further big improvements in efficiency seem unlikely.
Technologies to improve energy efficiency need widespread acceptance to make them effective
Not quite. They just need to work, save money and people will use them. BS awareness messages (my phone tells me to disconnect the charger, which really saves nothing) don’t work.
10 Nublius: “I’m not sure I see the distinction you’re making. Science says GMOs, pesticides, food additives, nuclear power stations, etc. are safe ““ are you saying that all the anti-GMO, anti-nuclear protestors also agree that they are safe and beneficial, they just disagree about how these perfectly safe technologies are to be applied? Why?”
Science “says” nothing of the sort. The science itself is neutral. It is the scientists, engineers, chemists, agriculturalists, food safety experts, etc. plus regulators, politicians, and lobbyists who interpret and decide via regulatory processes how to attribute health and environmental risks, costs and benefits to such technologies. Current knowledge derived from scientific methodologies are key ingredients in the process. But, in no way shape or form are these technologies “science”. This is the distinction. “Safety” as you apply the term to broad categories of products and technologies is not granted in perpetuity to these technologies just because our current set of knowledge and regulators determine they are “safe”. There are potential problems outside of the limited view of safety to humans that seems to be circumscribed in this discussion. And recent performances of some of these technologies would beg your interpretation of safety.
# 34
Precautionary Principle alert!
Hmm…I can’t comment at Chris’ place because I’m not on facebook, so I’ll have to do so here:
Here’s another leftie topic that appears not to have been chased out of the realm of polite discourse, although it is deeply anti-science to the core:
http://www.neurope.eu/blog/meps-vote-spend-2-million-homeopathy-animals
MEPs vote to spend €2 million on homeopathy for animals
Jarmo at #33, I believe you have vastly overestimated past progress on improving the efficiency of solar, wind, tidal, bioenergy and geothermal.
There are very large spheres of possible improvement in each. Should work continue on each of them, they will continue to improve dramatically.
I am closest to solar in terms of my acquaintanceship with the relevant technologies, and I can assure you that there are already identified potential improvements that will bring the cost of solar energy to grid parity without subsidy within this decade.
#37
Bringing down the cost of solar I agree with. But wind, for example, what can you improve in a wind turbine that will increase its efficiency significantly?
#37,
Yes, it was predicted for “a few months” in 2009, I believe. Parity by 2013 according to a statement made in 2010. By 2016 in a study done in 2011. Within the current decade now. I look forward to it.
So, given that it’s going to be viable without subsidy in a few years, there shouldn’t be any need for them to be promising long-term subsidy support for them to be installed now. Yes? It doesn’t make much sense to be paying over the odds for something you know is going to be far cheaper in a few years. Or so it seems to me.
But I’m all in favour of it, when it happens. I suspect that when it does, they’ll find some other excuse to stop it. Cheap, clean energy would entirely spoil the point. 🙂
Hi Jarmo
I have had some conversations with people heavily involved in wind turbine technology. There is scope for large-scale improvement in several principal areas:
Siting–we are putting them up in places that are easy to reach, not areas that yield the most revolutions per minute.
Orientation of the blades and even the entire turbine–we are not using best practice to get efficiency.
Materials–we’re apparently not using best of breed.
Maintenance–we’re not building ease of maintenance into the design.
Interaction with the entire grid. Siting in conjunction with hyrdropower seems to provide the best opportunity of getting maximum benefit from wind. We’re not doing a good job with that at the moment.
#39, actually I think I was one of the first to predict it for 2015 in a report I wrote for a research company last year. I’ll stand by that date with a few caveats:
Grid parity is different in different locations. I’d extend and revise my remarks to say that solar will reach grid parity for good solar locations that serve more than half the population.
Grid parity to me also means working within the existing infrastructure to certain limits that are inherent to that structure. Solar should never be expected to provide more than 25%-30% of electricity, for reasons we’re all familiar with.
Sudden withdrawal of support for solar could push that date back. They still need to ramp up to take advantage of savings from scale, and to go through two more generations of fab building to get more efficient modules. There also has to be incentive for continued innovation for balance of systems components, and to induce adequate evaluation of new parts of those systems (esp. inverters) to have them recognized as adequate for systems designed to last 20 years and longer.
But yeah, if we don’t pull the plug on the whole venture, I’ll stand by 2015.
#40,
Jolly good. And what are they doing about intermittency (winds too high or too low can’t be used), transmission (hundreds of miles of power lines out to remote areas), storage/backup (to fill in the gaps when they’re not operating), safety/reliability (they can be dangerous if they ice up, or collapse), recycling (the construction materials are not easy to dispose of, and nobody is responsible for cleaning them up at the end of their useful life), the noise (there are many reports that it is beyond annoying), and the effect on wildlife (thousands of endangered birds and bats getting killed)?
#40
Tom, we are apparently talking past each other. What I am talking about is the efficiency of existing turbines in capturing energy from wind in optimal conditions. They are quite close to the maximum formulated by Betz’ law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27_law
All the things you mention will bring wind turbines closer to the max efficiency (Betz limit). But not beyond.
#41,
Good. Truly, I look forward to it.
#41
Solar should never be expected to provide more than 25%-30% of electricity, for reasons we’re all familiar with.
You know, they are saying the same thing about wind in the only location where wind energy reaches 20% of electricity production, Denmark.
Denmark is in an ideal location because they can dump the excess wind energy to the pump reservoirs of Sweden and Norway. Still, there are problems.
What do you think, what is the limit when you have both solar and wind production?
Hi Jarmo, I think you’re right that we’re talking a bit past each other. I think that wind can become vastly more efficient physically and vastly more effective in terms of cost/performance ratios. But you’re absolutely right about the physical limits to wind power–no question. I would question whether we are really that close to those limits in the field. My point is that we can do it all a lot more efficiently, not that we can violate the laws of physics.
Getting back to the jist of Keith’s post, Howard at #28 is still winning…….
ChadB (15):
I agree that the anti-science term is being too broadly applied in this debate.
In actuality, it is religious or cultural or political values that determine positions on evolution, GMO’s, nuclear power, climate change et al that are in opposition to established science.
Howard @ 28,
The average Joe is generally ignorant of science, whether he is conservative or liberal. That is not relevant to the issue, which is why is the LEADERSHIP of the Republican Party predominantly anti-science in contrast with the leadership of the Democratic Party, that does not denigrate the results of scientific research and its value.
@Tom Fuller,
<i>Siting in conjunction with hyrdropower seems to provide the best opportunity of getting maximum benefit from wind. We’re not doing a good job with that at the moment.</i>
You haven’t visited Washington or Oregon or the Columbia River Valley lately have you. We have windmill carpet. The problem being that hydro and wind have a high correlation. Who would have thought that ‘wind and rain’ go together.
In June our nuclear was offline, all our fossil was offline, we were exporting power to California and anyone else who would take excess power at a price of ZERO(5+ GW/hr).yes ZERO.. and spilling water over the hydro dams at the maximum rate allowed under the Endangered Species Act.
The ability of the US Hydro-power system, which is for the most part in the Pacific Northwest to load balance any more windmills is questionable as least without liberal usage of DSO216’s and a lot more transmission capability. (Who is going to pay for 1,000 mile multi GW transmission lines?)
Come to Washington Tom, I’ll take you on a tour of ‘Windmill Alley’ on a scooter and you can experience for yourself the absolute terror excitement of riding thru the wake turbulance those things.
Apparently Harryw2 never got the memo to Internet commenters about not having to back up comments with evidence. Always interesting to read, kudos sir.
Hiya Harry
I’ll take you up on your offer for a scooter ride next time I’m in your neck of the woods!
What I had in mind was more like this:
“A critical challenge for some renewable power systems is providing backup power or power storage. Better power storage will foster adoption of intermittent renewable power sources (and to help shift base load to peak load
requirements). One of the best, “˜all renewable’ options has been pumped hydro storage. which enables reliable power supplies using intermittent power sources (like wind). But, hydro storage has been mainly limited to places with existing (or easily created) hydroelectric power systems (dams).
Bravo Keith… Bravo.
“Green is essentially saying that the anti-science manifestation on the Left (masked as pseudo-science) is different than that on the Right (which is outright rejection of established science).”
The “outright rejection of established science”?
Really?
When you put it in such hopelessly simplistic black-white terms, your partisanship makes everything else you say laughable.
I simply don’t get why some people reject what seems to me to be the obvious reality of evolution. It is happening as we speak, eg. the evolution of drug resistance pathogens, pestiocide resistant pests, etc. Seems even the most fundamentalist religious type could at least see it as ‘God’s method’ if they need that angle.
But the constant attempt to link the evolution issue to AGW is entirely bogus, albeit convenient.
Every time political partisanship is injected into this – which seems to be rather frequent here these days – it confirms that the AGW issue has nothing to do with real science… in case anyone did not already know that.
#48 – “In actuality, it is religious or cultural or political values that determine positions on evolution, GMO’s, nuclear power, climate change et al that are in opposition to established science.”
You are speaking for yourself, Keith.
My conclusions about climate change are based on evidence, particularly the history of our climate… and the case for AGW is not “established science” at all – it is Political Consensus Post-Modern Pseudoscience.
So to sum it up. Keith is providing further evidence that…
Liberals continue to believe Republicans are stupid.
Simplistic lazy identity politics. Enjoy you obvious demonstrated intellectual superiority. What must be really confusing is how all you geniuses lose elections when you have so much superior brain power at your disposal.
If the other side is winning the argument, perhaps the reason is they…are…smarter…than…you. Nahhh, let’s just label them morons and refuse to engage with them on grounds of a snobbish elitist attitude of it being below you.
Q: Climate projections and models are unreliable. A: Republicans are obstructionists and morons.
Q: Economical viability and effectiveness of proposed policy actions. A: Republicans are anti-science.
Q: Wait for better science to evolve before taking action. A: Big oil propaganda has doomed us all to near term tipping points.
Q: Nuclear power is the only proven high capacity clean energy source that can be put on-line quickly. A: Shhhhhh…Liberals never say the N word or else it might cause fractures in the consensus.
Obviously these are anti-science queries and no Democrat would be caught dead bringing up these subjects, right?
This is all just rehashing the “science is settled” argument. Yawn.
In terms of climate change science, the problem is not that there are those who are scientific and those who are not. (I accept that CO2 leads to some warming, how much I don’t know) The problem is that establishment climate science is third rate and that it is undermined by advocacy bias and intolerance. Hansen is[SNIP]. Mann is inept with statistics. (It what is close to a cosmic joke, he TEACHES statistics at Penn State.) No establishment scientists or the CRU have attempted to get to the bottom of either the CRU’s lie to McIntyre or its destruction of data when McIntyre requested CRU data.
You can see first rate science in action with the CERN findings about neutrinos potentially travelling faster than the speed of light. Those who made their findings said that they had a hard time believing them, but that their data was available to others for refutation. Hard to imagine Mann or Hansen doing that.
Examples of third rate scientific practices:
1. When Watts showed that a substantial no. of temperature measuring stations were improperly cited, the correct response of 1st rate scientists would be to say “thank you, we will double check our data?” Instead the establishment immediately went about trying to dispute and disparage Watts.
2. Only third-raters would attempt to use the “denier” innuendo to link those who disagree with establishment science to Nazis. They could use the term rejectionist to label those impervious to objective scientific findings, but they don’t ““ because they are advocates and not first-rate scientists.
3. First rate scientists would be happy to share their data and would investigate episodes of potential data destruction.
JD
[Ranting is one thing; name calling is another, and won’t be tolerated. Additionally, what does your comment have to do with the post?]
“improperly cited” above should be “improperly sited.”
KK, my description of Hansen was accurate, but it is your blog. The point of my post is 3-rd rate science should not be the basis of important public policy. Rejection of 3rd rate science is not nearly as serious as the rejection of 1st rate science and should be discussed in different terms. We have no first-rate science upon which to base policy now for events which may happen 100 years from now.
JD
Keith,
“Additionally, what does your comment have to do with the post?”
It might not be clear, but I think the last few comments here are responding to your classification of “climate change rejectionism” as “high profile anti-science stances”. The point being that blind belief in the claims of climate scientists despite the problems with both the science and the methods and behaviour of the scientists could itself be classed as “anti-science”.
I don’t normally bother to make a point of it any more – it goes without saying that that’s what you believe, that we don’t, and that neither of us is about to change our minds. For the sake of having an interesting discussion, I ignore it. And I was so impressed that you acknowledged any significant pseudoscientific failings on the left (Chris Mooney still refuses to) that I was willing to cut some slack. But still, as you can see, carrying on doing it annoys people.
That’s the nature of the debate, though. There’s not much can be done about it.
To an outsider, this discussion about which political party is more anti-science is amusing.
Politicians want to win elections. Any reference to science they make is made in the sincere belief that it will win votes to them. If your supporters believe that God created the world in 6 days, well, then you don’t promote teaching of evolution as the only true creed at schools.
Here in Finland we have a small religious and conservative party called Christian Democrats. Regarding evolution, they would like to have evolution taught at schools as ” one possible theory” with creationism also presented.
Quite a few candidates from other parties, too, support this. Ratios reflect on the number of religious people in their ranks. Sound familiar?
It’s the same all over the world. The Left parties are equally cavalier in their attitudes when there are votes to be won. I believe it was the murdered Swedish Prime Minister, Olof Palme, a Social Democrat, who reputedly said:
“If the party program and reality conflict… well, too bad for reality.”
Let’s face it: Most people consider science the same way as music or movies. They agree with the stuff they like, whatever fits their lifestyle, world view etc. and disregard the contradictory stuff. Politicians take their cues from their constituency.
PS. To those of you concerned with winning brownie points to either GOP or Democrats, disregard this 😉
Nullius,
The climate change rejectionism I’m referring to is of the Inhofe/Morano/Monckton/Perry variety. You know, the kind where climate change is a hoax, climate scientists are frauds, etc.
Some of the above names beat that drum overtly, and sometimes a little less so. I have suggested to science-oriented skeptics that they’re brand is being tarred and mixed up with the extreme rejectionists in their midsts (known otherwise as the climate “denialists”). They (presumably that includes you) don’t want to hear it.
Funny thing, though, is that we often hear the flipside from the climate skeptics–that the rhetoric of Gore, McKibben, et al symbolizes the AGW cause, for better or worse, too. And maybe not a net plus for the larger debate.
As for your observations about this post, they shouldn’t come as a surprise to you or anyone familiar with this blog. For two years, I’ve repeatedly challenged dubious climate/disaster links, the climate capo mentality of some on the left, and of orthodox environmentalist thinking. This has not been received well by some representative voices in that orbit and their minions.
So when I’m critical of the other side for similar rhetorical excesses, hyper partisanship, etc, surprise, surprise, it’s not received well by conservatives.
The problem with you Nullius is that you use the same tactic as Green.
You downplay the evidence that manifestly demonstrates conservative ideology (at least in the U.S) to be highly associated with positions on evolution, climate change that are antithetical to established science.
The Republican base includes the hugely influential Religious Right and now the Tea Party, which appears to be, in part a Frankenstein creation of conservative evangelicals, social conservatives and libertarians.
The Republican establishment is now equally afraid of and in thrall to this Frankenstein. I wish people like Green would acknowledge this.
the Tea Party, which appears to be, in part a Frankenstein creation of conservative evangelicals, social conservatives and libertarians.
Right. That’s why they are called the Tea Party. Doesn’t have anything to do with taxes, limited government, free markets… Naahh, just superstitous ignoramouses.
Keith, methinks you suffer Tea Party syndrome.
KK “You downplay the evidence that manifestly demonstrates conservative ideology (at least in the U.S) to be highly associated with positions on evolution, climate change that are antithetical to established science.”
Your mistake in this quote was the point of my original post. Evolutionary science is the substantial product of first-rate science. Hansenite climate science is third-rate. The two cannot be compared. The truth of evolution has been proven time and again by multiple sources without an agenda. The same is not true of climate science.
The true Frankenstein is not the Tea Party, but James Hansen who would violate human rights ( by ex post facto prosecution of those who oppose him) and who has ridiculously likened coal cars to Nazi death trains.
JD
To reinforce JD’s point, the high-profile resignations and protests of eminent scientists over climate change orthodoxy clearly indicates that there is something different (and rotten) about contemporary climate science. There is nothing simlar going on in other scientific fields.
JD #64: IMO, evolution has been proved by the sufficiency of the fossil record – I don’t believe anyone can reasonably look at that, especially being aware of dating techniques, and question that evolution has occurred over long time periods.
However, as to whether Darwinism is an adequate and comprehensive explanation, that’s a different matter; I think there’s some pretty ropey evidence on that front. I also think it’s a problem that some people (I’m not including you as I’m not clear what your stance is) don’t differentiate.
I’m someone who accepts evolution over billions of years, but is sceptical about certain aspects of Darwinism.
There is a version of ID that allows for evolution; I don’t know if it’s true, but I find it intriguing. To draw an analogy, we often speak of the “evolution” of some human invention, such as the bicycle. If we look in the “fossil record”, so to speak, we will find when the penny farthing arose, when the bike with equal sized wheels, when the various parts of the bike – types of brakes and gears, for example. No one would say that bikes in all their spendid variation were created by human beings in six days. It could be said, in a manner of speaking, that bikes have evolved, radiated, adapted, been selected for according to circumstance.
What has actually evolved in relation to bikes, of course, is the human mind. A mind that isn’t perfect, infallible, omniscient or omnipotent. A mind that learns and is able to instantiate new ideas in the phenomenal world taking advantage of laws and mechanisms.
Who is to say there isn’t some cosmic intelligence that, whilst it is vastly more capable than we are, is also not omniscient and omnipotent, and is learning as it goes along, instantiating new “ideas” (e.g. macroevolutionary changes) in the phenomenal world? Like us, it wouldn’t use magic, but follow laws, maybe some of which human beings have yet to imagine, let alone discover.
I don’t see why people should be hostile to such a possibility. I don’t see why it’s unscientific, upon observing how human artefacts “evolve”, to hypothesise that something similar might apply at a higher level of complexity.
It’s hard to understand in detail, without the usual airbrushing out of gaps in the fossil record, how macroevolutionary changes might have occurred. It’s conceivable, indeed quite likely, that microevolution (maybe at genus level and below) has occurred and continues to occur by natural selection; because organisms, unlike human artefacts, indubitably have a certain amount of intrinsic ability to change and adapt to circumstances via genetic mechanisms.
Bicycles don’t have an analogous ability, of course. We aren’t clever enough yet to build it into our inventions. I suppose the nearest we get at present is in computer software. But I reflect on this: if we ever do get clever enough to invent things that have some limited degree of ability to change in response to environmental circumstances, how ironic it would then be if they asserted they came into existence without the help of a more intelligent precursor.
KK “You downplay the evidence that manifestly demonstrates conservative ideology (at least in the U.S) to be highly associated with positions on evolution, climate change that are antithetical to established science.”
I’ve been a conservative Republican and weekly churchgoer since the mid 80s’. I know a bunch of Tea Partiers. So far as I know, I’ve never met anyone who doubts evolution and I’ve certainly never met anyone for whom it’s an issue. Ever. I’m not saying they don’t exist, I’m saying I’ve been in meetings with some really conservative folks – far more conservative than I – where we’ve talked about religion and politics and the issue has never, ever, come up. So, when I see posts like this, I wonder if you’ve ever actually met an actual Republican – not your cousin’s uncle who claims he used to be a Republican but he campaigns for Ralph Nader every four years (but only because the GOP has shifted to the right of Nader, of course). Here’s a hint, the Revs are just as active in the GOP as they are in the Democratic Party (ask Rev. Jackson and Sharpton) and the GOP would be quite happy to build clean energy that works- even subsidize it. If you doubt that, read Greenpeace’s press releases attacking the GOP over nuclear power.
When the Democrats actually care about global warming- care enough to do something that works rather than simply demagogue it – action will happen.
Jeffn,
Your anecdotal experiences aside, are you saying that the Religious Right is not an important and influential base of the Republican party? Are you not aware of the “family values” plank that every Republican Presidential candidate must now swear allegiance to?
As to your last point–yes, I agree that Democrats would be better off working towards solutions (such as enhanced build-out of nuclear) than demagogueing the climate issue.
KK- I think the Religious Right is one base of many and if you have spent any time reading conservative publications you are aware of the tension between “social conservatives” and “economic conservatives.”
I’m more of the latter, but I’ve hung out with both and have never, ever heard anyone bemoaning the ongoing teaching of evolution in America. Ever. I’ve heard conservatives make fun of the Religious Right which is probably why those organizations have gone bankrupt. But if they’re your bogeyman, have at it, just don’t be surprised when the complaint doesn’t resonate.
I think this is political theater – like poking Clinton to have his “sistah soulja moment.”
It’s also really bad strategy- but only if you’re concerned about GHG emissions. There are bi-partisan solutions to emissions that could be pursued tomorrow. But instead we see an effort to make it a partisan wedge issue. Well, check the polls on that- I don’t see them in your favor.
“The climate change rejectionism I’m referring to is of the Inhofe/Morano/Monckton/Perry variety. You know, the kind where climate change is a hoax, climate scientists are frauds, etc.”
That’s just politicians being politicians. I agree they can cause us some problems, but that’s just the way the world is. We have a whole spectrum on both sides of the debate, from the scientific and educated to the crude and ignorant, and I have absolutely no problem with admitting that we have as much of that on our side as there is on yours. What I argue with is the claims that we only have idiots on our side and you only have the educated on yours.
People like Gore and Inhofe are both strengths and weaknesses. Just as their own side take advantage of their strengths (and there’s no doubt Gore has been very positive overall for the AGW movement), so the other side inevitably pick on their weaknesses. I usually don’t bother myself – the targets are too easy to be interesting – but I’m not bothered about it.
Personally, I quite like it when people try to say I’m a science-ignorant idiot – it makes the contrast even more delicious and effective when it becomes obvious to everyone watching that I’m not.
“As for your observations about this post, they shouldn’t come as a surprise to you or anyone familiar with this blog.”
True. I don’t have a problem with the way you approach it, and you’re a lot more open to debate than most I’ve come across. As far as that goes, I’ll praise you to the skies. But not everybody has been reading you for two years, and when people drop by for the first time, they often respond to immediate impressions. I was just explaining what the responses had to do with your post, not saying you needed to do anything about it.
“You downplay the evidence that manifestly demonstrates conservative ideology (at least in the U.S) to be highly associated with positions on evolution, climate change that are antithetical to established science.”
Their political allegiances are irrelevant to me. Mostly, I’m here to argue climate science, not parochial politics. I’m not a Republican, I’m not religious, I don’t care what they think, or need them to be right. Steve McIntyre describes his politics as “Clinton Democrat” and I’ll still cheerfully defend his science. Bringing people’s politics or religion into the debate about the science is ad hominem as far as I’m concerned. Although it’s fair enough in a debate about the politics.
(And as far as the politics goes, I’d say that while US Democrats are fairly solidly on one side, Republicans are split. It’s something they’re aware of, but not nearly so much of an issue for them. But that’s just my anecdotal impression, having talked to a few.)
I will agree with you, in a sense, that they are antithetical to established science; but only because I’m careful to distinguish science from the scientific establishment. I support the former, and not the latter. The scientific establishment – all the funding committees and scientific panels and reputations and seniority and authority and whatnot – that’s all argumentum ad verecundiam. Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Nullius in Verba.
The confusion between what science says and what scientists say is at the heart of this “anti-science” argument. We do not consider disagreeing with scientists to be “anti-science”. We do consider accepting claims as scientific without evidence, and glossing over or ignoring bad practice in the way science is done to be “anti-science”. Science is the journey, not the destination – the method, not the conclusion.
I don’t really expect either of us to ever persuade the other, but that’s not the point for me. I argue with people who disagree with me to keep my arguments sharp, and to test my beliefs.
You’ll no doubt remember JS Mill on the subject:
“There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.”
[…]
“In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner.”
[http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html]
The whole essay is well worth re-reading. On this point, at least, I think we might agree.
Great Mill quotes. Read this doozy from him the other day and really liked it: “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
Nullius in Verba says,
“I don’t really expect either of us to ever persuade the other, but that’s not the point for me. I argue with people who disagree with me to keep my arguments sharp, and to test my beliefs.”
So you admit that you argue for the sake of argument. This is what I suspected the first time I read one of your posts.
“So you admit that you argue for the sake of argument.”
I argue for the sake of science, and as an application of it.
Nullius,
I have to admit that it sure appears to me that you often argue just for the sake of it. Also, are you aware that you seem to possess a characteristic often attributed to climate scientists by skeptics?
#75,
“I have to admit that it sure appears to me that you often argue just for the sake of it.”
I will admit to mild curiosity as to what I said to make you think that, but it’s not something that worries me one way or the other. No more than I worry about those who think I argue just for the sake of the big fat cheques from Exxon. People’s personal beliefs are their own affair.
What am I supposed to be arguing for the sake of?
“Also, are you aware that you seem to possess a characteristic often attributed to climate scientists by skeptics?”
I’m sure I possess many such properties. So?
[…] here, and here, and elicited responses from both Chris Mooney and environmental journalist/blogger Keith Kloor. Aside from the uninspired personal attacks Mooney seems to find irresistible, the responses to my […]
Nullius in Verba @8
The Pew trust has different figures as of OCT 2010, one year ago.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1780/poll-global-warming-scientists-energy-policies-offshore-drilling-tea-party
Rep Dem Ind TTea
Believe earth is warming
Pew 38% 79% 56%
Yale results 53 78 71 34
Due to human activity
Pew 16 53 32
Yale 36 62 43 19
The Yale survey taken a half year later shows a larger fraction of Republicans and Independents accept the earth is warming than the Pew trust poll, but there is still a substantial gap between Dems and Repubs. The Tea Party members are very low as expected.
The fact is that the Republicans and Tea Party folks show a huge gap between their beliefs and the opinions of scientific experts on this issue according to a number of polls, and analysis of the literature.
The claim by Republican leaders is that the scientists opinions are dictated by grant money although they present no real evidence that backs this idea. From the polls of the public, it seems like politics is correlated with disagreements between the parties. Democratic politicians have said very little about climate change. Most of the political news on this subject is made by Republican politicians who oppose the idea of human caused global warming. It is logical to conclude that Republicans are lead by their political leaders to doubt the science.
#78,
Thank you Eric. Good answer.
The results vary quite a bit from survey to survey. I did waver a bit about which poll to pick, but in the end just went for the first one to come up on Google with a fairly recent date. Presumably Pew combined Tea Party and Republican into one category, which will also affect the numbers. I don’t mind which is used.
I agree that there is a substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans. The question was, is this an issue for which you have to take a particular position “to be a good Republican”. Numbers around 30-50% holding the contrary view suggests that there are good Republicans of either ilk. Even 10-20% is a substantial enough minority not to be ignored.
I agree that there is a huge gap between the views of Republicans and the opinions of scientific experts on this issue.
The claim that scientists opinions are dictated by funding does have some truth to it, but is not such a direct link. Anyone with experience in the grant-chasing business knows that there are fashions and “buzzwords”, where you know that the decision makers have a particular interest. Finding some connection between what you want to do and the latest favoured topic buys your application a more favourable reception. There is also a selection effect – researchers getting the preferred conclusions gets more funding, researchers who don’t or won’t move into other areas. None (or very few) of the scientists who work in the area deliberately did anything to do with the science differently for the sake of getting the funding, but the funding still has an effect.
While I agree that voters’ views are correlated with their party’s, I suspect the causal arrow may be substantially pointing in the other direction. Politicians chase public opinion, and the support of particular voting blocs. (And of course the voting blocs shift their allegiances to the party that best matches their own views, without necessarily changing those views.) Democrats a few years ago went for the Green vote. The Republicans mostly didn’t, although they didn’t want to be seen as being against them, either. Since then, they have seen indications that fashions are about to shift, and the Republicans are positioning themselves ready for the change, while the Democrats have gone very quiet about it all.
The media still haven’t quite caught up, and are gleefully giving the Republicans lots of publicity for their loudly expressed views, thinking it hurts their credibility. Possibly it still does for the moment, but in a few years Republicans will be well-positioned in the public’s minds as having always disagreed with it.
These eco-fads come, and then they go. Republicans no doubt remember the population bomb of the 1960s, when the world would run out of everything by the 1980s and civilisation collapse by 2000. They remember acid raid that was going to wipe out all the forests, and artificial pesticides that were going to shorten everyone’s life-expectancy and kill all the wildlife, and all the rest. I’m sure they remember the early global warming predictions, where the United States would start to become an abandoned desert by the mid to late 1990s.
Global warming has had a good run, and has had more influence than most, but is already starting to creak under stress. Politicians listen out for those signs, and move themselves accordingly.