Does political orientation have an affect on ones belief in global warming?

Question

Does political orientation have an affect on ones belief in global warming?

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

It should have an effect on ones belief in the appropriate response (e.g. government actions, free market actions, individual actions, etc.), but as a scientific issue (it's truth or falsity) political orientation should not have any effect.

However, since most people think with their emotions (evident in many of the posts around here), it's clear it definitely does have an effect.  That's why moderates and independents are the ones most likely to be able to set aside partisanship and look at the evidence without prejudgment.  I don't think anyone that regularly listens to Rush Limbaugh or Randi Rhodes would likely be able to approach the subject with an open mind.

Fortunately, most serious scientists aren't that interested in politics. They much prefer analyzing data or looking through microscopes.

Answer 3

No. Politics don't come into the issue. It is a fact and it does not matter who you vote for,  what religion you believe in or which football team you like. AGW is a reality.

Answer 4

One's belief system is religion whereas political leanings are mostly about money details. Maybe god people are more in favor and antigod people opposed to the idea nature has the most power to change the climate and anything else.

Answer 5

gee, thanks uncle fester.

i hadn't heard the libertarian point of view.

it would appear that they're conservative, only less.

Answer 6

Sure - Liberals tend to be followers, believing people who in authority without question.  If people like the CEO of Wal-Mart, Newt Gingrich, or Pat Roberson make a statement, they tend to believe without question.  These people accept subjective science as fact.  They rather fit in with the crowd, even if they can't see the Emperors clothes.

Conservatives tend to be more individual and think for themselves.  They seek objective science.  They trust math, not a consensus.  They have less fear telling others that they are wrong, that the Emperor isn't wearing clothes.

Answer 7

strictly speaking, nno.  Global warming is a scientific issue, not a political one (what we do about it is a question that involves policy choices, and therefore politics).

There has been a political overtone introduced which hasn't faded quite yet, however.  the surce is well known--in an effort to preserve tehe status quo as long as possible, the fossil fuel industry sepent a great deal of money attempting to discredit global warming and its human origins. They failed, of course. Scientific data aren't determined by rhetoric, but by observation andexperiment and arn't subject--in the long run--to the advocacy of any individual or group.

This did lead to a "political orientation" in a manner of speaking.  The main influence in this regard played out through the "right"--the neoconservatives.  Given that there is a popular association of environmentalism with the liberal political orientation, many on the more extreme right were very willing to believe wha they wanted to believe.  Added t o this is the generally hostility and suspicion of all science on the part of the religious right--and you end up with a correlation between tehose who were "deniers" and politcal affiliation.

This kind of distortion isn't only among the "right," however--you occasionally see it on the liberal ed, as well.  To take a minor example, if you ask virtually any liberal (unless they are a well read sociologist who knows the literature) if spanking a child is acceptable--and they will say no--along with reciting a list of the negative effects, including tha tchildrenn subjected to violence are more likely to be violent when they grow up.

Problem with this is it isn't supported by any evidence--though they mostly think it is.  Early studies did show jsut such a correlation--which is what the whole idea is base don. But later studies showed tha tthe correlation of violence and othe rproblems vanished if the "punishment" was mild, appropriate to specific infractions o f rules--and in a semotionally supportive and healthy family relationship.  The link to violence occurs when a child is abused--but there it is far STRONGEER than it first appeared to be.

But try to tell a liberal that a swat on the behind won't emotionally damage a child!  You'll have as much luck as trying to tell an member of the religius right that Charles Darwin didn't have horns and a tail!

Answer 8

Sure as h**l does.

Answer 9

Unfortunately, yes. There are bad tactics on both sides of the spectrum but the most vocal and shameless misinformers can be found on talk radio programs run by right wing ideologues- Limbaugh, Beck, Ingraham, Medved and their clones.

Also, cons are more likely to have a religious belief in a supreme being who has complete control over the earth and will intervene if it is his will.

Answer 10

Some, but smarts has a whole lot more to do with it.

For example Newt Gingrinch is a Ph.D. with a solid reputation for street smarts:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

The National Review is perhaps the most intellectual major conservative magazine.

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

I doubt this guys politics are liberal:

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

John McCain is no dummy:

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

John McCain, Republican, Senator, Arizona

Etc.

Answer 11

I keep my politics seperate from this issue, since to me it shouldn't be a political issue at this time. Since it's not going to effect anything in the near future or ever effect anything at all.

The only thing the next president should worry about is whether we are cleaning the air we breath and the water we drink.

Answer 12

Obviously!

Most democrats understand man can, and has been proved to, affect his environment, and therefore his fellow man. Armed with that knowledge, democrats are more likely to recognize that action needs to be taken. This reflects a "WE" mentality.

We are all inhabitants of this planet and therefore all responsible for it.

Give us your take on republicans.

Answer 13

It shouldn't - the facts should rule supreme regardless of your political views. But after Inconvenient Truth came out there was widespread support for Al to run for office. That would indicate a strong alliance between the AGW belief and the liberal viewpoint. The corollary to that would be that conservatives are less likely to believe in AGW. AGW belief seems to be a Democrat thing:

“By political party, 86 percent of Democrats and 42 percent of Republicans think global warming will lead to many or some adverse impacts. Fifty-two percent of Republican voters say they foresee no adverse effects, including 42 percent who consider it unproven. On the Democratic side, 12 percent see no adverse effects or consider it unproven.”

This is of course only a sampling from one state, but I suspect others are similar.