Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

The disinformers are winning, but mostly with the GOP

By Joe Romm on March 11, 2010 at 7:26 pm

"The disinformers are winning, but mostly with the GOP"

Share:

google plus icon

New Gallup poll shows sharp partisan divide in understanding of climate change

The partisan divide on climate science has been growing for a while, as I discussed in a 2008 review of the Gallup polling.  No surprise, really, since the anti-science disinformation campaign uses “experts” that are more credible to conservatives, and that disinformation is repeated to death on conservative media outlets.

Now Gallup has updated its polling and just now released its own analysis, “Conservatives’ Doubts About Global Warming Grow,” with this fascinating ideological breakdown that shows how the divide has grown in the past 2 years:

Percentage Who Say the Effects of Global Warming Are Already Occurring, by Political Ideology

Josh Nelson at Enviroknow explains further:

Newly released Gallup polling seems to show a sharp drop in the percentage of Americans who know about, are concerned about and understand the threat of global warming.

The piece leads with a graph showing a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who think the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated:

When I saw this I immediately assumed the increase was due to the changing opinions of Republicans, and did not reflect a general trend within the broader population. As Joseph Romm has demonstrated, the GOP’s understanding of climate science has been on a steady decline for years. More evidence of this here and here.

See also my February 2009 post on Rasmussen’s polling, “Disinformers are still mostly duping only GOP voters.”  I would also note that in recent years, many voters have shifted identification from GOP to independent, which has made both groups relatively more conservative.

I do think there are other factors at play — 2008 and 2009 were not unusually warm years in North America, many progressives and enviros have been convinced by dubious polling analysis to downplay talk of climate science, the media has gone back to a he-said, she-said formulation that gives equal time to the most fringe contrarian views,  and so on.  I’ll discuss these more below.

In the piece, Gallup notes that “evidence from last year showed that the issue of global warming was becoming heavily partisan in nature, and it may be that the continuing doubts about global warming put forth by conservatives and others are having an effect.” I’ll say.

Gallup has provided EnviroKnow with the full cross-tabs, which are available below. To illustrate the fact that the shifts shown in the poll are largely partisan in nature, I’ve produced a series of graphs based on the cross-tabs.

Objectively, in the last two years, the science makes painfully clear that climate risk has grown sharply, far beyond what 99% of people I talk to realize, even highly informed people:

See also this new RealClimate post, “Sealevelgate.”

That means if the public has come to the reverse view, it must be due to the messaging and the media and the misinformers.  Certainly the messaging has not merely been poor, but many progressives and environmentalists have actually been persuaded to downplay or stop talking about climate science and global warming entirely in recent years (see Messaging 101b: EcoAmerica’s phrase ‘our deteriorating atmosphere’ isn’t going to replace ‘global warming’ “” and that’s a good thing).

The conservative disinformers, however, have kept pushing hard on the “global warming is exaggerated” meme, abetted by see-no-evil editors (see “The day DC journalism died: Washington Post is staffed with people who found ZERO mistakes in George Will’s error-filled denial column” and “John Tierney makes up stuff, just like George Will “” does the New York Times also employ several know/do-nothing fact checkers?“).  As EnviroKnow puts it:

Reasonable people can disagree on policy solutions for dealing with problems we face as a society. But the Republican party is playing a different game entirely. Republicans and conservative thought-leaders “” at the behest of the corporate polluters who bankroll their campaigns “” have made a conscious decision to deny the science in order to advance their political agenda. Put simply, they seem to think they are entitled to their own facts. Unfortunately for them, and ultimately for the rest of us as well, physics doesn’t give a damn about politics.

Even (semi)serious former Republican  leaders on climate like Sen. John McCain and Gov. Tim Pawlenty, have been walking away from the issue and even “smart” new candidates are forced to play dumb:  Asked about whether he agrees with scientists that humans are changing the climate, GOP candidate for MA governor says, “I absolutely am not smart enough to believe I know the answer to that question.”

And of course many in the media figure they “did” catastrophic global warming in 2006 and 2007, so of course that ain’t news any more. And the media keeps downplaying or omitting the link between extreme weather occuring now and global warming (see CNN, ABC, WashPost, AP, blow Australian wildfire, drought, heatwave “Hell (and High Water) on Earth” story “” never mention climate change and my entire media category).

And of course the media tends to ignore climate impacts (i.e. the cost of inaction) when it discusses climate economics, while rarely failing to report the wild overestimations of the cost of action by conservatives and fossil fuel companies “” thus again leaving the public with impression that the danger of global warming is being oversold (see Must-read study: How the press bungles its coverage of climate economics “” “The media’s decision to play the stenographer role helped opponents of climate action stifle progress”).

And the media has more recently been “Exaggerating Denialism,” using the stolen emails and some trivial mistakes by the IPCC to give voice to the most extreme disinformer views with unbalanced climate coverage.

Now throw in a 2008 and 2009 were not unusually warm years in the U.S. — a cold summer in much of the country and a much over-hyped cold spell this winter that fits the disinformer-spun and media-pushed myth of global cooling — and you have the perfect storm in this country for these kind of poll numbers.

Finally, the public sees that we aren’t taking action.  And that would appear to be prima facie evidence to them that this is not a serious problem.  It is awful hard to convince people a problem is serious when nobody is doing anything about it.

Polls, however, don’t change the scientific realities.  This is still likely to be the hottest year on record and the evidence for human-caused warming is just going to get stronger and stronger.  Also, scientists and others have finally figured out we are in a street fight, so maybe their messaging will improve.  Thus, these poll numbers strike me as likelier to get better than worse, especially for Democrats and independents.  Another good piece of news is that young people seem to be more impervious to disinformation:

Percentage Who Say the Effects of Global Warming Are Already Occurring, by Age

Unfortunately, conservatives and conservative-leaning independents are only likely to be significantly moved once their leaders and their media outlets start reporting the science, rather than the disinformation.  Until that happens, the partisan divide on climate change will not be bridged.

‹ PREVIOUS
The Gap Between Climate Science And Economics Is A Chasm

NEXT ›
Reframing the debate on climate science

31 Responses to The disinformers are winning, but mostly with the GOP

  1. Rob Mac says:

    Careful about calling disbelief in AGW “contrarian”. You don’t get to be a contrarian when you 100% support the status quo.

  2. Ben Lieberman says:

    Judging from what I hear from college students at the college where I teach it cannot be assumed that the drumbeat of denial and lies will leave students untouched: climate scientists and environmentalists need to step up it up or they may see young people begin to fall for the denialist lies. Even students who believe that global warming is real and caused by human action lack, in my experience, much sense of the dimensions of the threat.

    The very emphasis (now popular) on acting locally is also counterproductive in that in this case acting locally is so insufficient.

    On the very specific question of the New York Times part of the problem is relying on in-house experts such as when public editor Clark Hoyt speaks of consulting “science columnist” John Tierney: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06pubed.html

  3. Lou Grinzo says:

    One of the notions we hear constantly online is that “climate change isn’t a Liberal/Democratic” issue. When I see poll results like the ones Joe quotes here, I have to dismiss that view as nothing more than wishful thinking.

    As long as we have Group A that says, “The overwhelming conclusion based on the work of thousands of scientists is that climate change is real, it’s here now, and it’s anthropogenic in origin”, and Group B that sticks its fingers in its ears and says, “Nyah nyah nyah I can’t hear you! I wanna pollute until we all chock to death!”, then climate change IS a “Group A” issue.

    I don’t like that one bit. I’ve argued for six years on my site that we need all hands on board to deal with both peak oil and climate change. That means individual citizens, small companies, big corporations, governments, NGOs, etc. It also means we can’t afford to have any group of significant size, defined by age, political affiliation, hair color, or whatever, to work against our collective best interests.

    More and more I catch myself hoping for a “climate 9/11″ event that will shock the spit out of people, even at a horrifying cost in human and economic impacts. But even that might be too optimistic–many on the political right would simply blame the left for not doing enough, and then insist on massive spending on adaptation and geoengineering via private sector companies and their chosen mitigation remedies, e.g. nuclear.

  4. fj2 says:

    A third of conservatives don’t believe we’ll the effects of global warming will happen.

    Yeah, Saddam Hussein caused 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction justifying a $3-trillion dollar Iraq war.

    Kind of like child-birth pain amnesia; sort of.

  5. In their 2008 national survey titled A Deeper Partisan Divide Over Global Warming, The Pew Center for the People & the Press show that only 27% of Republicans believe that global warming is being caused by humans compared to 58% of Democrats. Even more disturbing, only 19% of Republican college graduates say that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming and it is caused by human activity compared to 88% of Democrats who are college graduates.

    Imagine that! As one gets more educated, one becomes more wrong – if a Republican thinking about climate change.

    Here is a great quote I read recently:

    We built an entire foreign policy based on responding to even the most remote threats. Shouldn’t we apply the same thinking to a threat that is a virtual certainty? – Daniel Kurtzman, polical satirist

  6. mike roddy says:

    This confirms that a focused strategy is called for. The far right Beck and Limbaugh audience is not going to change, and they’re charging harder into la-la land.

    As with the politicians, the independents are the ones who need to be reached. There are plenty of them who respond to facts, but they’ve been misled by mainstream newspapers and corrupt TV stations. I liked the barnstorming idea you proposed here yesterday, but we will need more and broader efforts, too.

    One focus I keep suggesting is to repeat the message that the Republicans and the Fox News staff are lying like hell about climate, all of the time, and on every single detail. They got away with this strategy before, over WMD and health care. This time, let’s call them on it, loudly, and humiliate the public deniers so thoroughly that they will tremble when they appear in public.

  7. cbp says:

    Given that we will likely know who for certain who is right by 2030, can the losing party be disbanded?

    [JR: If we do nothing for two decades, by 2030, we'll know for certain we're screwed. Everybody but the far right is gonna know whose right by 2020.]

  8. Jeff Huggins says:

    Honest and Necessary Assessment: Let’s Face It, and Decide!

    Just prior to reading these poll results, I read Bill McKibben’s piece in The New York Review, titled “Heavy Weather in Copenhagen”. Great piece, Bill!

    Also, a few weeks back, I went to Stanford to hear Stephen Schneider speak about the global warming problem, the e-mail stuff, and the deeply concerning problem of the media. Bravo to Dr. Schneider!

    Meanwhile, other direct experience: The two brightest people (in some ways anyhow) that I spend any considerable amount of time talking to, aside from correspondence with climate folks, are both NOT concerned about climate change: One is largely informed by conservative media, and the other does not have a scientific background and understands the world largely through the paradigms of economics. Although he’s a super bright guy and a brilliant economist, he’s not concerned about climate change. Period?!

    Then more recently, a “leading” reporter on climate change wrote, in an answer to a question I raised, that he sees “scant evidence” that the media “matter much”, “one way or the other”, when it comes to the question of whether the media “shape how people react to climate science and its implications”. That’s one reason, he wrote, that he has “broadened my [i.e., his] horizons of late.”

    A leading climate reporter who doesn’t think the media matter much, even as the paper he worked for has missed so many vital climate stories, and not reported so much, and has used “page 98” much more often than page 1. What can I say?

    So …

    In the context of these recent (and other) poll results, and in the context of what happened (and didn’t) in Copenhagen, and in the context of an incredibly dysfunctional and irrational Senate with one fewer Democratic Senators after the Massachusetts thing, I think the following must be admitted:

    Whatever we are doing, it’s not working sufficiently! Not even close!

    If we choose to deny that reality, we are in denial just as much as those who deny climate science. Any disagreement on that?

    Well then, what are we going to change, significantly, about what we are doing?

    For one thing, I understand that an organization, GWEN, is organizing a gathering in Washington D.C., on Earth Day, to urge President Obama to convey the climate message more clearly and vigorously to the American public, soon. I think it’s a great and necessary idea. In my view, I hope that 40,000 people show up, and I think we should all be disappointed (again) if any fewer than 39,999 show up. The clock is ticking, people, and the climate doesn’t care that what we are doing is not working sufficiently. So we should.

    Cheers,

    Jeff

  9. David B. Benson says:

    GOPers never put their head above ground to look around?

  10. It has to be the disconnect of all time Joe. Virtually every scientist, publishing in a climate related field, will tell you that the IPCC has underestimated the affects. The public meanwhile, thinks just the opposite by a large margin.

    We live in strange times.

    Dan

  11. Steve Wicke says:

    It is amazing and amusing that what I grew up on – basic science facts are no longer facts but someone’s opinion. I am a non-scientist but I do understand the basics of climate science and to see basic facts twisted and rendered false is sad. I do not have a billion dollars to put on television to counter act all the falsehoods about climate. I do understand that in another twenty years – game over.
    Steve

  12. catman306 says:

    When viewing our current climate dilemma, we should remember that we will not have been the first civilization destroyed by foolish leaders. When the Status Quo wins, we lose.

  13. Catchblue22 says:

    “Those who can make people believe absurdities can make them commit atrocities.” – Voltaire

  14. Wonhyo says:

    I’m reading a lot of good comments here.

    I concur with Ben Lieberman (#2), that we shouldn’t take it for granted that our younger generations will be more sensible. They are susceptible to the denialist dogma, and most of them (like most older generations) don’t grasp the criticality and urgency of climate change. I also agree that many “act locally” campaigns tend to divert attention away from national/global policy issues, rather than reinforcing them. I see too many people take comfort in changing light bulbs or recycling, but remaining oblivious (or giving up on) what’s happening at the national/global policy level.

    I also concur with Mike Roddy (#6) that we should have a focused strategy, and stop wasting time trying to convert and educate the right. Well meaning efforts to educate the right tend to simply give them a bigger audience. The climate progress strategy should be to contain and discredit the core of the climate denialist movement. Mercilessly expose and ridicule people like Anthony Watts, and don’t just do it with factual arguments alone. Expose and ridicule them with extreme prejudice. They do that to climate progressives successfully, without facts on their side. Climate progressives (including scientists) need to fight back even more aggressively. Mike Roddy expresses this well: “humiliate the public deniers so thoroughly that they will tremble when they appear in public”.

    I concur with Jeff Huggins (#8): “Whatever we are doing, it’s not working sufficiently! Not even close!”.

    Dan Satterfield (#10): Scientists say the IPCC is underestimating climate change effects, but the public thinks otherwise. Scientists, as professionals, have a duty to see that their scientific contributions are put to good public use. Scientists need to step out of their labs once in a while, and go to bat in the public field, as James Hansen has done.

    I think we also have to be honest with ourselves. Is 450 ppm, or even 350 ppm going to be low enough, considering feedback cycles are starting to kick in? If we are going to stop the feedback cycles, and contain the effects that are already in the pipeline, I think we need to set our target below 300 ppm, and I would even say below 275 ppm. My intuition tells me that “stabilizing” at 450 ppm or 350 ppm, is not going to be stabilizing at all.

    We are losing the war of public opinion and public policy. We need to fight back without reservation to reverse the tide. Are we up to the task?

  15. fj2 says:

    14. Wonhyo, “considering feedback cycles are starting to kick in?”

    Yes, it is hard to believe that dangerous feedback systems have not started to kick in. Things have to start moving quick.

    FYI for Mar 12, 2010:

    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/scientists-open-letter-to-federal-govt-on-ipcc/

    Open Letter to the U.S. Government from U.S. Scientists on climate change and the IPCC reports

  16. s.p. says:

    Even if things start to get even more interesting in 10-20 years, it’s not going to bring around the right wing. They exist in an alternate universe. You have to remember; even now, when unequivocally warming is occuring, they are saying that it’s due to measurement error or lying scientists or a conspiracy for a one world government (or any or all of above).
    Moreover, it’s not entirely clear that global warming is our immediate predicament. Humans can’t think too far ahead. Peak oil is, however, our current problem and will become even more apparent in the years ahead. We are already at permament occupation in Iraq/Afghanistan because of it. The price of oil is $80 in a deep global recession. Things are not good on that front. And even what that occuring now, people still don’t believe it!!

    We must stop trying to believe that institutions or people will change, and begin to make act now and make changes ourselves. If you think global warming is a problem, the best you can do is relocate out of the desert/equatorial regions and hope for the best.

  17. DavidCOG says:

    Off topic:

    Joe, have you been following Monbiot’s series which rubbishes FiTs for solar PV in the UK? There have been several responses, which Monbiot references in that article.

    Also, some responses in the comments seem to sink his arguments.

    I’d be interested in your take on this issue. Also, the argument that solar PV in the UK is not viable because of low insolation and the fact that peak demand is often going to occur when the sun isn’t shining and therefore the grid must be built to cater for that peak demand.

    TIA.

  18. Sou says:

    I was dumbstruck by a gallup poll of people in the USA on the ‘topic’ of creationism. Partly that it was even worthy of a poll, but much more so by the results. I gather that there is a very low correlation between reality and the opinions of those in the USA as surveyed by Gallup:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

    Could it be that these polls are more indicative of the quality of education, I wonder?

  19. Heraclitus says:

    Increasingly I’m feeling that the biggest problem is not the extremist idealogues but the average person who has some concern about climate change but is too busy getting on and coping with everyday life to face up to the implications. In fact it is not just the average person, most of us who accept the reality and are terrified by the consequences are also still just bobbling along with life – it’s simply too hard to give up everything we’ve got.

    Well that’s got to change. I think the most important thing at the moment is to keep having conversations. How many of us say what we are saying on these blogs in everyday life, on a regular basis? I know I don’t, and it is difficult to do – people don’t want to hear and face up to it. Too many people take the option to ignore reality. The media makes that option easy, so maybe the only solution is for us to make it harder. I’m being increasingly blunt and it is amazing how many people just don’t seem to have heard what I am saying before.

  20. PSU Grad says:

    At the risk of seeming flip, I suspect it’s going to take a scorchingly hot summer and 20 Atlantic/Caribbean named storms to get people to notice. The deniers can’t simply shrug it off as “just weather”, since they painted themselves into a corner with all the snowstorm hysteria earlier this year.

    Unfortunately, most people don’t act until they’re forced by circumstances to act.

  21. DreamQuestor says:

    What is truly remarkable is that few seem to have seen this coming. It’s been almost 30 years since Reagan’s massive budget cuts in education. An entire generation has grown in that time. We are paying for that folly now. Moreover, given that the GOP is busily purging all moderates from its ranks, it should be no surprise that the lunatic fringe is now its core constituency. Their opposition is reflexive rather than reasoned. We are talking about people who actually listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin!

  22. mike roddy says:

    CatchBlue22, here’s my favorite Voltaire quote:

    “If you are going to tell the truth, make them laugh, or they will kill you”.

    Monbiot did a good job with that during his “debate” with Ian Plimer, where old Ian ended up flopping around like a tuna on a ship deck.

    This was unintentional humor, though. British humor is a little too arch, and there are actually some really funny American writers who take on serious topics. Jim Kunstler is the best, but there are others, like my writing partner and illustrator Ian Murphy, and Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone. Unfortunately these guys don’t spend much time on global warming, and waste their talents on things like financial meltdowns and visual horrors.

    Maybe all four of us should be recruited, since the whole denier movement is incredibly funny without even the need for good satirical prose. If you help put together a barnstorming tour, Joe, I think you need us for the background visuals. The three administrators are great, but a little too serious- the best part of Gore’s movie was the magazine ad showing all the doctors who said that they smoked Camels.

    We’ve got better targets and more material, just waiting to be held up to the light of day. Let’s start with Watts and his temperature station project. This is a comic skit if there ever was one.

  23. BillD says:

    I think that the short term weather has a significant effect on these polls. A cold winter in much of the North America and Europe lessens concerns about warming. On the other hand, a new record year for mean global temperatures, extreme heat during summer, very strong storms and other extreme weather will increase the number of people expressing concerns.

    It’s not unlike trying to get a plan to conserve an endangered species based on probability of extinction during the next 50 years. Such an outlook is nearly impossible for average citizens or for polititians. My advanced students who run stochastic computer models get the point.

  24. Wonhyo says:

    fj2, #15: The open letter from U.S. scientists to U.S. government is good, as far as it goes:

    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/ index.php/ csw/ details/ scientists-open-letter-to-federal-govt-on-ipcc/

    The problem is, it doesn’t go far enough. It is a defensive letter. Climate progressives and scientists need to go on the offense and attack the character, integrity, and motives of the climate science deniers. We need to do so mercilessly. If we don’t do so, we will continue to lose the war of public policy.

  25. Berbalang says:

    I’m reading a rather interesting book called “dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations” which has a chapter on the dustbowl and what it took to get Congress to act on soil conservation. What it took was testimony during a period where dust from the Midwestern States blotted out the sun!

    Using this has a guide I would say that Congress might act if the ocean rose to the point that the waves were lapping at its steps and testimony were given that this indeed was the result of Global Warming.

    The denialists will deny no matter what, that is what they are paid to do, no amount of shaming is going to deter them. What will probably happen as the world’s temperature continues to rise is that the deniers will start destroying Weather Stations. It is a logical step in their denial, “If the data does not support it, eliminate the data.”

  26. Wonhyo says:

    Heraclitus #19: “Increasingly I’m feeling that the biggest problem is not the extremist idealogues but the average person who has some concern about climate change but is too busy getting on and coping with everyday life to face up to the implications. In fact it is not just the average person, most of us who accept the reality and are terrified by the consequences are also still just bobbling along with life – it’s simply too hard to give up everything we’ve got.”

    I agree. We see right wingers instigating the Tea Party and Birther movements. However wrong they are, they have a strong influence on the public discussion. In the meantime, those who know better are being too silent. As frustrating as it is to deal with the climate deniers, it is even more frustrating to deal with those who understand climate change, but don’t act on it. For example, the CFL light bulb movement, in and of itself, is great. The problem is, too many people take comfort in having changed their bulbs, feel they’ve done their part, and move on without further action.

    Many “average” people who believe in the climate science cannot acknowledge the social behavioral changes that will be necessary to mitigate climate change. When I discuss the sacrifices that must be made (more carpooling for example), the response is, “Nobody will go for that”. I counter that that means we will not be able to adapt to ensure our survival. The response is a non-response. Too many people simply cannot acknowledge the consequences in any real terms. Thus, they move on, feeling good about having changed their light bulbs. To clarify, I support the CFL light bulb movement, as long as that is one element in a larger plan of climate action by the individual changing the light bulb. If the individual changing the light bulb uses that action to take refuge from larger national/international policy advocacy, the light bulb movement is being counter productive.

    I agree with many that the right wing cannot be significantly moved by science arguments. Would Lindsey Graham support the climate/energy bill, if it would save the climate without having economic benefits (although it’s impossible to separate the two)? As we hammer the climate denialists for their denialism, we should also hammer them for holding back U.S. economic progress.

    Going back to the climate science, I wonder, if we were to zero out emissions due to human use of fossil fuels today, would that be enough to halt the climate feedbacks and stabilize the climate? I’m starting to wonder if that is going to be enough, since existing atmospheric CO2 will persist. Even if that’s enough to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentration, will that be enough to stabilize ocean CO2 concentration and save the ocean ecosystem? I think we should be pursuing a massive reforestation campaign (where it makes sense to do so) to remove existing excess CO2, at the same time we push to zero out additional CO2 emissions.

  27. JasonW says:

    Actually, PSU Grad, deniers will by that time conveniently forget that they ‘painted themseöves into a corner’ and spout ‘It’s the weather, it’s the weather! You alaways say that, nah nah…’ instead. It’s been this way for EVERY TIME they’ve contradicted themselves.

  28. DreamQuestor says:

    Wonhyo says:

    Going back to the climate science, I wonder, if we were to zero out emissions due to human use of fossil fuels today, would that be enough to halt the climate feedbacks and stabilize the climate? I’m starting to wonder if that is going to be enough, since existing atmospheric CO2 will persist. Even if that’s enough to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentration, will that be enough to stabilize ocean CO2 concentration and save the ocean ecosystem? I think we should be pursuing a massive reforestation campaign (where it makes sense to do so) to remove existing excess CO2, at the same time we push to zero out additional CO2 emissions.

    The short answer is “No.” I think it is indisputable that some type of geo-engineering will be necessary. Ideas such as trying to cool the planet with aerosols or reflective disks are pipe dreams. What we really need is some way to extract massive amounts of carbon dioxide and methane from the atmosphere and convert it into an inert state.

    The tragic irony is that we already _had_ mechanisms that did this–but people thought that it was cheaper to turn them into lumber or palm oil plantations.

  29. PSU Grad says:

    @JasonW (#27):

    “Actually, PSU Grad, deniers will by that time conveniently forget that they ‘painted themseöves into a corner’ and spout ‘It’s the weather, it’s the weather!”

    I’d normally agree with you 100%, except……..that igloo. “Al Gore’s new home”. Inhofe exploiting his grandchildren, one of the most despicable acts I’ve seen in Washington, a town full of them.

    It’s on video, they can’t deny it. Wish I was clever enough to come up with a 100F version of it……”Inhofe’s {something}”. Without exploiting children.

  30. Berbalang says:

    PSU Grad @ 29, I think we will be seeing more despicable acts by the deniers in the future as they become more desparate. One year ago would you have seriously considered the idea they were hacking computers in order to deny Global Warming? The deniers themselves are approaching a tipping point.

  31. Russell Swan says:

    When I attempt to mention climate change to my several very conservative friends and colleagues I am met first with a disdainful, dismissive look which says without words that I am an idiot for even bring up the subject. Their denial seems to go right to the heart of who they are as if it’s built into their genes.