What Americans think about climate change, by political allegiance

[misterbigtoe 45]

You are a lifelong Republican, am I right?

Are you serious? I'm neither a Republicrat nor a Democon...........a tea partier or a freeper either. I don't need a group of sheep with which to blend in and I recognize that the big bad wolf is living large in DC, NYC, The Hague and in the heart of anyone who believes an ideological group or political party to be an honest broker.

Maybe someone should start the Global Warming party....................or maybe the Chicken Little party!

[slim 1,525]

Maybe someone should start the Global Warming party....................or maybe the Chicken Little party

If the sky was falling, I'm sure it would be our fault too.

[misterbigtoe 45]

and after spending a few billion bucks to study it and societal transformation, the sky would still be falling.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Maybe someone should start the Global Warming party....................or maybe the Chicken Little party!

You could start the Denialist Party or the Conspiracy Theorist Party where the only set of criteria is that you distrust science and have an inflated sense that you know more than the experts.

[mawilson 2,133]

You could start the Denialist Party or the Conspiracy Theorist Party where the only set of criteria is that you distrust science and have an inflated sense that you know more than the experts.

So the experts are right. So what? Should we stop driving our cars now?

The world will have to adjust to the new realities, plain and simple.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So the experts are right. So what? Should we stop driving our cars now?

The world will have to adjust to the new realities, plain and simple.

exactly. The so-called 'experts' will also tell you what's happened/happening is irreversible. So why should we we even bother changing anything.

[misterbigtoe 45]

You could start the Denialist Party or the Conspiracy Theorist Party where the only set of criteria is that you distrust science and have an inflated sense that you know more than the experts.

Some folks indeed distrust scientists and "experts".

Others on the other hand place an amount of blind trust in scientists and "experts" equal to that which a suckling infant places in its mother.

A few among us view the world through lenses of healthy skepticism wherein we investigate theories...............examine facts...............explore motives..........and draw conclusions.

Proving general relativity is a bit heavy and as Einstein seemed to have a pretty good handle on the science, there does not seem to be much debate about it, he had no apparent profit motive tied to his scientific conclusions and I am not surrounded by plainly obvious evidence contrary to the theory, I am relatively comfortable having faith in that theory. Anthropogenic climate change..................................................not so much.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Some folks indeed distrust scientists and "experts".

Others on the other hand place an amount of blind trust in scientists and "experts" equal to that which a suckling infant places in its mother.

A few among us view the world through lenses of healthy skepticism wherein we investigate theories...............examine facts...............explore motives..........and draw conclusions.

Proving general relativity is a bit heavy and as Einstein seemed to have a pretty good handle on the science, there does not seem to be much debate about it, he had no apparent profit motive tied to his scientific conclusions and I am not surrounded by plainly obvious evidence contrary to the theory, I am relatively comfortable having faith in that theory. Anthropogenic climate change..................................................not so much.

Scientists are skeptics by default. You're confusing, however, denialism with skepticism.

The popular misconception is that skeptics, or critical thinkers, are people who disbelieve things. And indeed, the common usage of the word skeptical supports this: "He was skeptical of the numbers in the spreadsheet", meaning he doubted their validity. To be skeptical, therefore, is to be negative about things and doubt or disbelieve them.

The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.

It's thus inaccurate to say "Skeptics don't believe in ghosts." Some do. Many skeptics are deeply religious, and are satisfied with the reasoning process that led them there. Skeptics apply critical thinking to different aspects of their lives in their own individual way. Everyone is a skeptic to some degree.

Skepticism is, or should be, an extraordinarily powerful and positive influence on the world. Skepticism is not simply about "debunking" as is commonly charged. Skepticism is about redirecting attention, influence, and funding away from worthless superstitions and toward projects and ideas that are evidenced to be beneficial to humanity and to the world.

The scientific method is central to skepticism. The scientific method requires evidence, preferably derived from validated testing. Anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies generally don't meet the qualifications for scientific evidence, and thus won't often be accepted by a responsible skeptic; which often explains why skeptics get such a bad rap for being negative or disbelieving people. They're simply following the scientific method.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, particularly in claims that are far fetched or that violate physical laws. Skepticism is an essential, and meaningful, component of the search for truth.

The scientific theory of Climate Change is sound science, thoroughly tested, researched and conclusive. To deny Global Warming in the face of those facts isn't skepticism. It's pure, egocentric ignorance.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Scientists are skeptics by default. You're confusing, however, denialism with skepticism.

The scientific theory of Climate Change is sound science, thoroughly tested, researched and conclusive. To deny Global Warming in the face of those facts isn't skepticism. It's pure, egocentric ignorance.

This is wrong. It has not been tested, little researched and far from conclusive. I will repeat what I have said before. A science has to be able to withstand peer reviewing, has to be able to be replicated, can't omit any facts that disagree, can't withhold any data or omit data to make the facts fit. Can't be one sided.