Gallup Finds: Among Conservatives, Education Increases False Belief

Eric Zuesse

100% agreement among scientists does not exist on anything, not even on basic laws of physics; but there are some scientific topics where the degree of expert consensus is near 100%, and human-caused (or “anthropogenic”) global warming is one of them, with more than 97% of the scientific experts in the field agreeing that this phenomenon is real. (See this paper, which is the most-rigorous study to-date, of expert opinion on the subject, quantifying the extent of this consensus; this is a study of 11,944 papers that have been published on the matter, and it finds that more than 97% of the peer-reviewed papers that have expressed an opinion on whether “anthropogenic global warming” exists, have said that it does.)

Consequently, a poll which was published by Gallup on 26 March 2015 is especially fascinating, because it correlates political ideology plus education-level, with acceptance of this particular scientific consensus; the poll-report’s title is: “College-Educated Republicans Most Skeptical of Global Warming.” It says that: “Republicans with higher levels of education are more likely than those in their parties [it should be the singular noun here, ‘party’] with less education to say that the seriousness of global warming is ‘generally exaggerated.’ By contrast, Democrats with some college or more are less likely than those with less education to believe the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated.”

In the United States, there happens to be extraordinary ideological polarization by political party, with almost all conservatives preferring the Republican Party, and almost all progressives preferring the Democratic Party, whenever an electoral choice between those two parties is offered and the time has come for citizens to register a vote at their ballot box. Consequently, the Republican-Democratic distinction is a fair and very practical measure of conservative-progressive orientations among the U.S. population. (This isn’t to say that the Democratic Party is progressive, just that it’s not nearly as consistently conservative as is the Republican Party — and this Gallup poll provides yet further confirmation to that.)

Here, then, are the exact findings, by Gallup, in this poll: 74% of Republicans with a college degree say that human-caused global warming is exaggerated, compared to 57% of Republicans with only a high-school education or less.

By contrast, among Democrats: only 15% of Democrats with a college degree say that human-caused global warming is exaggerated, compared to 27% of Democrats with merely a high-school education or less.

So: more education moves Republicans further into fantasyland, where they already are, and moves Democrats further into reality, where they aready are.

So: not only are a vastly higher percentage of Democrats than of Republicans accepting the overwhelming (97+%) scientific consensus; but, when the findings are further broken down by education-level, the resultant finding is that whereas among Democrats, education increases truthful beliefs, the opposite is the case among Republicans: education increases false beliefs, among Republicans.

This finding adds further weight to the finding that was reported in a classic study in empirical psychology, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” published in 2003, by four famous researchers. They found that conservatives absorb information that supports their particular opinions, but filter out and ignore information that contradicts their opinions. They called this phenomenon “motivated social cognition”; and, whereas this phenomenon exists to some extent among all people, they found that it exists far more among conservatives than among non-conservatives. Among non-conservatives, there exists enough open-mindedness to enable education to improve the accuracy of the given individual’s beliefs. That is also what this new Gallup poll is finding: whereas conservatives just become more dead-set in their false beliefs the more information they encounter; non-conservatives actually tend even in the exact opposite direction — to change their minds, when they encounter evidence that contradicts what they had formerly believed.

(To explain this: For conservatives, the confirmatory ‘information’ that they pay attention to is usually not actual data that confirm the given belief, but is instead another person’s opinion that ‘confims’ his or her own opinion — it’s merely opinion that’s built on opinions instead of on actual data. That’s how myths are passed around and ‘supported.’ And myths are especially important to conservatives.)

Actually, there are lots of empirical studies that lend further weight to this view: There is an overwhelming body of empirical literature that shows that the more conservative a person is, the more bigoted he or she is likely to be. Again: conservatives, far more than non-conservatives, just filter out what doesn’t fit their existing beliefs. Also, see this, and this.

All of the evidence supports the view that conservatism is basically a falsehood-sustaining belief-methodology. That’s what it’s really all about: sustaining false beliefs.

And that’s why the opposite of conservatism is progressivism: change toward a truer view of the world. That’s what progress is. That’s what it consists of.

And that’s why progressives tend to have truer beliefs than conservatives do.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, General, Politics / World News, Science / Technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • kimyo

    as always, zuesse displays a profound level of ignorance, about science, politics, history and beyond.

    1) consensus is never science.
    2) that 97% study has been roundly and thoroughly debunked.

    The hidden timestamps of raters revealed one person rated 675 abstracts in 72 hours, with much care and lots of rigor, I’m sure.

    if the issue is truely a threat to humanity, then the scientists should publish their data, rather than fight tooth and nail to block its release.

    Eric Worrall writes: It looks like NOAA have found a new way to stifle FOIA inquiries from the public. According to Steve Goddard, NOAA have just demanded a $262,000 administrative fee for zipping up a few raw data files.*

    show me the raw data on the 97% claim – i’ll be glad to show you its myriad weaknesses.

    can’t show it to me? then, it’s not science, is it?

    ps: two thirds of americans, australians, germans and more are against any form of carbon tax. this word ‘democracy’, i think it might not mean what you think it means.

    * data files, paid for by the public, at great expense.

    • Southernfink

      How would you describe yourself politically?

      • cettel

        If he doesn’t answer, I think that that will indicate that he’s a conservative.

        • kimyo

          my friends, conservative or progressive, would chortle most heartily at any attempt to describe me as a conservative.

          they’d still be laughing 10 minutes later.

          most progressives would probably place me on their left. my dial is set at 11, when you cut me i bleed tie-dye.

          i find the binary choice to be a problem, though, cause it doesn’t represent reality. arguing from that position is the lazy man’s way out.

          if you truly want to talk science, then the major flaw of the climate models needs to be put on the table: they rely on forecasts of fossil fuel consumption derived by the same agencies which forecast 100 years worth of production out of the monterey shale, which more recently has been revised down to 1.5 or so.

          if fed bad input data, the models simply cannot be relied upon to set public policy.

        • Southernfink

          The point is that the correlation between globalization & global warming will be denied by conservatives.

          Globalization and the various deceptively termed free trade agreements enable the polluters to challenge existing environmental standards via f.e. ISDS clauses found in FTA’s in closed and private tribunals.

          ISDS related cases are on the rise – have a look at these examples here (pdf)

          Corporations view environmental standards as something that will limit their own and imagined profits, they use the investor state dispute settlement clause to challenge governments in multi-million dollar law suits in order to either continue polluting or receive a large payout.

          Another more recent cases, involved green energy programs being sued under International Trade Agreement’s, particularly those of the WTO rules, in 2010 the US sued one of China’s wind energy power subsidy program on the grounds that it was protectionist.

          China did the same to the EU, while the US launched another case against India who in turn indicated it will try to do the same to US renewable energy programs.

          FTA’s are all about the ceding of sovereign power to certain corporations, it’s effectively rigging the game in favor of the financial elite.

          • kimyo

            isn’t possible that the people who write the carbon legislation* will use it as an opportunity to bury other, much more immediate concerns?

            radiation from fukushima, for instance (carbon is obama’s big (false) argument for building more nukes) . or the giant plastic dump in the pacific. contaminated water or earthquakes from fracking/tar sands? these all disappear when the threat of ‘runaway global warming’ is presented as fact.

            koch minion holding co’s are just going to point to their ‘exemplary carbon reduction efforts’ as they bill the fed for carbon reduction tax credits, all the while killing off the land with roundup and neonicotinoids.

            did obamacare improve outcomes for anyone but hmo’s and big pharma? did we win the war on cholesterol? the war on terror?

            will the war on carbon actually result in reduced carbon emissions? how can you possibly be sure of that? the war on terror just continues to deliver more terror.

            * greenpeace? or koch holdings? is there actually a difference?

          • Southernfink

            HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF POLITICALLY?

            Conservative climate change denialist comes to mind.

            The GWOT is related to globalization.

            Globalization is closely related to climate change – global warming as the prelude to another ice age.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGVTK-AAvw

            I’m strongly opposed to the building of more nuclear reactors — the only long term solution are renewable energies, wind, solar, water, geo thermal – that’s where we should be spending our time and resources on.

            The current ”western” economic model is outdated like a 1970 gaz guzzler.

            The current economic model is based around the logical fallacy that it’s somehow possible to pursue perpetual economic growth on a finite planet.

            This perpetual economic growth – for corporations – comes at a heavy toll for the environment, and civil rights world wide – corporate powers have only been increasing as a direct result of nations becoming members of these corporately designed and deceptively termed free trade agreements – the end result being that nations are ceding their sovereignty.

            Even though the US is not considered a democracy herself – she is a oligarchy.

            That oligarchy – the US does not view another nation as a democracy unless that nation has privatized their national assets, which will be snapped up with funds created out of thin air.

            Globalization and the FTA’s that go with it are working directly against government subsidizing renewable energies.

            f.e. US Sues China at WTO on Wind Power Subsidies

            Greenpeace – Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

            Raw story – Climate change denier took $1.25 million from Koch brothers, energy companies: Greenpeace

    • cettel

      Your point “2 that 97% study has been roundly and thoroughly debunked” has already been debunked:

      • paul

        No, it’s not necessary to defer to consensus even in science, or in some ways, especially in science – it is necessary to take consensus into consideration, not to defer to it. Critical thinking does not defer. Not ever. It’s a responsibility of the mind that cannot be put down in this way.

        • cettel

          You are rejecting scientific expertise. You missed my point entirely. Please read it again.

          • paul

            No, I did not miss your point. You missed mine. I don’t reject scientific expertise. I look at it critically as you refuse to do. You need to reconsider this and re-embrace your responsibility as a human being to think critically, in my opinion.

          • cettel

            When my own experience regarding the possible truth/falsity of a given assertion is not sufficient for me to come to a scientifically defensible conclusion on the given matter, and when there does not exist the possibility for me to acquire the expertise necessary in order to achieve on my own a scientific resolution of it, I rely upon those who do possess that expertise. Your contrary approach is know-nothingism, because it’s arrogant imposition of your own personal opinion where your own personal opinion does not scientifically belong.

          • kimyo

            how does the fine-tuned mind of zuesse decide which scientists are qualified? how did you decide to dismiss judith curry while embracing michael mann?

            what is your (please be specific) criteria? did you examine m. curry’s cv and find it lacking?

      • cettel

        (For some reason, that to kimyo failed to register, so here I try it again:)
        Your point “2) that 97% study has been roundly and thoroughly debunked” has already been debunked:
        http://www.theguardian.com/env
        and furthermore, Richard Tol, whose debunking was there debunked was claiming that the consensus-percentage was not 97% but instead 91%, and he furthermore said:
        “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”
        As regards your “1) consensus is never science,” I have always agreed with that, but with the following important proviso: when the given individual’s own experience of a particular matter is insufficient basis for him to draw a rational conclusion (such as the sample-size being too small, or etc.), then it become necessary to defer to the consensus-position of the broader scientifically qualified community. Such an issue is anthropogenic climate-change.
        As regards your remaining point, regarding the Federal Government’s assessment of a $262,000 fee in order to comply with a FOIA request, I agree with you that that is outrageous, and I think that if Obama were a decent human being, he would publicly express outrage and that if our Congress were decent human beings, they too would, and this matter would become a top issue of the day.

    • cettel

      For some reason, my reply failed to post, so I am trying it again:
      Your point “2) that 97% study has been roundly and thoroughly debunked” has already been debunked:
      http://www.theguardian.com/env
      and
      furthermore, Richard Tol, whose debunking was there debunked was
      claiming that the consensus-percentage was not 97% but instead 91%, and
      he furthermore said:
      “There is no doubt in my mind that the
      literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that
      climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt
      that the consensus is indeed correct.”
      As regards your “1) consensus
      is never science,” I have always agreed with that, but with the
      following important proviso: when the given individual’s own experience
      of a particular matter is insufficient basis for him to draw a rational
      conclusion (such as the sample-size being too small, or etc.), then it
      become necessary to defer to the consensus-position of the broader
      scientifically qualified community. Such an issue is anthropogenic
      climate-change.
      As regards your remaining point, regarding the
      Federal Government’s assessment of a $262,000 fee in order to comply
      with a FOIA request, I agree with you that that is outrageous, and I
      think that if Obama were a decent human being, he would publicly express
      outrage and that if our Congress were decent human beings, they too
      would, and this matter would become a top issue of the day.

  • Big Bear

    It is curious that, although nearly all so-called “conservatives” may favor the Republicans and nearly all so-called “progressives” may favor the Democrats, in nearly all matters of core practice — the basics of the economy (ownership, employment, corporate and financial entitlement to control), foreign policy, domestic criminal law (the largest prison population in the world by a factor of 300%) etc. — there is no significant difference between them. This is THE most salient fact about the actual political practice and situation of America today, and for many decades. A truly progressive program for practice whose methods do not take these facts into fundamental consideration is self-doomed to fail.

    • Republicans and Democrats address differently indoctrinated publics.

      On the Republican “right” side many lawmakers personally reflect and stand up for their right-wing’s conditioned inanities.

      There is not one honest elected Democrat representing the left, or the “left” is dead.

      But there is still the Perot on globalization – the core of neo-liberal neo-connerie – wing of the Republican party, and the Ron Paul anti neo-con-liberal capitalist contingent – are they not all capitalists? – as well.

      We don’t need leaders. Spokespersons will do; the public will vote, hence lead.

      To get there we need to chuck one thing first: a politics of division!

      • Veri1138

        Politics are about differing visions. Just that we need to set aside our differences in the social arena in order to kick out the moneychangers… and then get back to bickering over abortions, etc. Which the Conservatives will eventually lose.

        Until the Left and the Right unite to face a common enemy… the moneychangers… nothing is going to get done.

  • Spartacus Rex

    LMAO! “Progress” as in ” Gee, I kind of actually like having Smoke blown up my Six!”

    You really outdid yourself performing actual due diligence on the subject matter of “global warming” there, Eric. (NOT!) LOL

    Probably has never occurred to you that the whole “global warming” agenda was merely the fictitious basis for the Carbon Tax Scam, right Eric?

    And gee, who was it that was trying to set up that Carbon Credit Exchange, so as to profit off same?
    None other than Al “I invented the Internet” Gore!

    “Liberal progressives” proving once again that if brains were oil, they wouldn’t have enough to lubricate the dynamo in a lightning bug’s ass, and perhaps that is the real reason why they do not do so well with any real “education”.

    For be it from them to realize that NATURE is self regulating and not STATIC, ergo has been fluctuating from warmer to cooler and back for millenia!

    Cheers, S. Rex

  • Southernfink

    Nice one ~!

    The right winged will never admit how globalization and climate change are closely related.

  • Dr Smileyface

    Thanks Mr Z – for a thought-provoking essay.

    The paper you cited, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition” by Jost, Kruglanski, Glaser & Sulloway, has this useful line,

    ‘The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality’ – fantastic!

    This is summed-up colloquially by the phrase, “I’m alright Jack…”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0kcet4aPpQ

  • paul

    The difference between conservativism and progressivism is not that progressivism has to do with reality. It is a difference in attitude. Conservatism leans against change and progressivism leans towards change. Neither attitude is better or preferable to the other.

    In our society there is really no such thing as true conservatism or true progressivism. Progressives often call for regressive policies, such as mandates, and conservatives often call for radical policies, such as global trade deals that destroy the sovereignty of nation states. We need to remember that those we call conservatives are really the modern day version of tories – partisans of the economic interests of the upper class – and their lower class dupes. What we call progressives are really the modern day version of the liberals, which represent the economic interests of the upper middle class, along with their lower class dupes. Tories try to depict themselves as conservatives to appeal to lower class dupes who have a particular appreciation for tradition and Liberals try to appeal to lower class dupes who are interested in change – but it’s mostly smoke and mirrors, very very cynical stuff.

    Questioning scientific consensus does not imply self delusion any more than embracing science implies realism. It is an inescapable reality of human affairs – if you really are looking for reality – that the interests of whoever foots the bill for a human activity tends to dictate the direction that activity goes in. They call it cui bono, I suppose. Science is not objective. Peer review does not make it objective. If anything increases the objectivity of science , it is time itself. Peer review is an elaborate form of group think. Time, in association with critical thinking, can improve the realness of human perception on both the individual and group level.

    Science does not take place in a vacuum, in some interest free zone. As a highly elaborated human activity, it depends on funding and resource provision. It is thus heavily dependent on financial interests. It is folly to think that science fails to assiduously serve the interests on which its very existence depends. Personally, I think that scientific consensus is right on global warming. I think it is real, I think that is driven by human activity and I think that it is a threat to human civilization. I try to use critical thinking to assess this. I take scientific consensus – a powerfully interest driven form of group think, whatever else it is- into consideration as an input.

    One cannot escape the human responsibility to actually think about things and make one’s own judgement. Part of the problem with humanity today is that too many people try to do so. They have different ways of doing it. Some defer to ministers of ‘god’. Others defer to ‘experts’. Others defer to authority figures in general. Others defer to a favorite radio ranter. Others defer to perceived community expectations. Few think for themselves and that is, at base, our problem.

    • llamaspit

      ” Conservatism leans against change and progressivism leans towards change. Neither attitude is better or preferable to the other.”

      It seems to me that you have defined a false equivalency that suits your theory, and used it as the basis of your argument. If we define the difference in the following way, we can reach a different conclusion. That is, conservatism seeks to preserve the status quo rather than democratically improve conditions for all, while progressivism seeks to incorporate all supportable data into making an informed decision to benefit the most. When defined in that way, one attitude is clearly preferable to the other.

      Those who are reaping the benefits of the status quo will always oppose change, and will always identify as conservative. And as we know in politics, they will use social fears to convince others to join them. That attitude may be reinforced by their own fears and prejudices, but the Sinclair quote is appropriate, “”It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

  • Quantification Seeker

    Interesting. Statistics are fascinating. Particularly when carefully couched in parenthetical and subordinated clauses —from the link above—: “_(See this paper, which is the most-rigorous study to-date, of expert opinion on the subject, quantifying the extent of this consensus; this is a study of 11,944 papers that have been published on the matter, and it finds that more than 97% of the peer-reviewed papers that have expressed an opinion on whether “anthropogenic global warming” exists, have said that it does.) “. Also from the linked article: “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. ” . So 97% out of the 1/3 of papers that actually expressed an opinion on the issue of AGW, came down in favor of it. Fascinating. One has to wonder about the reason(s) why 2 out of 3 papers expressed no opinion on such a hot-button matter of ‘settled’ science. And one has to wonder since when 1/3 of a given population’s opinion on something began to constitute a ‘consensus’.

    signed: A registered, progressive, yet skeptical Democrat

    • Saladman

      I agree, with your point. I also am a progressive, yet skeptical Democrat. The more I look into AGW, and its part in Global Climate, I find a systematic attempt to quell dissenting voices. That is a very big warning sign for me. Couple that with the sort of statistic twisting and data manipulation that the AGW crowd employ, I am very Skeptical. However, I am not an expert. I am still investigating and reading everything I can find.

  • ClubToTheHead

    Stopping climate change is like jumping across a 25 foot gap over a canyon. If you jump only 10 feet of the way there you are as dead as if you got 24 feet of the way.

    The only time Democrats and Republicans tell the truth is when they call each other liars.

    Obama opened up deep ocean drilling right before the big Gulf spill and opened up new nuclear power plant construction right before the continuing Fukushima disaster started.

    One party says global warming is not true—for votes—so they won’t have to do anything about it, and the other party says it is true—for votes—but won’t do anything about it anyway.

    If people and their parties cannot refrain from doing direct environmental and climate destruction through wars of choice then they will never refrain from doing the same destruction inadvertently by driving cars, growing food, and heating homes.

    Praying to these parties is as useless as praying to a nonexistent god. It might make you feel good when you’re doing it, but in the end, like 99.999 % of all other species, you will be extinct.

    As long as people look to these parties to solve this problem it’s only going to get worse.

  • What a bunch of crap. Define the “true” view of the world as the “progressive” one and look what pseudo-science can deduce.

  • MCB

    There are the only two things Eric ever writes about:

    1. How much Obama has betrayed him and The Democrats.

    2. How great Progressive Democrats are and how terrible Conservative Republicans are.

    He never truly hides his partisan bias. “Eric has no clothes on… again.”

    • Guest

      MCB a month ago https://disqus.com/home/discussion/washingtons/american_british_polish_and_russian_experts_warn_that_continued_fighting_in_ukraine_could_lead_to_nu/#comment-1871751037

      Obama is a pathetic excise for a CON-MANder In Chief, especially considering that he won a Nobel Peace Prize from empty, false, political rhetoric. His endless warmongering in The Middle East and continual poking of The Russian Bear over Ukraine could wind up destroying the planet, but Obama’s far too arrogant and selfish to give a damn.

      Talk about having not much on.

      • MCB

        Non sequitur much?

        • kimyo

          zuesse is here to get people into the voting booth. he’s most afraid of an effective 2016 boycott, as that would negate the ‘well, you voted them in’ argument.

          at the psyops known as zerohedge, we do get some amazing news and analysis. it’s a front, though, in place to argue against guaranteed income. nakedcapitalism is allowed to be so they can tell us how great the nuclear renaissance will be. wattsup: monsanto and fracking are awesome!

          and, unfortunately, w’s blog appears to be here to provide zuesse with a platform to argue that voting matters.

    • Rocky Racoon

      Hiding bias or pretending that you don’t have any is the problem everyone has bias denying it is the problem.

  • Republicans do gigantic false flags like 911, Democrats do more false flags but smaller ones.

  • Gina

    All of the evidence supports the view that conservatism is basically a falsehood-sustaining belief-methodology. That’s what it’s really all about: sustaining false beliefs. (emphasis added)

    Yeah, that was typical for the Middle Ages: the predilection for the false judgment.

  • Saladman

    I take issue with the 97%. To someone who doesn’t read the actual paper that his data is drawn from, it sounds like there is a consensus. In actuality the paper states that 66.4% take no position. Which is more in line with true scientific method since there is not enough real evidence either way. Most “unscientific” papers (97%) take the position supporting AGW. What does that tell us? The entire Dems versus Reps is a divide and conquer operation.

    • cettel

      Wrong. That 66.4% aren’t alleging what you say — that “there is not enough real evidence either way.” They are simply not drawing a conclusion on the topic. Some draw no conclusions on anything, but most draw conclusions on other topics instead.

      • Saladman

        This a good example of the difference between real Science and Politicised Science. The 97% number that has been thrown around still is misleading. Many people want to say 97% of papers agree AGW exists. Whatever the reason 66% do not state an opinion is beside my point. The fact still remains that the 30% who state an opinion that AGW exists are in the minority.

        • rbc

          That’s because the 66% take AGW as established fact, and feel no need to affirm that reality. Most likely, the majority of them are discussing the consequences of the climate changes we know are happening. Probably 100% of the articles that mention Mt Everest don’t offer an opinion on whether it exists or not.

          • Saladman

            Yes, yes, we can sit here and speculate on why and what everthing means. That however is not science. You have read that the “science is settled” and so for you it is. I however think it might be worthwhile to investigate what I am being told. Especially when there are many opinions and there seems to be a bias among some to silence dissenting voices. I invite you to look further, I am.

  • Marxism by another name

    Remember the ‘global cooling’ panic of the 1970s?

    “global warming”: green on the outside, red on the inside

    ‘Global warming’ is another scheme for yet more taxes and control.

    See the laughable & non-existent ‘global warming’ debunked here:

    Claim Of A 97% Climate Consensus Does Not Stand Up
    http://www.thegwpf.com/richard-tol-claim-of-a-97-climate-consensus-does-not-stand-up/#sthash.i2b7hiYZ.dpuf

    – See more at:
    http://www.thegwpf.com/richard-tol-claim-of-a-97-climate-consensus-does-not-stand-up/

    http://www.nipccreport.org/

    http://www.climatedepot.com

    2014: Year of Futility in the Fight Against Climate Change
    record cold
    http://news.heartland.org/editorial/2014/12/31/2014-year-futility-fight-against-climate-change

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

    • Massive increases in aerosol usage from about 1945 onwards *did* lead to measurable global cooling which was subsequently reversed by pollution controls and a drop-off in global volcanic activity. You’ve linked to a number of articles that are unscientific and cherry-pick data. Please, don’t mislead others on such an important topic.

  • HAC NY

    Most of what is on the news and these creepy studies seems to be a diversion of the reality of the issues of pollution of the air and water by unethical government policies–both by Democratic and Republican parties.