Political Party Dictates Global Warming Beliefs

[Mark]

Political Party Dictates Global Warming Beliefs

As some may have suspected all along, a study from the Carsey Institute, conducted by University of New Hampshire Sociology professor Lawrence Hamilton, reveals that an individual's beliefs about the existence and causes of global warming are tied closely to political party affiliation.

Republicans, according to Hamilton, are more likely to believe that either there is no climate change happening, or that climate change occurring now is the result of natural causes. Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to accept that the climate is in the process of changing due primarily to human factors.

While an overwhelming scientific consensus has existed for years, according to such bodies as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Hamilton asserts an individual's "understanding reflects not simply scientific knowledge, but rather the adoption of views promoted by political or opinion leaders they follow. People increasingly choose news sources that match their own views. Moreover, they tend to selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into their pre-existing beliefs."

Hamilton's observations suggest that even those who seek to learn more about the issue may only be reinforcing their existing biases by choosing news and information sources that are predisposed to one side of the issue. The fact that groups of interested parties and news commentators can ignore evidence of such easily verifiable facts as the existence of President Barack Obama's valid Hawaiian birth certificate certainly supports this position.

rest:CLICK HERE

[Mark]

While an overwhelming scientific consensus has existed for years,

 

MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
http://www.collativelearning.com/no%20concensus%20on%20man-made%20climate%20change.html

Over 31,000 scientists sign petition against man-made global warming theory
http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Psalm 51:17]

Political Party Dictates Global Warming Beliefs
Republicans, according to Hamilton, are more likely to believe that either there is no climate change happening, or that climate change occurring now is the result of natural causes. Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to accept that the climate is in the process of changing due primarily to human factors.

Dunno about that - there was a guest speaker from the insurance industry discussion the "green" agenda in my Risk Management class a couple of weeks ago - he asked the entire class(the majority of them happen to be anti-Obama, pro-conservative, anti-Obamacare, etc) whether they think climate change is real. ALMOST ALL of them raised their hands. Even my instructor, who's seems to be a GOP voter asked this as a test question(ie-what is the biggest threat to the insurance industry, that being global warming/climate change), and seems to believe it as well.

And remember Bush II, while never supporting this, never tried to debunk it as well(he pretty much strayed away from this issue).

[Mark]

That doesnt surprise me, your all in a College arent ya. 

[nuclearnuttery]

Our reactionary global culture is partly to blame for this "issue", in my opinion. The human lifespan is so very short; we are likely to witness many great changes in our lifetimes, each of us -- yet elements of society (if they can be called such) demand that we react "now" to "save" the environment. Our species isn't at risk simply because of natural changes -- I think the worst ones are engineered, or the result of cooling not warming.

We are part of the environment, and also need to be saved -- not just spiritually, but physically. Hoarding land while at the same time restricting its use, as the royals and elites and rich tend to do, kills human beings. Human beings under that kind of stress start to wreck the ecosystem. The people at the top know the solution is to make land available to common people and quit wasting so much on roads, etc. Greenhouses at home would be a very cheap way to produce food, compared to hideous commercial farming and shipping costs, and the cost to the land/ecosystem. Greenhouses are MUCH SMALLER and cheaper to maintain than a large field, and are a more stable environment i.e. LESS CROP FAILURE if managed right.

The whole green agenda hinges upon clinging to archaic practices of land use and feudal hoarding/restriction/treating people like animals/refusing to educate women and lower classes.

The Internet should be used to reach as many as possible to get them to be more independent, take an interest in farming both rural and urban, etc.

Greenhouses could answer many of the "concerns" of the "global warming" TYRANTS and corporations/gores (chairmen of corporations)/true poisoners of the environment.

Our breath and our farming don't ruin the earth. Harsh chemicals and bombs and corporate waste/abuse do far more.
also it is the corporations who block change not the consumers.

p.s. registered independent at 18 had a bad feeling about green party although i almost joined