This is the question that was asked: Do you think that global climate change is occurring?
Of course, Republicans, Christians, and Conservatives all tended to the "no" side, or about 30% of the population.
It’s fairly clear from these graphs that religious, Republican American conservatives make up the majority of today's deniers of climate change. If income, education, and knowledge have little to do with acceptance of climate change, then could it be that this issue has become one of culture, not science, in America? Do conservative Americans deny climate change simply because it conflicts with their identity as a conservative?
If that’s the case, then throwing facts at those why deny climate change is not going to make them budge on the issue.
So what will convince that last 30% of Americans? First off, we should stop talking about “what scientists believe” and instead actually take into consideration who we’re trying to communicate with. Then we need to figure out: How can we discuss climate change without alienating the average American conservative?Here are some suggestions.
Civility. The use of the word "denier" has been explicitly linked, by some of its more prominent users, to holocaust denial. If you want to have a civil conversation with a knowledgeable conservative, do not use "denier" for the "con" position concerning global warming.
In fact, just stop demonizing people who disagree with the "con" position. We might be willing to listen, and talk, then.
Second, most "fixes" for global warming proposed by the left are big government solutions: tax and spend (or subsidize); regulate, regulate, regulate; and brow-beating. Conservatives do not want those solutions for medical care, for the environment, for 1st amendment rights, for 2nd amendment rights, and a host of other things. Global warming is just one more.
So, come up with solutions that conservatives can live with. It is said that amelioration of the commonly predicted effects of global warming will cost less than the left's solutions. Why does the left never propose them?
Third, with regard to alternative energy. Stop the "bait-and-switch" tactics. Nuclear power is best for reducing carbon emissions, but the greens fight it. Hydroelectric power is praised, but new dams would be fought until the last environmental chokes to death on fresh air and clean water. Wind and solar power are nice until the conservationists find out how many birds, including eagles, die as a result. Methane was touted as "clean energy" by environmentalists as long as it was scarce and expensive. Now that it is cheap, it is the devil's own brew.
Fourth, the question determines answer. Why not re-write the question thus:
Are you skeptical of the idea of global warming/climate change as presented to you in the media?
This, or a question like it, would receive an entirely different answer. Are you brave enough?
Or: Are you skeptical of the idea of global warming/climate change as advocated by its most vigorous proponents? People like Al Gore, President Barack Obama and members of his administration?
Put that way, you might find a majority of Americans are skeptical.
Fifth. Admit that the 97% figure was a lie; admit the hockey stick was a fraud; admit Al Gore is a crank (and a crank that has gotten rich from gullible leftists); admit that there has been no warming for about 20 years which means the models are wrong; admit that we simply know too little to implement all the leftist, big-state solutions.
In other words, meet us half-way.