This is the most obvious example of American idiocy.
The Reality
Physicists have known for over a century that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere will increase the average global surface temperature. However, they had no way to confirm this experimentally because 70% of the earth’s surface is covered with oceans, and we can’t have weather stations in enough places to get a good measurement of the average surface temperature. We had to wait until we had satellites that could monitor surface temperatures all over the globe. The first such satellites went up around 1980. By 1990 we had good evidence showing a slow increase in temperatures. We were also able to develop “proxies” — indirect methods for measuring temperatures at times prior to 1980. One of the first proxies came from isotopic ratios in ice cores drilled in Greenland and in Antarctica. They too showed warming. Then we came up with a proxy based on the isotopic ratios in tree rings. That also confirmed the warming trend. Another proxy was found by analyzing sediments in stable ponds. Other proxies were developed over the years. They all confirmed a steady increase in temperature starting in the 19th century.
Scientists are a careful lot. You can destroy your career by publishing an analysis that is later proved to be flawed. The debate continued through the 1990s, although most scientists felt that the data was solid enough to warn society of the dangers of CO2 emissions. However, by the turn of the century, all the significant objections had been resolved, and the scientific community as a whole felt confident that we were indeed warming the planet. There were, of course, a few dissidents who saw things differently — but in science, there are ALWAYS dissidents. Science respects dissidents because they just might be onto something.
Here’s an anecdote to illustrate just how conservative scientists are. Whilst developing the first A-bomb in 1944, somebody pointed out that there was a slight chance that, somehow, the detonation of an atomic bomb would generate temperatures so high that it might trigger fusion reactions in the atmosphere, enveloping the planet in plasma at a temperature of millions of degrees. This was not desirable. So a team was set up to present the best possible case for this Armageddon. They labored for months, and then presented their results to the top physicists. Despite their best efforts, they could not come up with even a plausible case for the A-bomb destroying the planet. So the decision was made to proceed with the bomb.
By the year 2000, there were thousands of scientists who were convinced that CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperatures. There were a handful of scientists — less than a dozen — who opposed the consensus. That was fine, as far as the scientists were concerned.
Nowadays, 24 years later, there is simply no question that releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere causes average surface temperatures to rises. As we have learned more, we discovered that many aspects of the climate change in reponse to these higher temperatures. Yes, of course, we get heat waves and droughts. But in some places at some times, climate change can cause deep freezes. Climate change generally increases precipitation; they had a huge flood in the desert nation of Abu Dhabi. Climate change causes more extreme weather, because it pumps more energy into the atmosphere. Because the poles are warming, the ice caps are melting, causing sea levels to rise. The list of dangerous effects is long and firmly established.
That’s the reality of climate change.
The Denial
Despite the indisputable scientific facts, a large portion of the American public, primarily Republicans, deny the reality. They don’t dispute it — that would require them to know enough about climate science to present counterarguments. They don’t dispute climate science; they simply deny it. Of course, they wrap their denial in pseudo-rational claims that might fool people who are equally ignorant of climate science. But those arguments are as fake as a video of Donald Trump doing push-ups. I have been contesting these people on the Internet for thirty years, and I know every trick in their book — which isn’t difficult, because their book is pretty short. They parrot talking points they picked up on conservative blogs. They can never answer my questions, because they don’t understand the science.
The Effectiveness of Denial
The science deniers in America have been remarkably successful at casting doubt about science. Here’s a bar chart showing attitudes towards climate change in numerous countries, courtesy of Wikipedia:
As you can see, the US is far down on the list, akin to such bastions of education as Thailand, India, Turkey, Russia, and South Africa. Makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it?
This next graph makes it clear who’s to blame for this shameful situation:
Note that the green circle, representing American Democrats, is just as advanced as the leftists in other countries. American’s lousy score is entirely due to Republicans. Republican readers, shame on you!
The really shocking datum in this graph is the Israeli set. It’s difficult to understand what is going on in that country.
Here’s another demonstration of Republican malfeasance, this from the Pew Research Foundation:
Republicans aren’t willing to life a finger to help save the country from climate change. Lastly, this bar chart sheds a bit more light on the differences in attitude:
Note that, among Democrats, higher levels of education are associated with a greater appreciation of the problem of climate change. Among Republicans, education is of no value in understanding climate change. Note also the impact of age. Young Republicans, who face the greatest costs from climate change, are most serious about combatting climate change. Their elders, however, having little to lose, tells the young generations to go fuck themselves. Democrats, on the other hand, show serious concern for younger generations. Remember that, young-uns! Republicans don’t give a damn what happens to you. Democrats do care.
Why are Republicans so dumb?
I could speculate endlessly about the many motivations for denial of reality, but I won’t. The two important factors to learn from this tale are, first, Republicans are idiots. Climate science is a mature field based on a huge volume of data taking many different forms. Those few scientists who publically denied the basics of climate science have all hidden themselves under rocks after the humiliations they have suffered from the facts. There is absolutey no, none, zero basis for questioning climate science. Only idiots doubt climate science.
A second factor, though, is more deeply set in our political psyche. Once upon a time, say, until about 1970, Americans trusted their government and their institutions. Walter Cronkite, an eminent TV newscaster, was revered by almost everybody. The turning point in American attitudes towards the Vietnam War came when he returned from an investigative trip to the war and returned to report that it was not going well and that the government was not being honest with citizens about progress in Vietnam. A few years later, Richard Nixon sent burglars to the Democratic National headquarters and then lied through his teeth about it. The American public reacted with righteous fury against this gross violation of public trust. Note that Republicans were just as upset about Mr. Nixon’s actions as Democrats. Those were the days when our politicians actually had principles.
It all went downhill from there. Ronald Reagan secretly sold weapons to Iran and used the money to fund an insurrection in Nicaragua — in violation of Congressional policy. George W. Bush lied to the public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify his invasion of that country. And of course, Donald Trump told over 30,000 documented lies during his four years in office, and continues to promulgate the outrageous lie that the 2020 election was stolen.
Americans have lost confidence in their institutions, and so now most Republicans believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the facts. I’ll present more examples of this in subsequent essays.