I think part of the explanation for these widely-divergent views is based on religion. Some (very vocal) Conservatives are fundamentalist Christians, who subscribe to the Creation story in Genesis.

They seem to associate the idea of global warming with the theory of Evolution. This world view flies in the face of the Creation story.

I think you answered your own question. I consider myself a conservative except on environemntal issues, where I fall pretty far to the left. On the global warming issue, I seem to be somewhere in between, but maybe it's just that I lack essential information.

I need clear, unbiased information when I want to make a decision. Anything that smacks of spin turns me off and I completely disregard it. I also disregard emotional appeals.

I could be way off base here, so please correct me if I misstate the current understanding of the issue.

Climatologists took core samples of ice in the artic circle which date back thousands of years.

They noted increasingly warmer temperatures beginning, *coincidently*, with the industrial revolution. The scientists that analyzed this data at first jumped to no conclusions, and merely noted that it was interesting that the increase in temperatures began at the same time mass burning of coal began in europe and the U.S. (A small part of the earth when you look at the big picture)

From there, a few "chicken littles" appeared and it became a part of the public consciousness. Many people who didn't study the data began parroting what others had said, and at some point in the last 3-4 years, global warming became *common knowledge*. I studied it in a college geography class back in 1983, and we knew then that sea levels were going to rise and wipe out coastal communities, we just didn't know how long it was going to take.

Masses of people jumped right past the study of causal relationships and the issue arose in politics -sides were drawn.

The battle has been so intense that in some circles, anyone who disagreed with the ststus quo was censured and their status was threatened - including future funding for their own studies.

While all of this was going on, actual scientists continued to think about this problem and a few other explanations have surfaced. These scientists have been ridiculed by people with political motives.

It seems to me, that "liberals" are only interested in evidence that supports their political agenda, and "conservatives" are interested in any evidence, whatever the source, so they can better understand the problem (as long as it isn't politicized or emotional.)

shiningpath,

All sounded pretty good. Then I got to the last paragraph. Do I read this right? I paraphrase: "liberals are only interested in evidence that supports their political agenda" "Conservatives are only interested in the truth".

Um. That's not the kind of discussion I wanted to have at all. My whole point is that I assume there are intelligent open-minded people both liberal and conservative and I want to talk with people who share that belief, or at least that hope. I'm not interested in discussing things with someone who just outright dismisses one side. That's what 99% of the discussion is like and look where it gets us.

Did I misinterpret that last paragraph?

vwomack,

You are probably right about one facet of conservatism. Anyone who gets their scientific facts from a sacred text will not be part of a discussion of scientific evidence. Faith and scientific method are two completely different ways of arriving at answers.

But I think there is a large conservative contingent for whom this isn't the explanation.

I should probably acknowledge that when the preponderance of evidence supports global warming theory, the majority of both liberals and conservatives more or less go along with it. But at some hypothetic point in the past, when the evidence was 50-50, why would liberals tend to believe and conservatives not? When the scientific evidence was split? That's what I wonder about.

Maybe I didn't think it out very well before I wrote it.

If there is a preponderance of evidence, I haven't seen it or heard of it. All I hear is more voices yelling louder and I can't identify a trustworthy source in the din.

I'll listen to reputable climatologists who present their papers to established professional bodies and allow two years for verification, questions, and testing. After two years if nobody can find a problem with it then I'll go along.

Another program about this issue on NPR isn't going to sway me one bit.

It seems to me, that the loudest voices are politically motivated "liberals". That's just an observation. I haven't seen any programs on television produced by conservatives claiming that global warming is a lie. (or maybe I have, I'll get to them in a moment)

I have seen many politically motivated liberal programs drawing erroneous conclusions from the evidence. In some cases, it's plain and simple disinformation.

The question you asked (I think), is how liberals and conservatives can come to two different conclusions from the same evidence.

They don't.

Intelligent people can tell the difference between propaganda and credible evidence (if they look closely and have a little background in science, logic, and statistics) OK, maybe a little life experience that relates to the subject too.

I wouldn't believe anything Al Gore, Michael Moore, or anyone of "their ilk" said. I accept mistakes, errors in judgment, and all the other flaws that make us human. I don't accept character defects. If you want to convince me of something, the worst thing you could do was to employ someone with known character defects to sell your case. I'll wind up not trusting you, just because you associated yourself with them.

Maybe thats whats going on? It's the old "cry wolf" story. I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh the day he claimed there were more trees now than there were in "1800 something." (or something like that, this was back around 1990) He got his data from some paper company, who harvested the old growth forests decades ago and planted row after row of genetically engineered pine trees to replace them.

If you add up the 3 yr old trees, which are densely spaced, they alone would account for vast forests. Acres of 3' tall pine trees spaced 8' apart do not equal a forest. Anyone who would go to that length to discredit environmentalism has a character defect and a pea-sized brain. Someone who never hunted, never spent anytime in the forest, might be fooled by such an argument if they didn't actually review the data and use their brains.

People listen to that moron and believe everything he says, because his rhetoric has convinced them he is on their side. Others are Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. None of them have the background or expertise to speak knowledgeably on global warming.

They are very good at exposing silly poseur liberals, and I enjoy watching them do just that. :)

To get back to your initial thread, I don't think conservatives tend to disbelieve. I think uneducated people who listen to Rush Limbaugh tend to disbelieve. Trying to figure out how people like that think could fill an entire season of Jerry Springer episodes.

I tend to listen to people who actually have degrees and professions (credibility) that go along with the subject they are discussing.

**edited afterthought***

I know the earth is warming, the question is what am I going to do about it. perhaps I'll move to Montana and become a dental floss tycoon. :)

shiningpath,

Thanks for balancing (somewhat) your general condemnation of liberals by slamming Rush Limbaugh and the like. Yes, ideologues on either side don't contribute much of value.

One thing I know about you from this and your other posts is that you have knowledge of, connection to, and appreciation of the natural world more than most. Sometimes what one person calls 'bias' might be something like that - a value system that is different from theirs. Some people value 'nature' on more levels than others. Or, as your example shows well, have an understanding of the complexity of the natural world and how, say, farming pine trees in monoculture is radically different from a nature forest, in many important ways.

I think I figured out the answer!

My question wasn't really about global warming, it was about how conservatives and liberals tend to believe or not believe what really should be apolitical information. Global warming seemed like a good example because 'science' seems less political than economics or current events reporting. There are plenty of examples from other realms. For example, we can all imagine which side would instinctively tend to believe, or disbelieve, a report on how a social program is having a positive impact...or not.

Yes, the religion question is a factor. Yes, the fact that we tend to get our news from sources on "our" side is a major factor.

But I was talking to a (liberal) friend about this discussion. Of course she first trashed the conservatives and I said that wasn't exactly what I was looking for and she tried again with a statement of the form: "The conservatives don't want the government to..." and I interrupted and said, "I'm not asking about policy here, I am interested in why people tend to believe or disbelieve information." She tried a few more times, and it kept coming out as a variation on "They don't want the government to..."

And then it hit me! That's the explanation. When considering the facts, people quickly leap to the implications, i.e., about policy. They know how they feel about policy - about what they want the government to do or not to do - and they back into the facts that would lead to their preferred policy. If you want the government to impose policies that force reductions in fossil fuel consumption, get cars off the road, encourage vegetarianism, etc., then believing that global warming is a dire threat is very appealing. If you want the government to do less regulating, you want lower gas tax, you don't want government interference in industry, etc., then it is much more appealing to believe that global warming doesn't exist, or is exaggerated, etc.

By the same token, if you want the US to stay in Iraq, you instinctively believe news stories about successes and progress. If you want the US out, you instinctively believe news stories about the hopelessness of the situation or about how the US presence is detrimental.

It all seems very backwards, of course. And you might think I have it backwards. But I think not. It raises more questions than it answers, though. Like how we arrived at our conflicting underlying beliefs and preferences in the first place.