Paul Krugman points the finger at Republicans for denial, but he also points his finger at the media for denying the denial, by catering to an attempt to present balanced journalism. Science on one side (97% of scientists) versus crazies on the other (Republicans) is not presenting balanced journalism.

Excerpt:

Future historians — if there are any future historians — will almost surely say that the most important thing happening in the world during December 2015 was the climate talks in Paris. True, nothing agreed to in Paris will be enough, by itself, to solve the problem of global warming. But the talks could mark a turning point, the beginning of the kind of international action needed to avert catastrophe.

Then again, they might not; we may be doomed. And if we are, you know who will be responsible: the Republican Party.

O.K., I know the reaction of many readers: How partisan! How over the top! But what I said is, in fact, the obvious truth. And the inability of our news media, our pundits and our political establishment in general to face up to that truth is an important contributing factor to the danger we face.

More important, probably, is the denial inherent in the conventions of political journalism, which say that you must always portray the parties as symmetric — that any report on extreme positions taken by one side must be framed in a way that makes it sound as if both sides do it. We saw this on budget issues, where some self-proclaimed centrist commentators, while criticizing Republicans for their absolute refusal to consider tax hikes, also made a point of criticizing President Obama for opposing spending cuts that he actually supported. My guess is that climate disputes will receive the same treatment.

But I hope I’m wrong, and I’d urge everyone outside the climate-denial bubble to frankly acknowledge the awesome, terrifying reality. We’re looking at a party that has turned its back on science at a time when doing so puts the very future of c

Excerpt:

“We have all seen in recent years the abruptness with which hot-button issues can suddenly become the stuff of consensus,” Stern told students, faculty and members of the public. “I doubt, even a year from now, whether major political candidates will consider it viable to deny the existence of climate change.”

“It’s a basic rule of politics that politicians listen to the voice of potential voters,” he said. “When politicians come to believe that not listening could be detrimental to their political health, they listen.”

i think he’s being naive, but I also hope he’s right.

Excerpt:

[A University of Illinois] survey asked the following: “In general, do you think that a rise in the world’s temperature caused by climate change is extremely dangerous for the environment, very dangerous, somewhat dangerous, not very dangerous, or not dangerous at all for the environment?”

Bohr looked specifically at those individuals who chose the “not very dangerous” or “not dangerous at all” options. And he found that at the lowest income level, the probability that a Republican would give one of these dismissive answers was only 17.7 percent. But at the highest income level, it was 51.2 percent. Here’s a visualization of the chief finding, showing how the likelihood of a Republican giving one of these answers changes in relation to wealth:

This therefore leads to a surprising conclusion: “At the bottom quintile of income, Republicans are not significantly different from either Independents or Democrats” with respect to their denial of climate risks, the study reports. It’s only as income increases that Republicans become so much more likely to be deniers.

Daily Kos answers the question with the caption of its review of the New York Times Op-Ed: “‘I am not a scientist’ is shorthand for ‘David Koch doesn’t want me to answer that.’ “

Excerpt:

Jon A. Krosnick, who conducts polls on public attitudes on climate change at Stanford, finds the phrase perplexing. “What’s odd about this ‘I’m not a scientist’ line is that there’s nothing in the data we’ve seen to suggest that this helps a candidate,” Mr. Krosnick said. “We can’t find a single state where the majority of voters are skeptical. To say, ‘I’m not a scientist’ is like saying, ‘I’m not a parakeet.’ Everyone knows that it just means, ‘I’m not going to talk about this.’ ”

Excerpt:

“ ‘At some point, I don’t know how much energy they have to keep fighting it,’ he [Neil deGrasse Tyson] said of those who don’t accept the science of climate change. 'It’s an emergent scientific truth.’ Tyson added that in the political sphere, denying the science is just a bad strategy. 'The Republican Party, so many of its members are resistant to embracing the facts of climate change that the legislation that they should be eager to influence, they’re left outside the door,’ said Tyson. 'Because they think the debate is whether or not it’s happening, rather than what policy and legislation can serve their interests going forward.’ ”