Take a look: researchers at George Mason University and Yale have broken down US public opinion into 6 different categories (pdf link), based on people’s belief in, and concern about, global warming.
For the nickel version, see the graphic below:
Of course, I’m sure there are more than 6 ways of slicing this pie. It seems likely to me that public opinion lies in a continuum, rather than in 6 discrete groups.
Still, the authors’ analysis yields some interesting findings. My favorite is this: folks who are convinced that global warming is a hoax—the “Dismissives”—admit they haven’t thought all that much about the issue (see Figure 6 on page 14 of the pdf) yet rank themselves as extremely knowledgeable and well informed (see Figure 7).
That should tell us something: for many climate skeptics, facts don’t matter much. They’ve only given the subject a bit of thought, but are still convinced that they know the answers. I don’t mean to be snarky, but to me this suggests that some “Dismissives” may suffer from some version of the Dunning-Kruger effect—the idea that people are very poor judges of their own incompetence. That probably makes many “Dismissives” unreachable: when facts confront their biases, the facts bounce off and the biases stand firm. (I’m sure that’s true of us all, to some degree or another.)
And here’s another point: press accounts of climate issues often include spokespeople at the poles; reporters balance quotes from the “Alarmed” with quotes from the “Dismissive.” Yet the “Six Americas” report suggests that the process of “balancing” reporting by providing quotes and perspectives from both sides of the debate gives a skewed representation of public opinion. The “alarmed” and “concerned” make up about 51% of the population, while the “doubtful” and “dismissive” represent 18%. Yet if you look at standard he-said-she-said reporting, you might think that opinion is roughly split down the middle.
I’d be very interested in seeing this analysis applied to actual climate scientists. After all, the question of whether climate change is a real threat can’t be decided by a popularity contest or a public opinion poll; the debate is over facts, not opinions. Many of the climate scientists I’ve met fall into some sort of category far beyond Alarmed—like “Super-Duper-Mega-Alarmed”—and one has fallen somewhere between Cautious and Doubtful (though certainly not Disengaged). The closest thing we have to this kind of weighing of the collective opinions of professional climate scientists is the IPCC report—essentially, a survey of the opinions of the super-informed. And contrary to the scorn of the Dismissives, that report leaves little doubt about where the scientific consensus falls. From the that report:
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likelydue to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
I’d think that sort of statement would be hard to dismiss; but apparently, that’s just my opinion.
Neril Craig
I would like to take issue with the idea that there ever was a “scientific consensus” on global warming. I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmist lobbyists now totalling in the thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here. There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it would, with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.
SF
About those 31,000 scientists—anyone with a BS or higher degree in any science related field is eligible to sign. That would include myself, if I chose to. And since it was circulated primarily by internet, I doubt they have verified all the signatures. Only 39 of the signers are actual climate scientists. And the petition has been around for 12 years, so it is likely that some who signed it have changed their mind.The capitalist market place does not provide much support for climate scientists, so nearly all of them work for universities or government agencies. If you don’t count these professionals, the only ones left work for the Heartland Institute, funded by Exxon, and similar groups.That said, I think the numbers of the cautious and doubtful have increased since the e-mail and glacier scandals. To win these people, you can’t disrespect their intelligence or mental state. You have to keep getting the facts out in a positive way. The IPCC said that it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that some of the warming is human caused. Scientific skeptics like Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT are not really arguing about the existence of Anthropogenic warming, but on the amount.
Neil Craig
So like about 10,000 others you cannot name any independent scientist who supports catastrophic warming. No consensus the.
David Hicks
Empirical science is a truth-seeking and error-correcting method of learning that has powerfully transformed our world in many ways in the past century. It has amplified and incarnated both our highest rational hopes and our darkest irrational fears. Many of its effects have been unintentional, with global climate change being the best current example. Most Americans know very little about the issue, because [1] they are politically apathetic, and [2] they comprehend very little science. Important issues today are all complex, nuanced, potent, and constantly changing. Understanding requires patience, focus, an open mind, and mutual respect. Personal opinions will not alter the consequences of climate change; demonizing the opposition will not produce solutions. Like it or not, we are all fellow passengers on this overfilled planet, and we must proceed with caution, if there is to be a viable future for our progeny.
SR
Well said David Hicks. It confounds me that people are unquestioning of science when it yields digital wireless technology or the combustion engine, but blindly suspect when it takes something away.
SF
Ok. Gabriele C. Hegerl, Duke University.Ronald J. Stouffer, Princeton. Since both of these universities are private, they should qualify as independent. Both worked as lead authors on the IPCC report, WG1, the physical science basis.
Louise
This study is terrific. First, regarding above remarks of disbelief, notice only about 7% of the population take this position, ‘the dismissives,’ probably about the same percentage who would stay in a burning tavern to get free beer. More interesting is the fact in the most informed and concerned group, the ‘alarmists’, only a third contact their elected representatives. There’s our work: let’s get 5 million of people spending 15 minutes a week logging on to NRDC or UCS or Greenpeace to send messages to official asking for laws and policies to stabilize the climate. We can do this! Pass it on. All the campaign contributions in the world cannot overcome an informed and committed and active populace.
Keith
Thank you SF, though after reading the above article I have to assume Neil Craig is working in overdrive on a way to dismiss the names you provided. “…when facts confront their biases, the facts bounce off and the biases stand firm.”
Julie
If we are causing Global Warming and Global Climate Change,based on this study,we are going to get a lot hotter.