In 2013, there were 10,885 published, peer-reviewed articles that researched anthropogenic, or man-made, climate change. Only two argued that the phenomenon wasn't real, according to James Powell who compiled the data.
So how important is information about global warming? On what basis do we believe the people (experts?) that disseminate it? How do we decide whom to believe?
The treatment of this was, I believe, done best by Dana Nuccitelli, writing in The Guardian in August 2014:
“While there’s a 97% consensus among climate science experts and their research that humans are causing climate change, only about 67% of Americans believe global warming is even happening, including 25% of Tea Party members and 61% of other Republicans. Only about half of Americans realize that humans are causing global warming.
“Social scientists have been investigating this disconnect between the evidence and expert consensus, and public opinion. Is it caused by information deficit and misinformation surplus, political and ideological biases, or some combination of these factors?
“There’s one school of thought among social scientists that information just doesn’t matter – in fact, it might even be polarizing. In essence, liberals feel as though they’re on Team ‘global warming is a problem caused by humans’ while conservatives identify with Team ‘no it’s not.’ Some social scientists believe this cultural identity is so strong that scientific evidence, facts, and information can’t break through it. A 2012 study led by Yale’s Dan Kahan seemed to support this idea, finding that conservatives who are more scientifically literate are less worried about global warming.
“A new paper led by Sophie Guy, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, looks at climate-specific knowledge and ideology. They… asked participants, ‘How much do you feel you know about climate change?,’ about their climate-related beliefs, and their ideology. The authors concluded, ‘...[climate] knowledge dampened the negative influence of individualist ideology on belief in climate change. Individualists favor small government and self-sufficiency, in line with the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Individualists were less likely than communitarians (those who think interdependence is an important part of society, i.e. “it takes a village”) to believe that climate change is happening. However, individualists with high climate-specific knowledge were significantly more likely to accept the climate is changing than those with low climate knowledge.’
“In another interesting result, perceived climate knowledge made hierarchists (those who favor distinct socioeconomic classes – closely related to the ‘religious right’ in the USA) more likely to reject that humans are causing global warming. This may explain Kahan’s results, because those who have solid general scientific literacy may have an inflated perception of their understanding of climate science.
“Thus, scientifically literate hierarchists may be more likely to let their biases influence their opinions on the causes of global warming because they have an inflated perception of their understanding the underlying science. This may also explain why we so frequently hear from engineers, geologists, and physicists who are skeptical of human-caused global warming despite lacking expertise in climate science. Because of their scientific backgrounds, they may have an inflated sense of their understanding about climate science, and thus draw incorrect conclusions that conform to their ideological biases.
“There are two pieces of good news in this new study indicating that information does make a difference and climate education isn’t a lost cause. Across the participants as a whole, ‘People who were knowledgeable about climate change believed more strongly that it is happening, that it is being caused by human activities, and that it has negative consequences than those with less knowledge.’
“Second, conservatives of a libertarian flavor were more likely to accept that global warming is happening when they had a better understanding of the climate. This indicates that some conservatives are persuadable; that information, evidence, and facts can potentially break through their ideological filter.
“There’s no question that ideological biases play a big role in rejection of global warming. However, the results of this study indicate that for a majority of the public, including some conservatives, information that increases understanding about the climate can also increase public acceptance of global warming.”
So is it actually possible for information to sway the people who traditionally are skeptics- the Republicans? I was pleasantly surprised to read this from Anthony Adragna, writing in Bloomberg BNA in August 2014:
So how important is information about global warming? On what basis do we believe the people (experts?) that disseminate it? How do we decide whom to believe?
The treatment of this was, I believe, done best by Dana Nuccitelli, writing in The Guardian in August 2014:
“While there’s a 97% consensus among climate science experts and their research that humans are causing climate change, only about 67% of Americans believe global warming is even happening, including 25% of Tea Party members and 61% of other Republicans. Only about half of Americans realize that humans are causing global warming.
“Social scientists have been investigating this disconnect between the evidence and expert consensus, and public opinion. Is it caused by information deficit and misinformation surplus, political and ideological biases, or some combination of these factors?
“There’s one school of thought among social scientists that information just doesn’t matter – in fact, it might even be polarizing. In essence, liberals feel as though they’re on Team ‘global warming is a problem caused by humans’ while conservatives identify with Team ‘no it’s not.’ Some social scientists believe this cultural identity is so strong that scientific evidence, facts, and information can’t break through it. A 2012 study led by Yale’s Dan Kahan seemed to support this idea, finding that conservatives who are more scientifically literate are less worried about global warming.
“A new paper led by Sophie Guy, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, looks at climate-specific knowledge and ideology. They… asked participants, ‘How much do you feel you know about climate change?,’ about their climate-related beliefs, and their ideology. The authors concluded, ‘...[climate] knowledge dampened the negative influence of individualist ideology on belief in climate change. Individualists favor small government and self-sufficiency, in line with the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Individualists were less likely than communitarians (those who think interdependence is an important part of society, i.e. “it takes a village”) to believe that climate change is happening. However, individualists with high climate-specific knowledge were significantly more likely to accept the climate is changing than those with low climate knowledge.’
“In another interesting result, perceived climate knowledge made hierarchists (those who favor distinct socioeconomic classes – closely related to the ‘religious right’ in the USA) more likely to reject that humans are causing global warming. This may explain Kahan’s results, because those who have solid general scientific literacy may have an inflated perception of their understanding of climate science.
“Thus, scientifically literate hierarchists may be more likely to let their biases influence their opinions on the causes of global warming because they have an inflated perception of their understanding the underlying science. This may also explain why we so frequently hear from engineers, geologists, and physicists who are skeptical of human-caused global warming despite lacking expertise in climate science. Because of their scientific backgrounds, they may have an inflated sense of their understanding about climate science, and thus draw incorrect conclusions that conform to their ideological biases.
“There are two pieces of good news in this new study indicating that information does make a difference and climate education isn’t a lost cause. Across the participants as a whole, ‘People who were knowledgeable about climate change believed more strongly that it is happening, that it is being caused by human activities, and that it has negative consequences than those with less knowledge.’
“Second, conservatives of a libertarian flavor were more likely to accept that global warming is happening when they had a better understanding of the climate. This indicates that some conservatives are persuadable; that information, evidence, and facts can potentially break through their ideological filter.
“There’s no question that ideological biases play a big role in rejection of global warming. However, the results of this study indicate that for a majority of the public, including some conservatives, information that increases understanding about the climate can also increase public acceptance of global warming.”
So is it actually possible for information to sway the people who traditionally are skeptics- the Republicans? I was pleasantly surprised to read this from Anthony Adragna, writing in Bloomberg BNA in August 2014:
“In stark contrast to their party's public stance on Capitol Hill, many Republicans privately acknowledge the scientific consensus that human activity is at least partially responsible for climate change and recognize the need to address the problem. However, they see little political benefit to speaking out on the issue, since congressional action is probably years away, according to former congressmen, former congressional aides and other sources.
“In 2008, while running for president against Obama, [John] McCain featured a market-based, emissions cap-and-trade system as one of the key proposals in his campaign. ‘Global warming presents a test of foresight, of political courage, and of the unselfish concern that one generation owes to the next,’ McCain said in a May 12, 2008, speech in Portland while unveiling his plan for addressing climate change. ‘We need to think straight about the dangers ahead and to meet the problem with all the resources of human ingenuity at our disposal.’
“‘Climate change needs to be in the mix of all of our other discussions,’ former Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), who represented his Ohio district from 1995 through 2013 in the House and is now president of McDonald Hopkins Government Strategies, told Bloomberg BNA. ‘I do think [that] privately—and some not so privately—Republicans are coming to the point where this has been an issue that's been pretty much settled with regard to the science. A lot of it has to do with people calming down and saying let's have a conversation.’
“Over the last several months, a flurry of former Republican officials have called for quick action to address the effects of climate change. Four former administrators of the EPA, all of whom served Republican presidents, told a Senate subcommittee in late June that Republican senators should abandon efforts to block regulations on greenhouse gases and should support action on climate change.
“Separately, high-level Republicans such as former Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine); Henry Paulson, treasury secretary during the administration of President George W. Bush; and George Shultz, secretary of state during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, warned that climate change could cause hundreds of billions of dollars in economic losses by the end of this century without significant action.
“Many Republicans have elected not to engage in the debate on climate change to avoid attracting a primary challenge and potentially losing their seat. One frequently cited example to justify the concern is that of former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), who lost a primary challenge in 2010 after saying climate change is real and calling for a carbon tax. Inglis, now executive director of the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, is one of a small group of Republicans who are pushing their party to actively engage on the issue, and he continues to advocate for a carbon tax.
“Separately, high-level Republicans such as former Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine); Henry Paulson, treasury secretary during the administration of President George W. Bush; and George Shultz, secretary of state during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, warned that climate change could cause hundreds of billions of dollars in economic losses by the end of this century without significant action.
“Many Republicans have elected not to engage in the debate on climate change to avoid attracting a primary challenge and potentially losing their seat. One frequently cited example to justify the concern is that of former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), who lost a primary challenge in 2010 after saying climate change is real and calling for a carbon tax. Inglis, now executive director of the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, is one of a small group of Republicans who are pushing their party to actively engage on the issue, and he continues to advocate for a carbon tax.
In Part 3, I will cover who funds global warming denial.
D. Norman
No comments:
Post a Comment