From the: University of Michigan
It’s all in a name: ‘Global warming’ vs. ‘climate change’
ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Many Americans are skeptical about whether the world’s weather is changing, but apparently the degree of skepticism varies systematically depending on what that change is called.
According to a University of Michigan study published in the forthcoming issue of Public Opinion Quarterly, more people believe in “climate change” than in “global warming.”
“Wording matters,” said Jonathon Schuldt, the lead author of the article about the study and a doctoral candidate in the U-M Department of Psychology.
Schuldt co-authored the study with U-M psychologists Sara Konrath and Norbert Schwarz. For the research, they conducted a question wording experiment in the American Life Panel, an online survey conducted by RAND, with a national sample of 2,267 U.S. adults. Participants were asked to report their level of certainty about whether global climate change is a serious problem. In the following question, half the participants heard one version, half heard the other:
“You may have heard about the idea that the world’s temperature may have been going up [changing] over the past 100 years, a phenomenon sometimes called ‘global warming’ [‘climate change’]. What is your personal opinion regarding whether or not this has been happening?
Overall, 74 percent of people thought the problem was real when it was referred to as climate change, while about 68 percent thought it was real when it was referred to as global warming.
These different levels of belief may stem from the different associations carried by the two terms, Schuldt said. “While global warming focuses attention on temperature increases, climate change focuses attention on more general changes,” he said. “Thus, an unusually cold day may increase doubts about global warming more so than about climate change. Given these different associations and the partisan nature of this issue, climate change believers and skeptics might be expected to vary in their use of these terms.”
As part of the study, the researchers also analyzed the use of these two terms on political think tank websites, finding that liberals and conservatives used different terms. Conservative think tanks tend to call the phenomenon global warming, while liberal think tanks call it climate change.
And when the researchers analyzed responses to the survey by political orientation, they found that the different overall levels in belief were driven almost entirely by participants who identified themselves as Republicans. While 60 percent of Republicans reported that they thought climate change was real, for example, only 44 percent said they believed in the reality of global warming.
In contrast, about 86 percent of Democrats thought climate change was a serious problem, no matter what it was called. Why weren’t they influenced by question wording? “It might be a ceiling effect, given their high level of belief,” Konrath said. “Or it could be that Democrats’ beliefs about global climate change might be more crystallized, and as a result, more protected from subtle manipulations.”
The good news is that Americans may not be as polarized on the issue as previously thought. “The extent of the partisan divide on this issue depends heavily on question wording,” said Schwarz, who is also affiliated with the U-M Ross Business School and the Institute of Social Research (ISR). “When the issue is framed as global warming, the partisan divide is nearly 42 percentage points. But when the frame is climate change, the partisan divide drops to about 26 percentage points.”
For a free reprint from the journal’s online depository: http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/nfq073?ijkey=YcGpwzhzykOYkl7&keytype=ref
U-M Sustainability fosters a more sustainable world through collaborations across campus and beyond aimed at educating students, generating new knowledge, and minimizing our environmental footprint. Learn more at sustainability.umich.edu
===============================================================
From that reprint, the results in Table 2, proving once again that the people belive the climate has changed and will continue to do so. It is a rather obvious result. – Anthony
These people should do some real research. It does not matter what you call it if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is a duck. And Climates Change.
So the climate is changing. HOW is it a ‘problem’?
How much money did we pay for this research that totally misrepresents the debate? Do they seriously think that the sceptical position is that the climate is not changing? …that we are arguing about whether the globe has warmed over the last 100 years?? Can they really be so removed from reality, or are we lead to conclude that this is another type of “careful speaking.” I would call it passive agression if I did not know so many others floating around in the same bubble.
…the latest idiocy from our local ideologues of our West Oz green group Conservation Council of WA…who have failed to mention climate change, global warming or whatever it is called this week, for some time now, but have constantly preached on about emissions instead…
is this from Facebook: Neville Numbat
Numbats! The PERTH launch of the Beyond Zero Emissions Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan is this Monday 14 March at the Perth Town Hall. RSVP on this link for the free event.
Events to create change by beyondzeroemissions.org | Beyond Zero Emissions
http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org
Solar and wind can supply Australia’s energy needs within 10 years. This forum will discuss what steps need to be taken now to make it a reality.
(Numbat is a rare furry marsupial with a pointy nose)
I thought the IPCC or is it the EU or UN or Mickey Mann?
Were committed to keeping the ‘inexorable’ rise in Temperatures [due of course to man made CO2 emissions] to 1.5 deg’ C by the year dot or 2050, or has all that gone out of the window with the science too???
Thus, it still is AGW we’re battling, isn’t it??
You can change the terminology, call it misspeaking, when you mean lying… but it is all in the end, total BS…..because…..:-
Controlling Climate Change, well that’s still God’s job, isn’t it?
“In contrast, about 86 percent of Democrats thought climate change was a serious problem, no matter what it was called.”
And the other 14% are WUWT regulars, so please remember when discussing the political aspects of “climate challenge” to throw away your broad brush and write most Democrats instead of Democrats.
(BTW, I vote Indie but I have seen many appeals posted here from those among the 14% not to paint all Democrats or liberals – U.S. version – with the same broad brush. Now they have numbers to back up their plea.)
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
[Banzai voice]
“It’s the Great Banzai Crazy Climate Challenge!”
“Will tempeture go up? Or will tempeture go down?”
“PLACE BETS NOW!!!!”
‘Do you believe in climate change?’ Are you kidding me? They might as well ask: Do you believe in the moon?
The only reason that any rational person would ever answer ‘no’ to the question of whether the world’s climate system changes, is because that person is sick of hearing about how Manhattan will be under water by the end of this decade and the residents of Kiribati and the Maldives are all about to become climate refugees.
You can usually tell a lot about the impetus behind a survey by the particular wording of the questions that are asked.
Andrew Bolt this morning on the radio in Melbourne this morning:
“We chat to Jill Duggan, from the directorate-general for climate action at the European Commission, who says the opposition here to a carbon dioxide tax is ”slightly bizarre” when Europe has no problem with its own price on carbon dioxide. Really, I ask, with European unemployment at 10 per cent and growth at just 1.6 per cent? So I ask this salesman of the EU emissions trading scheme the two basic questions everyone should ask of anyone selling anything: how much does it cost, and what will it do? How many billions will Europe spend on this scheme to cut its emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, and by how much will that cut the world’s temperatures by 2100? The interview suddenly goes very pear-shaped for one of us – and is a stunning indictment of the EU’s foolishness. The question about job losses caused by Europe’s green schemes goes no better. ”
Please listen to this show. It will inform and greatly amuse. The link to the recording is under the picture of Jill Duggan. Make it viral.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_9/#commentsmore
“You may have heard about the idea that the world’s temperature may have been going up [changing] over the past 100 years, a phenomenon sometimes called ‘global warming’ [‘climate change’].
This question is obviously false and misleading from the get go.
There is no doubt that the climate has changed since the end of the little ice age, it has gotten noticably warmer, therefor, one could honestly answer that it has gotten warmer. The real question is, is that caused by human created CO2? Is it even possible for human created CO2 to do that? Is any human CO2 caused warming big enough to have any noticable effect? That is the real question, the above question is a non question.
As for strictly 100 years, can we say that it has gotten warmer since, oh, say, 1934? It has only gotten warmer after the data (if it can even be called that anymore) was ‘adjusted”.
As for belief, belief is irrelevent, it is either getting warmer, or it is not. If it was getting warmer, we wouldn’t need scientists to tell us that it has gotten 0.1 degrees warmer in some faraway place like Siberia or northern Canada where no one lives and then that means the gobe is getting warmer, or other obscure things such as that, we would see the signs ourselves. If it was really getting warmer, the ice would be melting. If the ice was melting, the sea would be rising rapidly and noticably. No one would be able to mistake that. yet, last I heard, not only has there been no noticable change in the very slow and steady rise of sea level since the end of the little ice age, it has actually leveled off and may right now be dropping.
Therefor, this question is seen to be only about belief, “how do we get people to believe us despite the evidence, how do we get people to believe, I mean really buuuuuh-leeeeeeeeeave!” How do we get people to to actually buy the statment “who are you going to believe, us colledge professors or your lying eyes?” The very wording of the question is a slap in the face of science, even the very idea of science. I mean, who the hell cares WHAT you “believe”? If enough people believe it, is that what we now call truth? I guess astrology is then “proven” true now, right? Therefor, this very question shows that the questioners have intent to lie, since they only care about “belief” and how they can assure it, not about what is or is not proven true.
I, instead, plan to base my “belief” on the scientific method, which says:
Hypothesis, if it was warming, the ice would be melting.
If the ice was melting, the sea would be rising.
If it was human created CO2 cuasing the ice to melt and the sea to rise, that rise would have started a very noticable accleration around say 1940.
No such rise has been seen, the very slow and steady rise since the end of the little ice age hasen’t budged.
Conclusion, human caused CO2 has not created any noticable warming.
The second hypothesis, that any change in ice melting and sea rising is caused by the true cause of “global warming”, the sun (DUH!), and that changes in the sun cause ice to melt and sea to rise (specifically noticed by the cold in the little ice age coinciding with low sunspot numbers), would be born out if the sun went into another little ice age style funk which would coincide with sea levels leveling out or even dropping.
The sun has gone into a funk.
The sea level rise has slowed and stopped right at the time the sun went into it’s funk. and may be dropping as of right now.
Conclusion, the SUN causes global warming, or cooling.
The first hypothesis has been conclusively proven false. The second is looking to be proven true.
So much for “belief”.
The question is missing the point by a long shot. The climate has been changing for the last 4 billion years, and continues to do so now. About half of that time it was getting warmer, and half of it cooler. It may well be that we’ve been in a warming phase for the last couple of decades, but that alone is not an interesting observation. It’s pointless asking an audience their opinions on these facts as they are facts, they should not be a subject of an enlightened debate.
The debatable points about “global warming” are:
(1) Climate has been changing at an unusual pace or to unusual conditions recently and/or is likely to do so in the immediate future.
(2) The supposed change is disruptive/dangerous/damaging to humanity (and not neutral or even beneficial).
(3) The supposed change is monocausally attributable to human activities.
(4) Humanity has the technological and logistical means to stop the supposed climate change.
(5) It is desirable to do so; specifically, the damage done by supposed climate change outweighs the overall cost of attempting to stop it.
Supporters of policies that supposedly combat “climate change” are challenged to argue for all points 1 through 5. If they fail to convince us of even one of the above, “climate policies” have no legitimacy. Unfortunately the public debate (where it takes place, which it doesn’t everywhere) rarely addresses these issues and instead focuses mostly on the question if “climate change” is happening or not. But that is mostly irrelevant.
“Mass Deception” is it’s real name. Quacking or not.
As pointed out, lying can be referred to as misspeaking, or better still, describe someone as being “economical with the truth!”. I thought it was all in the name. Note how the EU/UN/Greenpeace/WWF/FoE all refer to inexorable temperatre rises, but never call it Global Warming. I have never heard any of them talk about Global Cooling through CO2 with any seriousness, but Climate Change is the catch-all heads I win tails you loose scenario. How scientific does a body become when it refers to scenarios & storylines when these are terms the entertainment (if it could be called such) industry uses in soap operas!
I also note from Ice-core graphs that those peaks with their little squiggles all seem to be about the same length, & the little squiggly peak we’re in is of similar duration. Can anyone lend credance to the apparent scientific claim that we won’t be entering an ice-age for agt least 50,000-100,000 years?
Next we shall call it…………………………………………..bad weather!
I ran a road transport business, from the age of 21 years. Much of my company’s work
in 40 years involved long distance movements of agricultural produce, as a consequence my eyes were constantly on the weather. Road conditions for me and
and harvesting conditions for farmers and growers were paramount. Now retired,
but working in my garden, Iam still a keen weather watcher, as I grew up in the 1940’s
I can assure you that I have seen a lot of weather, but have not seen any difference
in recent years its just as changeable as it ever was!
Actually according to you poll they thought it was “happening” not that it was a “serious problem”. Also you forgot to mention that by the same measure 30% of Republicans think climate change isn’t happening. Yet you say
and one of the comments here is
So while you highlight the response of the Democrats is it really the Republicans you think our allowing political bias cloud their judgement?
Why don’t they just cut to the chase and call it what it really is, “Global Liberal Activist Nest Padding”.
The Earth is going to continue on being the Earth with or without a good chunck of sweat and treasure being sent down an agenda driven rat hole, but what does my opinion count for, I’m not an elitist egg head. My betters have handled everything so well up to this point, they can’t possibly be wrong, greedy or have ulterior motives can they. Does the fact that I have a splitting headace and am getting real tired of these folks trying to repackage manure so it doesn’t stink so much, appear to be seeping through here?
Oops sorry, misread. We are in agreement that all politicians are allowing their political opinion influence their opinion on science.
Note to moderator, could you pretty please change the “Libal” in my previous post to read “liberal” . Thanks
Reply: Ok, but I’m not going near chunck or headace. ~ ctm
I think we should forget about how the questions were/were not framed and concentrate on the fact that AGW is mass deception pure and simple. (thnx wayne 3:15am)
The same word games are being played out right now here in Oz regards the proposed carbon (dioxide) tax. The leftards insist on calling it Carbon Pollution when in fact it is Carbon Dioxide Emissions, or more precisely Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions.
Andrew Bolt and the various conservative contacts of his on radio and press are now insisting that it be called a Carbon Dioxide tax.
Amazingly, a caller to Bolts radio show, an adult, asked if it was a tax on Carbon the black stuff or a tax on CO2 the clear gas stuff. So there is massive ignorance out there.
I urge all commentors and debaters to insist at every opportunity that this scam be called for what it is…Anthropogenic Global Warming and the taxes proposed to curb emissions as Carbon Dioxide taxes.
p.s. What’s the bet these many terms (Climate Challenges etc) emanate out of the marketing offices of WWF and or similar advocacy charity groups.
I think it is incumbent on skeptics to hammer home that the alleged problem is real increased CO2, which is alleged to be caused by human activity. CO2 really absorbs some bands of long wave radiant energy (often referred to as “heat”). CO2 also re-radiates energy in relation to how hot it is. When something absorbs energy, all other things being equal, it gets hotter. To refer to the possible changes that might be caused by increasing CO2 as anything other than “warming” is an attempt to muddy the waters. It is disingenuous. In fact, I would suggest that we specifically refer to human generated CO2 generated warming (oh wait, that is what we mean when we say AGW). Specifics are much easier to defend (and refute, if they are wrong).
It’s much worse than that…. Christine Milne (Aussie Green Politician) has referred to it today as a “Climate Emergency” no less! Man(n) the hoses……
In discussing the selling of the recently announced Carbon Tax….
“Greens senator Christine Milne called for a better sales pitch in the face of a successful scare campaign by Tony Abbott (Opposition Leader)
“We need to link much more closely (with) the climate emergency,” she said.”
ctm – thank you for a morning laugh!!
The climate is changing?? Really?? How astounding. When did this begin?
/sarc off
The worrying thing is that 24% did not agree with the concept that the climate can change. Do they really think the climate is static? (Did this survey sample include the certified insane, perhaps?)
Still, on this side of the pond we can smuggly say, “Well, it was an American survey.” OK, OK – I’m leaving – no need to throw things.