Climate skepticism blamed on the economy, stupid

Of course, things like lack of any warming trend for a decade couldn’t have anything to do with it. Could it? Climategate? Glaciergate? Fakegate? Naw. It’s the economy, stupid.

Source: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend

Climate Change Skepticism Stems from Recession, UConn Study Finds

By: Christine Buckley, CLAS Today

In recent years, the American public has grown increasingly skeptical of the existence of man-made climate change. Although pundits and scholars have suggested several reasons for this trend, a new study shows that the recent Great Recession has been a major factor.

Lyle Scruggs, associate professor of political science in UConn’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, suggests that this shift in opinion is related primarily to the public’s concern about the economy.

“That the economy impacts the way people prioritize the problem of climate change is uncontroversial,” says Scruggs. “What is more puzzling is why support for basic climate science has declined dramatically during this period.

“Many people believe that part of the solution to climate change is suppression of economic activity,” which is an unpopular viewpoint when the economy is bad, Scruggs continues. “So it’s easier for people to disbelieve in climate change, than to accept that it is real but that little should be done about it right now.”

Scruggs and UConn political science graduate student Salil Benegal published their findings online in the journal Global Environmental Change on Feb. 24. An abstract is available here.

The study relies primarily on information drawn from a number of national and international public opinion surveys dating to the late 1980s.

The researchers found significant drops in public climate change beliefs in the late 2000s: for example, the Gallup 2008 poll reported that between 60 and 65 percent of people agreed with statements of opinion that global warming is imminent, it is not exaggerated, and the theory is agreed upon by scientists. By 2010, those numbers had dropped to about 50 percent.

The authors also found a strong relationship between jobs and people’s prioritization of climate change. When the unemployment rate was 4.5 percent, an average 60 percent of people surveyed said that climate change had already begun happening. But when the jobless rate reached 10 percent, that number dropped to about 50 percent.

The paper also evaluated three other explanations for the crisis in public confidence: political partisanship, negative media coverage, and short- term weather conditions.

“We think that this is the first study to consider the economy and these explanations at the same time, says Scruggs.”

Of these, the authors found that faith in climate change dropped across political parties, among Republicans, Democrats, and independents. They also found that that the “Climategate” email hacking controversy and reported errors in the 2010 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which both occurred after public faith in climate change began to drop, were not factors.

The authors did find that if people had experienced a recent change in short-term weather, they were more likely to believe that climate is changing over the long-term. But when the study controlled for these effects, the economy mattered more than the weather, says Scruggs.

The authors also marshaled international evidence showing that European opinion points in the same direction.

“There is probably a stronger overall ‘pro-climate’ ethos in Europe,” says Scruggs. “Still, even in Europe, countries experiencing more severe national recessions saw larger declines in beliefs that global warming was occurring.”

The researchers speculate that cognitive dissonance, which arises when people experience conflicting thoughts and behaviors, could explain this pattern. Most people view economic growth and environmental protection to be in conflict, so admitting that climate change is real but should be ignored in favor of economic growth leads to an internal philosophical clash.

“Psychologically, people have to evaluate economic imperatives in the recession, and that can create conflicting concerns,” Scruggs says.

When confronted with a desire to boost the economy, he continues, people seem to convince themselves that climate change might not really be happening.

Now that the economy is beginning to bounce back and the unemployment rate is shrinking, Scruggs says it makes sense that belief in global warming has begin to rebound.

“We would expect such a rebound to continue as the economy improves,” he says. “You wouldn’t make that prediction if you think something else, like political rhetoric, is the issue.”

============================================================

Per the top graph, so as to dispel the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the defenders of faith, here’s the larger HadCRUT record for the last 30+ years – it WAS warming, but seems to have stopped in the last decade and is now headed down a bit.

Source: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
139 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
steveta_uk
March 13, 2012 8:37 am

Scruggs I see uses the Gleickian phrase “pro-climate”.
Apparently over in Europe we have a stronger pro-climate ethos. Quite true – we’re all for climate over here, and couldn’t do without it.

NC Skeptic
March 13, 2012 8:38 am

Let me get this right. The climate is heating up. We must kill the economy to fix it. When the economy tanks, people stop believing. What a Conundrum.

Mark Bofill
March 13, 2012 8:39 am

In a way, it’s refreshing to hear this stated so baldly:
“Many people believe that part of the solution to climate change is suppression of economic activity,”
Thanks for the news flash there Lyle, I hadn’t noticed. 😉
I know post normal science methodology is vogue these days, so I guess finding evidence to support the theory without looking for evidence to invalidate it is par for the course. Still, just for kicks, have you considered the effects of climategate, climategate 2.0, gleick’s fiasco, and the glaringly obvious failure of global temperature increases to live up to the hype? Nah, didn’t think so.

Tom Rowan
March 13, 2012 8:39 am

Typical commie libs…blame anything on their failed hoax except that the truth got out.

March 13, 2012 8:40 am

I actually tend to think this is somewhat accurate.
Once the general public saw (feelt the bite) of where all this FREE MONEY! is really coming from, it tended to promote a clarity of mind.

Katherine
March 13, 2012 8:41 am

Of these, the authors found that faith in climate change dropped across political parties, among Republicans, Democrats, and independents.
Yup yup. It’s a religion.

theduke
March 13, 2012 8:42 am

The idea that people might just becoming more informed and convinced by the skeptical view of climate change seems not to have occurred to them.
And the assertion that the public’s view of climate change is turning around with the so-called improvement in the economy is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Roy
March 13, 2012 8:42 am

No questions about revelations that warmist scientists cooked the numbers on their “studies” ????

Joe Haberman
March 13, 2012 8:42 am

I blame Bush.
/sarc

ShrNfr
March 13, 2012 8:43 am

Gosh Virginia there is an AMO after all…

Dave
March 13, 2012 8:45 am

As a UConn graduate I am ashamed of my alma mater. How can this pseudo-psychological garbage pass as scholarliness.

Bengt Abelsson
March 13, 2012 8:47 am

Temperatures declining
Belief in Global Warming declining
Have to be economic recession.
U Con me

Urederra
March 13, 2012 8:47 am

Economy drops, temperature drops. There is correlation then it must be true.
meh…

James of the West
March 13, 2012 8:47 am

no significant warming for a decade and no new record annual temp will stop people from panic and make them skeptical of doomsayers…. But hadcrut4 apparently makes 2010 hotter than 1998 (watch this space) which will bring it into line with GISTEMP.

March 13, 2012 8:48 am

Meaningless sociological study pretending to be science. Looks like it was made a la Mann, with cherry-picked data and figures stuffed and hammered into the endgame “hypothesis.” This one is easy: Nothing skeptics do will make a difference and the weak peons who drop their support because they are being robbed are just selfish sinners.

John West
March 13, 2012 8:52 am

“They also found that that the “Climategate” email hacking controversy and reported errors in the 2010 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which both occurred after public faith in climate change began to drop, were not factors.”
….but when skeptics point out that temperature rise begins before CO2 rise they’re told: well the CO2 might not of started the warming but contributed more and more to it as it warmed. If the logic works one way, why doesn’t it work the other?
Never mind, I’m obviously suffering from “cognitive dissonance”.

Jeff D.
March 13, 2012 8:53 am

I can see a link to the economy.
Millions of people who lost their jobs and didn’t get a green job now have more time to surf. Many have noticed in the news that the CAGW researches still seem to be getting a paycheck so they follow the money. Many of those end up here or similar sites and discover with a little common sense deductive reasoning that it is all a freaking HOAX.

Mr Lynn
March 13, 2012 8:54 am

Who is paying this guy Scruggs for such rampant (and inedible) baloney?
I sure hope it’s not the taxpayers, but I fear the worst.
/Mr Lynn

March 13, 2012 8:54 am

We’ll see what happens with that “pro-climate ethos” in Europe after this past winter….economy, huh?

Steve from Rockwood
March 13, 2012 8:57 am

“That the economy impacts the way people prioritize the problem of climate change is uncontroversial,” says Scruggs. “What is more puzzling is why support for basic climate science has declined dramatically during this period.”

This guy just doesn’t get it. Of course there was a correlation between the economy and global warming science. The latter was ignored until the former collapsed in 2008. Then people started to look around. Why are my electricity bills so high (renewable energy)? Why are gas prices so high (production was limited)? Why are climate scientists keeping out dissenters while questioning their own science (Climategate emails)? Why has it stopped warming (the models are wrong)?
Now that the economy is back on track Scruggs will be eating his words while global warming alarm continues to fade away.

“We would expect such a rebound to continue as the economy improves,” he says. “You wouldn’t make that prediction if you think something else, like political rhetoric, is the issue.”

File that quote under irony. The man lives in a bubble, probably not far from a university.

Green Sand
March 13, 2012 8:58 am

In the UK back in 2008 there was a definite correlation, well more like a perfect storm:-
Gordon Brown + Global Financial Crisis + Climate Change Act!
A real live in your face “Annus horribilis” and now 4 years on and we have still only managed to get rid of one element!

March 13, 2012 8:59 am

Next thing you know, the tanking economy will reflect reduced job security at the UConn Poly Sci Dept. (Or will Global Climate Weirding be to blame?)
Now THAT would be a real tragedy!
Kurt in Switzerland

Bob Diaz
March 13, 2012 8:59 am

Maybe some day someone will show a correlation between increased CO2 and Climate skepticism. Anyone have a few million in grant money for me to try and “prove” this? :-))

Editor
March 13, 2012 9:02 am

A lot of it depends on how you count decades – you seem to use an 11+ year decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
shows 10 year periods 2000-(start)2010 (rising trend) 2001-2001 (slightly falling) and 2002-2012 (moderately falling trend).

Stephen Singer
March 13, 2012 9:03 am

Why not a trend line from 1998 till now? It would probably still be down a bit over three extra years making the point even stronger.

1 2 3 6