From the University of New Hampshire , comes this explanation of what we observe seasonally in the news, that warming events are inevitably linked to global warming.
![hamilton_stampone_2013[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/hamilton_stampone_20131.jpg?quality=83)
Climate change beliefs of independent voters shift with the weather, UNH study finds
Sydney, AUS – There’s a well-known saying in New England that if you don’t like the weather here, wait a minute. When it comes to independent voters, those weather changes can just as quickly shift beliefs about climate change.
New research from the University of New Hampshire finds that the climate change beliefs of independent voters are dramatically swayed by short-term weather conditions. The research was conducted by Lawrence Hamilton, professor of sociology and senior fellow at the Carsey Institute, and Mary Stampone, assistant professor of geography and the New Hampshire state climatologist. The research is presented in the article “Blowin’ in the Wind: Short-Term Weather and Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change” in the American Meteorological Society journal Weather, Climate, and Society.
“We find that over 10 surveys, Republicans and Democrats remain far apart and firm in their beliefs about climate change. Independents fall in between these extremes, but their beliefs appear weakly held — literally blowing in the wind. Interviewed on unseasonably warm days, independents tend to agree with the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. On unseasonably cool days, they tend not to,” Hamilton and Stampone say.
Hamilton and Stampone used statewide data from about 5,000 random-sample telephone interviews conducted on 99 days over two and a half years (2010 to 2012) by the Granite State Poll. They combined the survey data with temperature and precipitation indicators derived from New Hampshire’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) station records. Survey respondents were asked whether they thought climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities. Alternatively, respondents could state that climate change is not happening, or that it is happening but mainly for natural reasons.
Lawyers and engineers that deal with real estate in Sydney report unseasonably warm or cool temperatures on the interview day and previous day seemed to shift the odds of respondents believing that humans are changing the climate (similar to N.H.). However, when researchers broke these responses down by political affiliation (Democrat, Republican or independent), they found that temperature had a substantial effect on climate change views mainly among independent voters.
“Independent voters were less likely to believe that climate change was caused by humans on unseasonably cool days and more likely to believe that climate change was caused by humans on unseasonably warm days. The shift was dramatic. On the coolest days, belief in human-caused climate change dropped below 40 percent among independents. On the hottest days, it increased above 70 percent,” Hamilton says.
New Hampshire’s self-identified independents generally resemble their counterparts on a nationwide survey that asked the same questions, according to the researchers. Independents comprise 18 percent of the New Hampshire estimation sample, compared with 17 percent nationally. They are similar with respect to education, but slightly older, and more balanced with respect to gender.
In conducting their analysis, the researchers took into account other factors such as education, age, and sex. They also made adjustments for the seasons, and for random variation between surveys that might be caused by nontemperature events.
The University of New Hampshire, founded in 1866, is a world-class public research university with the feel of a New England liberal arts college. A land, sea, and space-grant university, UNH is the state’s flagship public institution, enrolling 12,200 undergraduate and 2,300 graduate students.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
” ….. agree with the scientific consensus ……. .” Talk about leading the evidence.
But MSM have more and more to answer for in the, hopefully not too distant, future, because that is where almost everyone gets their information from.
You’ll have to excuse me for being a bit suspicious of a graph where the all the data points appear to lie on a straight line.
The Warming Alarmists (including those in the mass media) continue to use the daily “extreme weather” as a reason to promote their beliefs that man-made warming is 100% responsible for the planet’s weather as well as its long-term climate, both of which rest on very shaky grounds. Of course they go into :”denial” mode themselves when the weather becomes “inconvenient” (i.e. too cold to “prove” warming.)
“(…) tend to agree with the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change”. *Sigh*. Am I ever tired of that ‘consensus’ myth that’s thrown in with every piece there is to read. There maybe is consensus within the Team and their politics, but not in the scientific circles in a broader term. Climate studies, since they have become a nest of activism, hardly make the cut as serious science.
Paywalled so we can’t see what “took into account” means. Why are independents so easily swayed? And I’d like to see actual data rather than a predicted probability graph. This is another sub-par press release AFAIC.
When you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.
Wow, that doesn’t say much for the intelligence of independents. Was I really that stupid as an independent.
So you have a presidential election a couple of days after an hurricane and the candidate who is pro cagw gets a boost in the polls. Mother nature loves a joke, which is just as well.
Shouldn’t this study be called something like ‘The way single cellular organisms react to different stimuli’ !!
or perhaps – ‘How to identify which people are walking thoughtless morons using a study of the general population’
..just saying……….
It could also be said that those “independents” probably wouldn’t know climate change, global warming or cooling, sea levels, high tide or low, or even which way the wind was blowing at any particular time of day even if they all occurred at once and smacked them on the “tochas”. Then again that’s probably true for most citizens, whatever their tribe, whose priorities mostly never extend further than “how can I get through the day without f…ing up tomorrow.” Easy game really.
This study certainly confirms that CAGW is now a purely political issue & that few even care about the underlying science.
What would be more interesting is to understand the psychology / sociology behind these results. Why is it that conservatives are inherently optimistic ( generally anti-alarmists, regardless of what the issue may be) and thus don’t think the government needs to save them from anything while liberal are inherently pessimistic (generally taking an alarmist / worst case scenario point of view, regardless of the issue) and feel that the government must save them / humanity ???
No wonder the media propaganda is so blatant right now, their pollsters are telling them they are losing the independents.
So conservative people want to see some evidence.Belief is not enough.
Liberals believe before evidence, and are resistant to contrary evidence.
Independents are not paying attention, don’t really care either way, right now.
For this scam to end, these nonparticipants need to engage,that will happen, for there is nothing like a hit in the pocketbook to get people engaged and enraged.
Those graph lines seem awfully straight to be representing real data. Are you sure this isn’t a spoof of some kind?
This might explain how Frankenstorm flipped about 4% of the vote…
Election Day 2012: An ill wind blew and the fat man sang!
Quote from Oct 2012 article ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121004134731.htm ):
” … According to Hamilton, across major science organizations, national academies, and scientific reviews there is a broad consensus about climate change, and agreement on certain key observations such as the global increase in CO2 levels, or the decline of Arctic ice. He turned some of those key observations into questions on public opinion surveys, to map out which facts have reached public awareness.
…. “People who agree with the scientific consensus that climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities, are more likely to know what the term ‘greenhouse effect’ means. They also are more likely to give accurate answers to questions about whether, in recent decades, the late-summer area of Arctic sea ice has decreased, CO2 levels in the air have increased, melting land or sea ice could have greater effects on sea level, and volcanoes or human activities released more CO2,” Hamilton says. … ”
At least we know where the good doctor stands on the issue.
Who gathered that data? Zorro?
Well, maybe.
Another cutesy social science study that somehow sounds too ‘good’ (i.e. fits a preconceived pattern too well) to be true.
And what does it actually tell us about attitude and belief – in relation to global warming? Does it not entail a rather bouncy postmodernist view of human judgement?
I won’t dismiss it entirely, but I’m more than a tad suspicious.
“There’s a well-known saying in New England that if you don’t like the weather here, wait a minute.”
I thought this was a well known saying here in Texas?
So Republicans are practical and able to keep an open mind and look at all the information, Democrats are lemmings which follow what they are told and Independents are wishy washy?
If they are able to change the meme to “Extreme weather” then the Independent curve woudn’t be a line but a parabola centered at zero: even low temperatures will push up the predicted probability for those folks.
I think, as has been noted, that this supports the effect “Sandy” had on the recent 2012 U.S. election. Most all polls in the couple weeks before the election had “Independents” going heavily for Romney. Fair weather friends, indeed.
Loved the Zorro comment !!!
Alfred
I don’t want to be a registered Independent any more
As interesting as I find this (and it’s been shown in other environmental sociology studies that people tend to be biased in their observations of climate, and think that individually they can observe trends an individual can’t possibly observe) — I’d be really curious to see the actual data. Those are some nicely cooperative predicted probabilities right there! It almost reads like a very subtle Onion spoof.
So. That’s what higher education calls research. A few polls. I used to play with pollsters by asking them if I had to give honest answers.
Assuming that plot actually is valid, I would say that Republicans are skeptics, Independents are sheep, and Democrats are deep into a religious experience.
Now hold on. This doesn’t say anything in particular about the intelligence of Independents, but rather describes how the average voter who responds to polls comes to a particular viewpoint. People in general are lazy, and tend to go with the herd. Thus, Democrats tend to Believe in CAGW because it is part of the Democrat zeitgeist, and Republicans disbelieve for the same reason. Independents have no herd though. One would think that that very fact would behoove them to research the subject in order to come up with their own conclusion, but one would be wrong. Laziness holds sway. Thus, they go whichever way the wind blows. It is depressing.