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
I continue to hold out for “Climate Damage”. It expresses what the Alarmists really mean.
New terminology from “comments” on “Scientific” Ameri”k”an: Temperature differentials.
“Temperature has not started to increase, only temperature differentials have increased”
Comment #2 on http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=failure-climate-satellite-sets-back-earth-science ; by the way, just like 9/11, the rich companies did the satellite failures to avoid carbon tax — Scientific Amerikan is owned by Holtzbrinck
Or, “Do you mean the fizz in a Coke?”
They’re trying to “put the ocean in a cup.” This disorder affects the climatologists who think they’ve got their arms around the world’s climate system with their models. We know too little as yet to model it confidently.
People who persist to believe the AGW-nonsense may become Climatally Challenged.
Allencic wrote:
“If the climate never changed, if it has always been truly stable, would our language have ever thought of the word ‘climate’?”
Of course it would. You don’t have to wait decades for signs of a change in climate. You just need to travel from one country to another. By the Bronze Age traders would have been well aware that the climate of Egypt differed from that of the island of Crete where the Minoan civilisation was based.
hugh pepper~
I am attempting to find a way to address your comments without using phrases such as [snip ]
More people fear dihydrogren oxide than they fear water. Of course words have an effect on people.
*lol* Ok, granted.
Beth Cooper says:
March 9, 2011 at 6:38 am
Odd, it’s been called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1988…
Carbophobia? A Latin/Greek hybrid? No, thanks.
Anthracophobia or misanthracy.
A description in plainer English is HOGWASH:
Hysteria over global warming and suchlike hooey.
I think the new terror-inducing catch phrase SHOULD be:
“Man-Caused Planet-Killing Catastrophic Climate Horror”
It’s “Climate Damage”, I tell you! “Anthropogenic Climate Damage”, if you want redundancy for emphasis.
>:-(
The cure or deprogramming method if you like,human hampster wheels connected to the grid where the Carbonic cultists can work off their self loathing and their debt to society. Think real green energy on demand. Could even be dependable power with proper incentives.
Hope for the UK yet?
In the April 2011 issue of the magazine FOCUS published by the BBC, an organization not known for its balanced view on matters Global Warming, in answer to a question from a reader of ‘How will global warming affect Britain’s weather?’ The following answer:
‘Sceptics have seized on last winter’s snow and record low temperatures as proof that global warming is nonsense. But as Britain makes up just 0.05 per cent of the world’s surface, what happens in our tiny part of the planet can hardly be regarded as representative. In fact, on a global scale, last year was one of the warmest ever. That suggests it would be dangerous to dismiss the predictions of global warming for future British weather.
The trouble is, the predictions themselves are pretty broad brush. Put simply, they suggest that while average temperatures will creep upward, there are likely to be more extremes, with severe winters mixed in with sweltering summers. Similarly while average rainfall is expected to decline somewhat there may be marked seasonal changes, with more droughts and downpours. That’s in line with what we have been experiencing in the UK over recent years, but is also consistent with natural weather cycles.
The fact is that computer models just aren’t powerful enough to reveal which explanation is more plausible – and they might never be.’ Quote unquote.
Whether it is call climate change or global warming it is not really that important. When talking about a phenomenon as important as this, the main point is that people need to be informed of what this phenomenon is causing and why it is a problem. A research about what name is more accepted by people is totally useless. Scientist should not be concerned about what name should it be called, but how to solve the problems that it is causing, if it is really causing any. Scientist should proof why it is a problem instead of wasting time figuring out if people prefer to call it climate change or global warming.
If you ask someone if they believe that the weather is changing, they probably say yes because the weather changes every day. So if they really need to figure out a name for global warming that does not only refer to the rise of temperature they should get a name that is actually led people to think about the seriousness of the problem without being to general, like climate chaos. A research about the consequence of the global warming would be more useful than one about the name of the phenomenon.
The fiddling about with changing the name of the game from global warming to climate chaos is very important: it is by words that we communicate what we are concerned about, what the problem is, what we should do. Without a clear definition of the problem you cannot get a clear idea of what might be done about it.
Of course, this is the reason for the shifting name-game: keep clarity out of the discussion so that you can achieve your end-result without letting anyone understand what you are really doing. In Canada, back in the ’90s, Quebec separatist politicians wrangled a provincial referendum on whether the province would become a separate country. The question was so well worded, that what the people were actually approving was the provinical government to discuss the possible options to change the relationship, power-wise, between Quebec and the federal government of Canada. Nowhere was there a mandate to do anything but talk, and yet the Quebec separatists considered it a mandate to separate if the answer was “yes”. The referendum failed at 50.1% against (a suspiciously high number “for”).
Across Canada there was outrage that such a manipulation was allowed, and the federal government came up with the “Clarity Act”. The Act says that any question put to the people must be clearly stated and interpretable in the manner intended, i.e. for separation, one had to ask, “Do you agree to separate and be your own, independent country?” or some such. Well, the separatists were very angry, as they knew that such bald questions allowed no wiggle room. There has not been mention of another referendum.
Taking lessons from the Clarity Act incident, if the skeptics could get the name fixed, then a high-noon showdown would be possible. If it is AGW, then the A could be falsified. If it were CAGW, the C part would be dissected. Getting towards climate chaos or disruption – we are now two or three steps from CO2. Impossible to fight an enemy that is a ghost in the woods.
Bait and switch – global warming to climate change to climate disruption or chaos. AGW, CAGW – Gavin Schmidt recently said in a response to me that CAGW did not have any meaning to him, and was not under discussion at RealClimate (disingenuous, for sure). Of course not: even though Hansen et al clearly use the images of CAGW to promote their social agenda, by describing the threat clearly, like the Quebec separatists, they open themselves up to questions they cannot answer and do not materially impact their true purpose. The only result from open debate for the warmist side is uncertainty in the minds of their followers.
Gore, in refusing to accept questions from journalists, was the first to publicly demonstrate he understood their perilous position. The Gores, Romms et al understand the importance of not defining the “problem”. Otherwise they would stick at AGW, trot out their supportive evidence and let the facts speak for themselves. As the facts do not offer anything but evidence of a slow warming that began in the 1850s continues today, and all causation is still speculative, they must embrace any re-branding that obscures the reasoning but maintains the brightness of their objective.
The re-naming of … I prefer CAGW, as that is the most honest .. will not stop, but by diluting the threat into undefinable meaninglessness the Hansen-Gore-Suzuki crowd may give themselves an “out”. None will admit error in principle, though Gore did admit to an error in specifics when he reversed himself on the the food-for-fuel issue. The financial, social and personal stakes are too high. There are too many acolytes and too many politicals who have climbed aboard the gravy train of CAGW. If this is what the warmists are doing, we should let them. The sooner the nonsense stops, the better.
The skeptical camp will never be recognized as being right, any more than the anti-witchhunter camp was recognized as being correct. Skeptics will have to accept that the best we can do is help the warmist thrust dissipate.
Doug P;
I suggest a NEW, new, name: BAGW.
Beneficial Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Since both increased CO2 and a degree or few warming would substantially improve food supply and global habitability, it seems the best descriptor, to me!
Brian H.: good idea – Beneficial Anthropogenic Global Warming (BAGW)
Imagine if a pro-human enviro-group figured out that CO2 was, on the whole, good for the people and planet. BAGW as the new rallying call – more plants, more phytoplancton, more food, more fish, more happiness among the third of humanity struggling for a meal. Imagine the environmentalist crisis then! The BAGW side would be legitimately saying that the CAGW people wanted poor people to starve while they drove SmartForTwo.