Gosh, we never would have figured this out on our own. The conclusion is stunning:
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In response to our first research question, we find a sizable political divide between
liberals/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans in the American public on the issue of global warming. Just as elites are politically divided on this issue, so too is the general public. Liberals and Democrats are more likely to hold beliefs about global warming consistent with the scientific consensus and to express concern about this environmental problem than are conservatives and Republicans. Furthermore, this divide has grown substantially over the past decade.
/sarc
Previously from the same professor: Study: Women more likely than men to accept global warming
From Michigan State University
EAST LANSING, Mich. — Despite the growing scientific consensus that global warming is real, Americans have become increasingly polarized on the environmental issue, according to a first-of-its-kind study led by a Michigan State University researcher.
The gap between Democrats and Republicans who believe global warming is happening increased 30 percent between 2001 and 2010 – a “depressing” trend that’s essentially keeping meaningful national energy policies from being considered, argues sociologist Aaron M. McCright.
“Instead of a public debate about different policies to deal with global warming, a significant percentage of the American public is still debating the science,” said McCright, MSU associate professor and primary investigator on the study. “As a result, we’re failing to significantly address one of the most serious problems of our time.”
The study is featured in the spring issue of the research journal Sociological Quarterly, online now.
McCright and Riley E. Dunlap of Oklahoma State University analyzed 10 years of data from Gallup’s environmental poll, making the study the first of its kind to use multiple years of data. The Gallup poll, conducted annually, consists of a nationally representative telephone survey of at least 1,000 people.
According to the MSU-led study, people on the right of the political spectrum increasingly deny the existence of global warming, while people on the left generally believe in global warming more now than they did 10 years ago. Among other things, the study found:
- Of those who identify as Republicans, about 49 percent said in the 2001 Gallup survey that they believe the effects of global warming have already begun – a number that dropped to 29 percent in 2010. Meanwhile, the percentage of Democrats who believe global warming has already begun increased from about 60 in 2001 to 70 in 2010. All told, the gap between these “believers” in the two parties increased from 11 percent in 2001 to 41 percent in 2010.
- A similar trend held for people who identify as either conservative or liberal. When it came to believing that global warming has already begun, the gap between conservatives and liberals increased from about 18 percent in 2001 to 44 percent in 2010.
- Among liberals and Democrats, having a college degree increases the likelihood of reporting beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus. Yet, among conservatives and Republicans, having a college degree often decreases the likelihood of reporting such beliefs.
According to McCright, these results are consistent with the prevailing theory that explains how political polarization occurs in the general public. “In the last few decades political elites have become polarized on climate change. This has driven the political divide on this topic within the American public, as regular citizens have taken cues from ideological and party leaders they trust.”
McCright said the process has been magnified over the past decade by the emergence of media outlets where citizens can seek out news and ideas that reinforce their values and beliefs. He said citizens at either end of the political spectrum can get daily information – albeit very different information – on global warming that further strengthens their opposing beliefs about what is real.
“Unfortunately, this is not a recipe for promoting a civil, science-based discussion on this very serious environmental problem,” McCright said. “Like with the national discussion on health care, we don’t even agree on what the basic facts are.”
This political polarization on climate change is not likely to go away in the near future, he added.
“Many Republican Party leaders have moved further to the right since the 2008 presidential election. We’ve also seen attacks on climate science by Tea Party activists. It seems like climate change denial has become something of a litmus test for Republican candidates,” McCright said.
“This continued elite polarization on climate change means that the general public will likely remain politically divided on climate change for a while.”
###
Michigan State University has been working to advance the common good in uncommon ways for more than 150 years. One of the top research universities in the world, MSU focuses its vast resources on creating solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges, while providing life-changing opportunities to a diverse and inclusive academic community through more than 200 programs of study in 17 degree-granting colleges.
Full paper here (PDF)
HP: “People who read objectively and who are not seduced by “beliefs”, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, acknowledge the reality of climate change. The evidence is overwhelming for these people. ”
Wow! What a devastating argument to level against us poor benighted folks who draw different conclusions from the available evidence! I really didn’t know that I was incapable of “reading objectively” and that I was “seduced by [you left out the adjective “false”] ‘beliefs'”. What is left for intellectual losers like myself but to bow to your self-acknowledged superior wisdom and join the millions of “climate refugees” who, as our intellectual superiors assure us, are fleeing the populated coastal centers even as we speak. They are, aren’t they?
I believe it is self evident that when an argument uses an appeal to scientific consensus (educated elite athorities) to negate the right to self determination, private property, and liberty , that a con is taking place as well as a blatant grab for power. I don’t care what the “experts” say, they can’t have my freedom just because their “unquestionable facts” tell them enslavement is more efficient and good for the environment. I am amazed how naieve college educated people are concerning a very thinly veiled appeal to absoulute centralized authority painted over with a gloss of scientific jargon and egalitarianism. Too bad educated elite don’t learn about what happened in Germany on Jan 30, 1933… it might give them pause before they try to ‘save’ us.
Hey, cut the associate “Professor” some slack!
“Previously from the same professor: Study: Women more likely than men to accept global warming.”
Coming soon:-
“Coffee Drinkers more likely to be sceptical than Tea Drinkers”
“Men who dress to the left more likely to accept consensus view of Climate Change”
“Twinkie Bar fanciers more likely to believe Al Gore than Beer Drinkers”
There’s a whole career path mapped out there for Sociologist “Researchers”!
*Sigh* *face-palm*
Well, I guess it is useful — in some ways — to have empirical evidence…..very long, detailed empirical evidence of the bleeding obvious.
David Falkner says: April 19, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Wow Maue, you went to blue? Must be awful these past few years during bowl season. Of course, you can always take comfort in the fact that I am a ND fan.
I was stationed awhile in ND when I was in the Air Force. Nice people, but mighty cold up in Minot. I don’t recall they had much of a football team, but it’s nice to know they have a few fans.
Hugh Pepper says on April 19, 2011 at 11:02 pm:
“People who read objectively and who are not seduced by “beliefs”, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, acknowledge the reality of climate change. ”
After watching weather reports on the TV for about 60 years, I have concluded that there is no climate change. That is to say, the patterns of weather in the various regions of the earth are about same. Weather can be variable year-to-year, and there can be exreme weather events such as prolonged drought. But over the long haul weather usually settle downs back down normal.
You should take a trip into the countyside and ask the old folks about climate change.
What do the white-coated wisguys in NYC really know weather and climate?
Of COURSE the scientific consensus is growing! Let us look at the trends.
We don’t have data earlier than about 1985, but I can extrapolate the trend using a computer model to show that there was no warming consensus whatsoever in 1970 – in fact, there was a belief that an ice-age was due.
Now we have at least 20% belief in global warming. That is a significant positive trend. I predict that by the year 2300 EVERYBODY will believe in global warming.
Can I have my grant money now…?
Mark Allinson says on April 19, 2011 at 9:55 pm:
How amazing, that the “progressive” side of politics thinks that a scheme to hobble capitalism, increase taxes, and re-distribute wealth is one we should support. Surely any “science” that could be used to support such a scheme, say the liberals, is right and should never be questioned – gift horses should not have dental inspections.
FYI: Such schemes are now operating in BC. In July 2008, BC enacted the “Climate Action Plan” (CAP) and started Phase One of the Plan: A carbon tax on fossil fuels at $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. This tax will increase to $30 per tonne on July 1, 2012. I currently pay a ca 20% tax on the commodity price of BC nat gas.
The BC gov will soon introduce Phase Two: Laws regulating the emission of GHG’s from all sources. When the Climate Action Plan is fully “entrenched” in law, the BC gov has the “legislative authority” to:
1. Indirectly, seize control of all means of production.
2. Indirectly, control the production of all goods and services.
3. Use the carbon tax scheme to redistribute wealth via tax cuts to busineses and corporation and to taxpayers with incomes less than $120,000. Individual taxpayers and families with incomes much greater than $120,000 get no tax breaks.
4. Control every aspect of the affairs and lives of the people of BC. For example, banning the sale of certain incan. lightbulbs.
NB: The terms “entrenched” and “legislative authority” are used in the CAP.
What is really scary about the CAP is that the clueless folks in BC have swallowed the CAP hook, line, sinker, beaver, bear, and bluejay. There have been no complaints so far about the CAP.
I’ve been hearing about the “growing”, “overwhelming” scientific consensus for more than ten years. Given the claims of growth, it should have reached 3000% of all scientists by now.
I also don’t see the growth in Democratic support or liberal support for AGW claims. Instead, more and more self-described liberals are standing up and calling BS when they see it.
This appeal to popularity is about as unscientific as it gets. When I ask about the claims of Special Relativity, I never get the reply that Relativity is supported by an overwhelming consensus, or that anti-Relativists are supported by evil Newtonians to deny the truth of Relativity. I just get references to experiments designed to falsify Relativity that repeatedly show that despite Relativity’s counter-intuitive claims, every properly done experiment shows that Relativity’s claims are correct to high accuracy.
See http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html for example.
The claim of consensus means the evidence is weak and the greater the consensus claimed, the weaker the evidence.
Dodgy Geezer says:
April 20, 2011 at 1:27 am
That Coming Ice Age that was all the rage in the 1970’s is still just as due now as it was then. It will take 10-12 thousand years to get to the icy bottom, but who wants to debate messy details. We’ll all just go into cyrogenic freeze and set the timer for 80,000 years when the next Interglacial is due. Better yet, lets build rockets and travel to Alpha Centauri, only 60,000 years one way.
Hi Anthony,
any time I see articles like this, I feel that there are nutcases on both sides.. For example there is scientifically no doubt whatsoever, that additional CO2 in the lower atmosphere traps outgoing radiation. The question what that exactly means for the climate is a different one! (The direct effect for the CO2-doubling is somewhere near 1° Fahrenheit according to actual scientific knowledge)
A few posts up here was one seeming to ignore this fact.. It is important to point out any wrong posts in your blog .. otherwise deniers are watering down valid skeptic arguments!
My favorite thought experiment is to have a group of warmist and skeptics travel to the top of the Empire State Building and tell them that global warming consensus has is that if you jump the rising hot air due to AGW will cushion you and you will float gently to the ground, avoiding all those elevators. After all, it’s consensus.
Tez to quote your first sentence – “As I have suspected for a long time, AGW is politically motivated, with biased science backed predictions as an attempt to legitimise their policies”
Surely, then, the view that anti-AGW is politically motivated, with biased science backed predictions as an attempt to legitimise their policies, is equally supported by the article, OR is this confirmation bias on your part?
http://mitigatingapathy.blogspot.com/
“According to McCright, these results are consistent with the prevailing theory that explains how political polarization occurs in the general public. “In the last few decades political elites have become polarized on climate change. This has driven the political divide on this topic within the American public, as regular citizens have taken cues from ideological and party leaders they trust.” ”
This may apply to the periphery of each party (the true believers), but I don’t think political and ideological leaders are the primary-driver of the divide. Politicians aren’t all fools – they know when the public mood is changing and when to follow suit – and that change can be based on many things, particularly with such a complex issue as AGW.
People’s views of global warming apparently changes with the temperature on a given day!
http://www.livescience.com/13604-weather-affects-global-warming-acceptance.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/08/3186411.htm
The left has hijacked the word science by promoting AGW. Face it, the word now means something else.
Kinda fits the notion that one side is trying to package their political values inside a shiny wrapper of “scientific objectivity.”
This is why they are so adamant that “the science” is beyond question – you’re not supposed to [snip] question it — that’s the whole point!!!
It is the modern version of claiming you have god on your side – nobody is supposed to disbelieve god.
Denialists! Heathens!
Well stretch that tactic too far, corrupt god for your political aims, corrupt science for your political aims, and well, just see what happened to “god’s authority.” Few believe in that anymore.
I mean, I long for a day when we can resolve differences, but we’ll do that by thinking at a higher level (thanks Einstein) than we do now. You can’t solve the left-right and conservative-progressive polarities by just beating the other side down, you solve it by thinking at a higher level where you can integrate constructively what each side has to offer, as appropriate to the problem at hand.
What deniers do you see here, laws ‘o nature? Can you point some out on other blogs, say, on JoNova’s for example?
Slurp of coffee, ah….that’s better. Now for my twopence-half-penny’s worth. Pronounced “tuppence-hapenies” worth. (And apologies for being a bore yet again)
1925 Pocket Oxford Dictionary…..Consenus:- Agreement of “opinion” on the part of all concerned…..& “Opinion”:- Belief based upon grounds short of proof! View held as probable! What one thinks of something, e.g. “what it seems to me”! A disputable point! Definitely sounds like settled science to me then, sarc off!
Why is it people arbitrarily stick the word “science” after a subject to try & increase its dubious value, e.g. Social Scientist, (in other words Social Historian, but history (elsewhere touted as an art form) can be very subjective, so call him a scientist, it sounds better & lends more weight to it! It pees me off when I hear people quoting their degrees like “a degree in Political Science”. Utter tosh. What they mean is a degree in how to exercise influence & control over others in society, IMHO. Science is science, politics is politics, never the twain should meet, lest there be a complete disaster.
So, essentially, the study only shows that its authors belong to the far left right hippie green Goebbels industry and is trying to try try again.
It’s kind of cute how they so ardently use cheap political propaganda tricks from their “golden” days to claim the opposition is politically motivated.
Laws of Nature says:
April 20, 2011 at 2:04 am
Hi Anthony,
any time I see articles like this, I feel that there are nutcases on both sides.. For example there is scientifically no doubt whatsoever, that additional CO2 in the lower atmosphere traps outgoing radiation. The question what that exactly means for the climate is a different one! (The direct effect for the CO2-doubling is somewhere near 1° Fahrenheit according to actual scientific knowledge)
A few posts up here was one seeming to ignore this fact.. It is important to point out any wrong posts in your blog .. otherwise deniers are watering down valid skeptic arguments!
Be careful. If you use the D-word, to often, you may be banned from posting.
You also have the direct effect of CO2 wrong- it is 1Celsius, which is 1.8F.
I was a liberal until I grew up. I think I was about 13 when I realised I’d been wrong all my life.
IMO these are all manifestations of willingness to accept “authority uber alles”. But to explain it that way would not create grants and studies. Shrouding it in the “shamanic” mysteries of gender, politics etc is more intriguing
Anthony,
What is making more people skeptical is that science tied itself to politics and in doing so has left the door wide open for being lied to mentality. How many, many , times has political promises been made and the goal NOT achieved.
Again, many, many times.
I don’t think I’d be surprised is stoning politicians would be brought up as they are NEVER accountable for their decisions.
As Ron House points out, many of us here are Scientists with appropriate backgrounds and others are bright folks who have studied the problem and “done the math” for themselves.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a “problem” we should be trying to “solve” — is the conclusion most of us reach.