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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is personally very disturbing since my son will be attending the Lyman Briggs college at Michigan State where the lead author
teachesindoctrinates the students. I will have to let him know that Professor McCright is on the “we won’t pay for those credit hours” list.The right and left are just two fake constructs used to corral the sheep. They work hand-in-hand, winking and nodding the masses into the pen of totalitarianism. These philosophies of right and left were written by different puppets, but paid for by one master. The whole point of keeping good citizens at each others’ throats works not only for global warming, change, disruption, but for many so-called differences we all argue about — in other words, the goal is the arguing and polarization of the population. Do not fall for the ploy.
Hugh Pepper says:
April 20, 2011 at 5:55 am
“I may have ideas related to the world I share with over six billion others, but if I wish to confirm or disconfirm my “ideas”, I either have to conduct experiments to achieve this result, or rely on others who abide by the scientific protocols accepted in the scientific community.”
When will these ‘experiments using scientific protocols’ begin at IPCC?
Maybe I need to re-read the harry read me file. Must have missed something in those climategate emails.
Hugh, wake up!
ATTN: Mr Lynn on April 20, 2011 at 5:48 am
The present BC gov is the “liberal party”, which is actully a right of center of party. The opposition is the new democratic party which is left of center and is supported by labour.
I am absolutely amazed how easily both parties have been flim-flamed by the white-coated wiseguys like Andy Weaver at the Univ. of Victoria.
Dear eadler,
As for the difference between a skeptic and a denier, I think my original post was quite clear . . . denial seems to happen very often when healthy skeptism is missing!
As for direct effect of a CO2-doubling (however impossible it seems that is could happen in a real atmosphere), it can be calculated easily enough…
Assuming that the surface balances for an additional backradiation of 3.7W/m^2:
(393.7 /(5.6704*10^-8))^0.25-(390 /(5.6704*10^-8))^0.25=0.63 Kelvin
with the Stefan-Boltzmann-constant 5.6704*10^-8 Wm^-2K-4 and
the Stefan-Boltzmann-law Emisson = sigma T^2
But please consider that the 3.7W/m^2 is an IPCC-number and might be on the high side (there was an article about that here at WUWT a few weeks ago)
It’s a universal phenomenon. Everything is NOT the same. Some people are taller than some other people. Once you notice that, you can get a government taxpayer funded grant to study the degree to which some people are taller than some other people. After you publish your results, you can then apply for another taxpayer funded government research grant to study the degree to which some people are shorter than some other people.
Do these latest researchers ever consider that they may be doing the wrong study first.
Shouldn’t they be trying to find out why some people who don’t believe in global warming; well at least of the man-made catastrophic globally disruptive kind, happen to become Republicans, rather than Democrats.
Do the clodus cause the surface warming; or does the surface warming cause the clouds ?
So I’m neither a Democrat, nor a Republican, so does that mean I am not aloud to have an opinion on MMGWCCGCD ?
“”””” Jack Greer says:
April 20, 2011 at 8:12 am
@Laws of Nature
Anthony has zero interest in correcting/clarifying obvious errors, sometimes even on featured posts w/ clearly faulty analysis. Anything that sows seeds of doubt on any aspect of this incredibly complex subject, accurate or not, IS his objective. “””””
Aren’t you making an assumption that what (appears) “obviously faulty” to YOU, is therefore “obviously faulty” to Anthony ?
It seems to me, that it is the so-called “main stream” media, where the “reporters” take it upon themselves to “edit” a story to put their own spin on it; rather than repoprting the story as it was revealed, and allowing the readers to do their own due diligence, to research the veracity of the account.
I don’t get the feeling, that too many visitors here come with the idea of having Anthony give them a learned dissertation on some new scientific discovery. Just bringing these accounts out in the open, is itself, an invaluable contribution.
I do indeed find it depressing that polarisation is increasing – no matter what the truth of the matter is. Polarisation is a terrible thing regardless of the issue at stake, because it reduces the chances of dialogue and of ever getting a consensus; it makes both sides screech with ever more desparation, and increases the chances of either side turning their argument into a blind religion.
The worst aspect of humanity is war, and what is war other than polarisation of ideas taken to the extreme?
This big difference between Dems and Republicans on this issue further illustrates why its logical for me to be a proud Independent.
I wonder if the professor ever bothered to verify the scientific evidences “hands on” or simply trusted the ‘scientific consensus’ proclaims…
Good grief! Is there no one in the BC legislature who can rise up and point out that the white-coated priests of the University temple are wearing no clothes? Has not a word of Climategate and the scandal of faux science penetrated to this hinterland?
More to the point, is everyone in BC a statist?
/Mr Lynn
Alas, taking polls on opinion is once again trotted out in the same breath as the utterance of “science”.
I can not prove or disprove anything with opinion. I need objective data from a reasonably reliable and acurate source (or better yet many sources), that have a previous status and a post status. A theory that describes the change from the previous data state to the post data state is only the seed of science.
Repetition, Prediction, Publication and Review get you closer.
Perhaps, our friends can get more converts to their science if they open all the books, emails, tree rings, core samples, reviews etc. That experiment seems to hold to high a risk. Truth may slip out.
If the risk to our species is truly in crisis, then why does risk their work, grants, reputation, finances and future standing matter. Have they no love for those who don’t understand. Show them the truth. Wave the uncontestable data under their noses. Declare your hypothesis. Dare them to refute the conclusions.
Stand up, earn the title of scientist and be remembered well.
Ad hominum attacks may win you some opinion polls, but the future will remember where and how you stood.
Gee I wonder why those who are on the wrong side of the polarization are the biggest critics of polarization?
MalcolmR -April 20, 2011 at 10:43 am
“I do indeed find it depressing that polarization is increasing – no matter what the truth of the matter is. Polarization is a terrible thing regardless of the issue at stake,”
You might was well said “Polarization is a terrible thing regardless of the truth”.
How convenient for those who prefer less polarization don’t mind less truth in order to provide it.
So we should all live with and accept all the BS it takes to keep polarization in check?
Hey how about this instead.
The truth and polarization removes the offenders of the truth from their jobs and policy making.
Once they’re gone we can work on all getting along.
Hot, cold, cold, hot. Only the warmizts cares. To the crazed climate communist hippie the world is either going to become too hot, or too cold (as was seen, and heard, in the seventies), yet they have no rational empirical evidence that that has ever been the case and they have zilch intelligent solutions if it were the case. The rational cold headed people adapts.
Is it any wonder that extremists are extreme and paints their delusional reality accordingly?
The statistical climate is, always, either going to be too hot or too cold, for the foreseeable future (until the crazed climate communist hippie geoengineering circus takes over), never in equilibrium.
What if they got what they asked for, that mirage of a perfect balanced climate, where the temperature is just so so, but would life survive with an atmosphere composition that would give us such a perfect balanced climate?
The widening of the apparent gap in poll results may not be reflective of reality. Exact wording of poll questions has a profound effect on the results. Over the span of the cited polls, the issues have become much more refined, and poll results are likely to reflect a trend towards more pointed wording of the questions.
Steve Oregon says:
Gee I wonder why those who are on the wrong side of the polarization are the biggest critics of polarization?
It appears to me that those who holler the loudest about polarization are the same ones who are most responsible for it.
This is a desperate attempt to keep one half of the political divide on the Warmist side. Most of my friends are democratic but of late they are completely taken back at how bad the warmist science really is. The Warmists are failing at convincing Democrats that to be a good Democrat you have to be a Warmist. The game is over, truth be told, Obama is a lukewarmer at best and that is being surrounded day in and day out by warmist ideologues.
“Polarization” is one of those emotionally charged words a politician uses to frame an issue in a manner favorable to his side. That is, if I disagree with you I’m merely dissenting, whereas if you disagree with me you”re “polarizing” the issue.
In reality, of course, if you disagree with me it’s just because you’re a [self-censored] nitwit. 🙂
Steve Oregon says:
“The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”
That depends on whether you are measuring the sunlight on the part of the Earth facing the sun, i.e. 1368 W/m^2 or on the other side of the Earth where it is 0 W/m^2 or at the poles where the sun is at around a 90 degree angle.
The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2
The area of a circle (i.e. facing the sun) is pi*r^2
The average inward flux for the whole Earth’s surface is therefore a quarter of 1368, i.e. 342 W/m^2.
However when calculating the flux emitted by the Earth, the whole of the Earth’s suface should be included.
Steve Oregon says:
April 19, 2011 at 10:27 pm
“Here in Oregon, home of Jane Lubchenco and with an unfair disproportianate share of lunatics it’s essentially a complete party line- AGW vs skeptics split.”
What part of Oregon? Eugene has been a hotbed of Greens and health-food-fascists since the Sixties. Cook a goose for Canadian Thanksgiving and you have proved your Redneck credentials, despite your Phd.
Schembechler created the country’s best run-blocking offensive lines during his tenure at Michigan. Michigan has a great program and will be back. However, the vast majority of the students could care less.
TonyG says:
April 20, 2011 at 7:58 am
“growing scientific consensus” – I don’t think they occupy the same universe that I do..
It’s fervor. The mass of humanity is beginning to stamp feet, whirl about, throw arms to the sky, and wail at the CO2.
jaymam says:
April 20, 2011 at 3:52 pm
The average inward flux for the whole Earth’s surface is therefore a quarter of 1368, i.e. 342 W/m^2.
Actually, that figure is another in an endless list of age old assumptions used by the Warmista. The satellite that crashed and burned recently was supposed to get some actual figures for the top of the atmosphere. When it comes to launching these satellites for crucial empirical work, NASA is 0 for 2 over the last two years. Not one person at NASA has been fired as a result of these critical mistakes.
I really think that it is an amazing consensus of scientists when I see things like the Petition Project. (http://www.petitionproject.org/). The names and qualifications of these scientists who disagree are just ignored by the media. There may be things to study and questions to ask, but there is no consensus and the science is not settled.