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.
For best part of a century the world was divided ‘left’ and ‘right’ by those who believed the social theories of Karl Marx that wealth should ultimately belong to and be controlled by the state, and those who believed that wealth belongs to and should be controlled by the individual. The latter proposition that the individual acting freely through the medium of markets won a dramatic victory with the collapse of communism in the soviet union. My concern about this whole debate is that environmentalism – the concern we should all have for the planet, its resources and all its inhabitants – should be hijacked by the left who defeated in the economic and social arena turn to the environment to win their argument through their support of the AGW hypothesis. The extent to which human action does or can influence the environment is a very serious issue and one where we needed the best of science to resolve. Sadly, what we have seen, are examples of the worst kind of science – science manipulated for political ends rather than science exploring the limits of truth. Luckily the counter-revolution, this time, is not going the left’s way.
ps: although I do not agree with some of what appears on this site Anthony deserves great credit for keeping open a forum for debate where all sides, if they wish, can have their say. We should say a big thank you to Anthony and to the power of the internet.
First, let me say that I like your technology posts – for example, solar w/o silicon, the experimental combustion engine design, new hydroelectric design, thorium nuclear reactors, etc. Also, I’m totally in favor of improving the accuracy the land-based temperature stations … nothing wrong with that. Second, yes, you do make corrections to your posts when you are called out on comments that are so egregiously wrong that you have no choice. And third, I certainly don’t expect you to individually correct/delete responses to your feature posts.
The problem is you offer no opinion to counter or discourage clearly inaccurate comments. None. In fact you encourage misperceptions by feeding them frivolous ‘red meat’ posts, e.g. selective local weather reports, geographically narrow findings, .etc, which invariably result in most predictable responses from the “gallery of mindless circular confirmation”. You also encourage misperceptions by featuring poorly supported skeptic pseudoscience – for example, the abysmal graphs and analysis in D’Aleo’s “Ten Major Failures”, the weak original analysis and subsequent defense of Hall’s ice core posts, your own baseline nonsense in the “Hansen’s Need To Explain” post (did you post that promised follow-up commentary?), etc. The more knowledgeable skeptics here can’t feel good about that …
/thread hijack
REPLY: Well Jack, if you can do a better job, start your own blog. I think I’ve done pretty well with no funding, no staff, and a few volunteers. I’m not paid six figures like Joe Romm or Marc Morano to do this, yet WUWT beats both of those blogs in traffic and linkage. Certainly you are entitled to those opinions you hold, but what you describe can be applied to blogs you agree with as well. Anyone who wants to do a guest post is welcome, even if I disagree with it. As an example, “Tamino” who regularly takes pot shots from the veil of anonymity was offered guest posts here, twice, to offer “corrections” and has not the courage to do so, yet like you continues to denigrate this blog and me. As for corrections, see the latest post on Hansen for one done proactively.
As for the “no time left in my life” I have to go to work, so I won’t waste time contributing to the “thread hijack”. – Anthony
“”””” jaymam says:
April 20, 2011 at 3:52 pm
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.” “””””
Well the latest recommended figure from NASA, is actually about 1362 W/m^2, of which about 1000 may reach the ground, after scattering and absorption by the atmospehre (cloudless sky).
It most certainly is NOT 342, nor even 340.5 W/m^2, that is going into the earth’s oceans to be stored at great depths. Adn the relationship, between irradiance and peak Temperature reached is non-linear (inverse 4th power), so you cannot simply average over the whole surface to learn the effect. Mother Gaia does not do averages.
The Antarctic winter midnight highlands, do not receive 430.5 w/m^2 even on average, and that is why sometimes the Temeprature can get down to -90 deg C. That could never happen, with an average input of 340.5 W/m^2.
At exactly the same time, the north African and Middle Eastern tropical deserts can get up to +60 deg C surface Temperatures, and UHIs like parking lots, in those same areas, can reach + 90 deg C.
So the thermal radiant emission form the various earth surfaces, varies by over an order of magnitude, and the spectral peak of those emissions, can range from around 15.0 microns, at Vostok Station, to perhaps as low as 7.5 microns, for those UHIs, and the consequences for earth cooling, are simply that the tropical deserts are the earth’s main cooling centers. The polar regions, are very inefficient, at cooling the earth. They receive very little radiation, so it doesn’t matter what the surface reflectance is they don’t have much to reflect in the first place, and they emit even less.
jaymam says:
April 20, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Correct. Add to that the variables involved with fluctuations in the atmosphere’s shape, size, orientation, and depth due to expansion, contraction, solar wind, Lunar tides, Rosby Waves, and more.
Nice way to change the subject. No one is talking about climate change. It changes constantly. What is being talked about is Anthropogenic Climate Change (warming, disruption or giggle bunnies – your choice).
What evidence? that climate changes? See above.
Nice way to totally discredit yourself. That statement indicates you have no idea what you are talking about (but the first statement you made was a real clue too).
Now I know you do not know what you are talking about. You can redeem yourself if you can state (within a 10% margin of error) how many non-peer reviewed works were referenced by the IPCC AR4. I doubt you will even get to within 90%.
Professor Bob Ryan writes:
“My concern about this whole debate is that environmentalism – the concern we should all have for the planet, its resources and all its inhabitants – should be hijacked by the left who defeated in the economic and social arena turn to the environment to win their argument through their support of the AGW hypothesis.”
Right you are, Sir. And they are succeeding remarkably well. If anyone ever doubted that The Big Lie can be incredibly effective then the CAGW proves them wrong. Of course, the real tragedy is that scientists now have to compete with used-car-salesmen for respect.
to Phil Jourdan
The evidence of warming caused by humans is, in fact, overwhelming, Phil. You may disagree with this statement, but it is a fact. You can argue any other position, but you have to have more than passionate “words”to make your case. Evidence is appearing in respected journals all over the world and it is summarized, after intensive scrutiny by the IPCC and Academies of SCience in all the developed countries. This is not a controversial statement. It is merely a FACT.
Hugh Pepper says:
“The evidence of warming caused by humans…”
You’re looking at it wrong. Provide verifiable evidence of global damage due to CO2, and people will sit up straight and pay attention. In fact, there is no such evidence.
So repeat after me:
“CO2 is harmless!
CO2 is beneficial!
Warm is good!
Cold is bad!”
Repeat, until you’ve rid yourself of the silly “carbon” meme.
Sorry Smokey, you’re wrong on all counts. The evidence is there. You will find it by following the IPCC links, and on web sites that attract working scientists ( Real Science. org, for example). Whole books have been written on this subject, containing the “evidence”. But then you have already demonized their authors, thereby discrediting the findings.
CO2, like water, can really be too much of a good thing.
Sorry hugh, the only fact in your posting is that you wrote it – whoever hugh are.
Please come back when you have some real facts, not suppositions and talking points.
Hugh Pepper,
You misunderstand the meaning of “evidence” per the scientific method. Raw temperature data is evidence. Reliable proxies such as the GISP-2 and Vostok ice cores are evidence. Global satellite measurements are evidence. MLO CO2 measurements are evidence. The ARGO buoy measurements are evidence.
But GCMs – computer climate models – are not evidence. The IPCC’s so-called “evidence” is model-based, it is not based on empirical [real world], testable, verifiable EVIDENCE. And that’s the problem: GIGO.
Gravity what is it how does it work? We can only give descriptions of it. Einstein described gravity as a warping of space. Please tell me how space is warped.
Science is a process of gaining information, predicting future actions from that information and testing to see if new information supports the predictions.
Just remember smoking does not cause cancer and is no way involved in its cause, that was the story being told the public for over 40 years. It’s just that people who are just more prone to cancer than the general public smoke. Information in the public domain causes opinions obfuscation causes the polarization. Just like Dr. Bill Frist of Tenn. who said that from watching an edited film that a comatose woman was reacting to stimuli. After her death and an autopsy it was show that she was not reacting to stimuli. He was working not from a medical but a political position and used the color of medicine to give it respectability in the public arena.
The problem is that information is put out and you don’t know who is behind it. The confusion over climate change is just such an event. The power companies, oil, and coal have a vested interest in the proceedings. They care not about the truth facts or the impact on the world jsut the impact on their wallets. The public doesn’t have the information on what is happening. Aside the 1970’s global cooling was caused by jet aircraft and their vapor trails reflecting the sun light since that had just started happening in a large degree by the new planes that had not be in existence its effects over rode the warming effect of CO2 and other green house gasses.
Remember just because it is not warmer where you are doesn’t mean that it isn’t warmer else where. Glaciers are retreating, the sea level is rising, these are facts ask Venice, look at Alaska, Greenland, Iceland, the Alps, Antarctica, and the Andes.
Facts are observations. Theories are guesses about the future based on the observations of the past. Opinions are guesses about the future based on human greed.