This must be “polarization week” in social science, as this is the second study published this week on political polarization of the global warming issue. See the previous story on WUWT: Democrats and Republicans increasingly divided over global warming
=============================
From the UNH Carsey Institute:
Disagreement on causes based on political views, not science
DURHAM, N.H. – Most Americans now agree that climate change is occurring, but still disagree on why, with opinions about the cause of climate change defined by political party, not scientific understanding, according to new research from the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.
Republicans most often point to natural causes of climate change while Democrats most often believe that human activities are the cause. The greatest polarization occurs among people who believe they have the best understanding.
“Although there remains active discussion among scientists on many details about the pace and effects of climate change, no leading science organization disagrees that human activities are now changing the Earth’s climate. The strong scientific agreement on this point contrasts with the partisan disagreement seen on all of our surveys,” said Lawrence Hamilton, professor of sociology and senior fellow with the UNH Carsey Institute.
“However, most people gather information about climate change not directly from scientists but indirectly, for example through news media, political activists, acquaintances, and other nonscience sources. Their understanding reflects not simply scientific knowledge, but rather the adoption of views promoted by political or opinion leaders they follow. People increasingly choose news sources that match their own views. Moreover, they tend to selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into their pre-existing beliefs,” Hamilton said.
A series of regional surveys conducted by Carsey Institute researchers in 2010 and early 2011 asked nearly 9,500 individuals in seven regions in the United States about climate change.
Key findings include:
- Most people say that they understand either a moderate amount or a great deal about the issue of global warming or climate change.
- Large majorities agree that climate change is happening now, although they split on whether this is attributed mainly to human or natural causes.
- Level of understanding about climate change varies considerably by region.
- Beliefs about climate change are strongly related to political party. Republicans most often believe either that climate is not changing now or that it is changing but from mainly natural causes. Democrats most often believe that the climate is changing now due mainly to human activities.
- Political polarization is greatest among the Republicans and Democrats who are most confident that they understand this issue. Republicans and Democrats less sure about their understanding also tend to be less far apart in their beliefs.
- People who express lower confidence also might be more likely to change their views in response to weather.
“If the scientists are right, evidence of climate change will become more visible and dramatic in the decades ahead. Arctic sea ice, for example, provides one closely watched harbinger of planetary change. In its 2007 report the IPCC projected that late-summer Arctic sea ice could disappear before the end of the 21st century. Since that report was written, steeper-than-expected declines have led to suggestions that summer sea ice might be largely gone by 2030, and some think much sooner,” Hamilton said.
“We will find out in time—either the ice will melt, or it won’t. The Arctic Ocean, along with other aspects of the ocean-atmosphere system, presents an undeniable physical reality that could become more central to the public debate. In the meantime, however, public beliefs about physical reality remain strikingly politicized,” he said.
The complete report about this research is available at http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/IB-Hamilton-Climate-Change-2011.pdf.
This research was supported by grants from the Ford Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Neil and Louise Tillotson Fund, New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, Office of Rural Development in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, UNH Sustainability Academy, and the Carsey Institute. The UNH Survey Center conducted all telephone interviews.
The Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire conducts research and analysis on the challenges facing families and communities in New Hampshire, New England, and the nation. The Carsey Institute sponsors independent, interdisciplinary research that documents trends and conditions affecting families and communities, providing valuable information and analysis to policymakers, practitioners, the media, and the general public. Through this work, the Carsey Institute contributes to public dialogue on policies that encourage social mobility and sustain healthy, equitable communities.
The Carsey Institute was established in May 2002 through a generous gift from UNH alumna and noted television producer Marcy Carsey. For more information about the Carsey Institute, go to www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu.
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.
NikFromNYC says:
April 20, 2011 at 8:31 am
“Not if you are a nutritionist trying to point out to people the errors of the Ancel Keys “processed grains are good for you and fat is bad” food pyramid.”
===========================================
Nik, that’s a new one to me. Being a life long conservative, (not necessarily Repub.) I’m not aware of any Repub stance on the “food pyramid”, although I can recall being a bit aggravated by it when it came out. Typically, (but not always) conservatives eat meat. I like my grains in liquid form. Nor am I aware of any fund blocking done to prevent the study of DNA. As far as stem cells go, find a different way to gather them other than harvesting from the unborn and we’d all get along just fine in that regard. And, it probably isn’t accurate to paint all repubs as “Bible thumpers” and against stem cell research. I can assure you many favor it. But politics carry its own reality. As you stated, an “enemy or an enemy”…….. this is also true in both political parties.
Republicans most often point to natural causes of climate change while Democrats most often believe that human activities are the cause
====================================================
What spin………..
People that say show me the science…
…and people that believe
jack morrow says: April 20, 2011 at 6:45 am
Jeremy says: April 20, 2011 at 6:35 am
I think the two of you each are right about one piece of the puzzle. The global economic woes, the Middle East unrest, high fuel prices, etc. are the direct result of the agenda driven actions of the “elite” Jeremy references. They are the ones behind all of this stuff. It’s the power hungry like Ted Turner, George Soros, Obama, Pelosi, Patchy, etc. that try to drive this home in order to gain the control they desire over the entire world. I can’t believe I’m saying this, since I’m not generally a conspiracy theorist, but it really seems like there are a select few who have managed to amass great power and are trying to manipulate the sheeple into their carefully constructed confines. Once rounded up, it will be too late to do anything about it.
This issue has never been about science. It has always been about using the guilt of the developed world to exercise authority. It is the culmination of decades of indoctrination/brainwashing done by the media, environmental groups, TV and movies, music industry, etc. Even worse is the message being taught in our school system; have any of you seen any modern text books!!! They are absolutely full of pseudoscience-based, agenda-driven, socialist-leaning rhetoric and revisionist alterations of historical events. A couple others posited that the difference in response was due to ability or lack thereof to think critically. I believe they are correct. That’s one of the reasons critical thinking is no longer even mentioned as a side note in our school system anymore.
Let’s hear it for New Hampshire!
Anyone here from The Granite State? Call your state rep! We don’t have much hope here in Taxachusetts of repealing the RGGI, but we can cheer on our neighbors to the north.
“Live free or die.”
/Mr Lynn
… there remains active discussion among scientists on many details about the pace and effects of climate change…
“If the scientists are right…
Which scientists? At this point Hamilton has taken sides and is making statements that have nothing to do with public opinion.
If one is a thinker, rather than an icon cheerleader, you see what we are up against with simplicists like Nik running their mouths. Typical non sequiturs posing as deep thinking responses. Right, attack the 0.00001% of young earthers to make an irrelevant, off-topic point, or lump together embryo-killing stem cell therapy with the lion’s share of SCT that derives from adult cells (where all the medical breakthroughs are, BTW).
But, that is all NYC truespeak. The land of Bloomberg, the great miseducated and their ilk, having more influence on US policy then they deserve. We scientists (the ones who actually do science) are the crimethinkers today. Fortunately, America still has “flyover country” where the rational thinkers dwell.
I’m originally from NY. I escaped from the Planet of the Apes along with thousands of others that have done so over the years. [Maybe 20 feet of sea rise would not be such a bad thing after all for the long run? Just sayin’…]
We live near the end of an Interglacial Lifeline. It took about half of that Interglacial time for man to acquire civilization skills. It took the other half of that Interglacial time for civilization to advance to the point of questioning itself.
So, here we are poised on the brink of the decline of the Interglacial Lifeline.
Was civilization an opportunity or a mistake?
One side of the argument seems to appreciate the opportunity afforded by civilization, the other side wishes it were never born.
“Although there remains active discussion among scientists on many details about the pace and effects of climate change, no leading science organization disagrees that human activities are now changing the Earth’s climate. The strong scientific agreement on this point contrasts with the partisan disagreement seen on all of our surveys,” said Lawrence Hamilton, professor of sociology and senior fellow with the UNH Carsey Institute.”
So these conclusions apparently stem from a “Professor of Sociology”. Aahh, now it is clear. Professors of sociology tend to report scientific results as poll correlations and as sociological trends. They tend to have little appetite for needed scientific detail and peer review. Has the general public been dumbed down so much that they will accept this amorphous fog as science? Would they accept Professor Hamilton’s poll of the public as to how best to treat lung cancer or Parkinson’s disease?
But I am not happy simply castigating the good Professor. A better approach: Mr. Watts, how about helping organize a series of definitive national, televised, public debates on the subject, featuring legitimate physical scientists on both sides of the key issues? Let the DATA be heard. Data such as published on your site. Data that is both quantitative and historical. Data that points out modeling deficiencies. Data that illustrate the numbers of science-credentialed “global warming” skeptics.. The DATA will set us all free.
“This must be “polarization week” in social science, as this is the second study published this week on political polarization of the global warming issue.”
####
This is not a coincidence. Its part of a planed strategy. Has no one else noticed that these Marxist agenda driving propaganda pieces dressed up as “studies” always appear in thematic clusters?
Mr Lynn says:
April 20, 2011 at 9:05 am
Mr. Lynn (from the City of Sin, I presume?), the vote is close. Although the state legislature is overwhelmingly Republican, some of them are RINOs who have been around and even sponsored the original bill to install RGGI. The UNH article (UNH is the hotbed for left-wing activity in the state) is part of a full court press, an “October Surprise” in April. The tone is clearly that Republicans are reactionaries because they don’t follow consensus thinking. WWGT? (What would Galileo Think about consensus thinking?)
NikFromNYC
April 20, 2011 at 8:31 am
###
You do not understand Conservatism (really liberalism until the Marxist stole the term), Republican politics nor Christianity. You are obviously carrying around a lot of socialist garbage in your head which makes you sound foolish when it influences your comments.
I believe it is obvious that climate warmed until about 2000. I also believe it has cooled since that time.
Cause? Nobody knows for sure. I don’t believe CO2 has much to do with it, though.
“However, most people gather information about climate change not directly from scientists but indirectly, for example through news media, political activists, acquaintances, and other nonscience sources. Their understanding reflects not simply scientific knowledge, but rather the adoption of views promoted by political or opinion leaders they follow.”
This is funny because at the start of this movement in Kyoto, politics changed the science. The political body at Kyoto in 1996 completely changed what the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change presented after it was peer-reviewed.
Among the changes were deletions such as these:
> “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
> “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”
> “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
Dr. Frederick Seitz documented the entire Kyoto sham in the Wall Street Journal on June 12, 1996.
One reference to his article is here: http://www.congregator.net/articles/majordeception.html
First, follow the money. Until there is as much money available for critical analysis as there is for alarmist bull, we will continue to get this type of propaganda. I am writing a large check to the IRS for my taxes on a small business while GE pays no taxes because they are “green”.
Second, remember the band wagon effect. People like to be on the popular side of any argument to avoid abuse and associate with the “right people” and if there is also money on that side so much the better.
Third, the indoctrination of our youth regarding these issues has been going on for many years now due to the left wing bias in our educational system. This also needs to get fixed if we are to ever have real science again.
Finally, there is the ignorance factor. Most people today are innumerate, the mathmatical eqivalent of illiterate, and none of these issues can be properly evaluated unless one has at least a rudimentary understanding of statistics. Apparently many “scientists” also either lack these skills or sell out for the money.
“Moreover, they tend to selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into their pre-existing beliefs,” Hamilton said.
Gawsh, people are actually forming their own opinions and not believing everything they read! Personally I wanted to vomit after reading this story. It’s one thing to research opinions, but this thing is so heavily tainted with the author’s own opinion thats its ridiculous.
A little push back. We’ll use Tadchem’s comment above as representative of a consensus point of view that occurs over and over here on WUWT-
“Critical thinking is the *common cause* of skeptical opinions, conservative political attitudes, and scientific savvy.
A lack of skill in critical thinking leads to credulity, emotional politics, and gullibility to the rhetoric of junk science.”
Like global warming alarm itself, the comment exaggerates a partial truth while blindly exempting one’s own bias from the critical thinking exulted. One partial truth, of course, is that, yes, there has been uneven, but gradual global warming these past 300 years. The exageration is that today’s warming is unprecedented, is accelerating, or is known to be caused by CO2 emissions.
Another partial truth is that critical thinking is a common cause of conservative political attitudes. This bit of self-congratulatory arrogance abounds on WUWT and is offensive to critical thinking. Social conservatives are renown for their lack of critical thinking in many areas: evolutionary biology, cosmology, founding father’s beliefs, religious fundamentalisms, aspects of sexuality, to name a few. Fiscal conservatives can be ideologues, too. Most reject Keynesian economics and walk lock step with fashionable conservative political correctness as promoted bt El Rushbo, Beck, the Tea party, etc.
I am unaffiliated politically, but consider myself center left, a social liberal, as I think Willis Eschenbach called himself a few months ago. Conservatives are correct about climate science, but just because Dr. Spencer and Dr. Lindzen are voices of reason and critical thinking in climate science doesn’t mean they are voices of reason and critical thinking when it comes to evolution or smoking. All of us have blind spots.
The pushy, arrogant conservative view so often expressed here on WUWT is the mirror image of the pushy, arrogant liberal view found on some AGW sites. I hope all of you who value critical thinking, are offended by the insults and demonizing by some conservatives here calling those who don’t folow their party line- emotional, gullible, unscientific, socialistic, stupid, haters of mankind, and such. It’s guaranteed to weaken your arguments about climate science and everything else. I spend a good deal of time showing my liberal friends the climate data and the lack of AGW evidence only to have conservatives insult them on blogs like this.
I am a pragmatic centrist, not a conservative, for several reasons, partially because ideology is a poor substitute for critical thinking, but also because I’ve lived 70 years and seen conservatives oppose human rights and social justice my whole life: desegregation (mainly by segregationist Democrats in the south who switched to the Republican party in the 1960’s), ERA (and women’s suffrage 60 years earlier when my grandmother couldn’t vote until age 27), and today in the hot button areas of gay rights, immigration policy, and Islam.
As a centrist, I have conservative and liberal friends and try to find common ground. The pontificating and demonizing on both sides makes it almost impossible. This is an excellent site and deserves the science blog award it received. It would be even better (and much more effective) if political ideologues stopped demonizing those they disagree with.
Doug Allen
“If you have an ideology, you have the answer to the question before you look at the facts.”
I would like science to point to a period where climate (or geology) has NOT changed.
Almost all of the AGW issue relies on inability to determine the direction of cause-effect relationships. This study is no different and has an obvious flaw.
The flaw is obvious from Hamilton’s assertion saying;
“However, most people gather information about climate change not directly from scientists but indirectly, for example through news media, political activists, acquaintances, and other nonscience sources. Their understanding reflects not simply scientific knowledge, but rather the adoption of views promoted by political or opinion leaders they follow. People increasingly choose news sources that match their own views. Moreover, they tend to selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into their pre-existing beliefs,”
OK, if that is true then why is it only true in the US and not elsewhere (e.g. throughout Europe)?
In Europe the entire political spectrum has major parties that support AGW. And people who doubt AGW also come from all parts of the political spectrum (e.g. I think AGW is scientific bunkum and I am a left-wing socialist).
So, it seems that people everywhere assess the AGW issue from the basis of their individual world views. The existence of discernible AGW is refuted by those (including me) whose world view places high value on empirical evidence and the scientific method. Also, AGW is doubted by those who naturally distrust anything that has little supporting evidence but is promoted by governments: these people tend to be Republicans in the US.
But the existence of potentially dangerous AGW is accepted as ‘fact’ by those who place ‘feelings’ above empirical evidence so they see any “threat” to “the planet” as a risk to “our children and their children”. Also, AGW is supported by those who desire more government provision of personal rights, and in the US they tend to be Democrats.
Simply, the political views people have do not define their views of AGW. However, in the US the world views which people have induce
(a) Americans who are most ‘laissez faire’ to both – and independently – be Republicans and to question AGW
while
(b) Americans who are least ‘laissez faire’ to both – and independently – be Democrats and to accept AGW.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world does not have the starkly aligned attitudes to ‘laissez faire’ displayed by Americans and, therefore, the political alignment of AGW seen in the US does not exist elsewhere.
In summation, the “conclusion” of the “survey” is nonsense and derives from
1. sample selection (i.e. only the US),
2. failure to observe that the political alignment of AGW is unique to the US
and
3. failure to test the assumption of US people that “Their understanding reflects not simply scientific knowledge, but rather the adoption of views promoted by political or opinion leaders they follow.”
Richard
I am disappointed in half of the comments. The article is not about climate, nor the science. It is about where peoples’ attitudes come from.
Anthony Watts lists pro-AGW sites on this site, but several posters here have said their posts there were deleted. This is a skeptic site. We are highly intelligent, and very educated–just as the study said.
It is dismaying to realize that Academia and Dems are soaked in pro-AGW “science” that they think is real. They have no idea how severely skewed it is. Since their nonsense kills plants animals and people, we have to face reality on this.
At least, I do understand now the alarmists comments on how evil the deniers must be. Given their (false) information, we look utterly nuts (and vice versa, but we are usually more polite about it). The two sides simply do not access the same data.
The stakes are real. Real humans are dying from the food prices cause by biofuels. Real ecosystems are threatened both by false and destructive “solutions” and by the distraction of almost all ecological research from any other causes than warming.
And there are enormous real deserts that require CO2 to turn them green again.
I am an advocate of human caused climate change. Let’s green the Earth!
In my experience people who have actually looked at the facts objectively tend to be mostly sceptical.
Most people who accept warming theories tend to use the argument – “If the BBC/govt/scientists say so, it must be right”
Doug Allen
April 20, 2011 at 10:32 am
###
Socialism is a cognitive disorder. Holding socialist views is indicative of faulty thinking. Faulty thinking prevents critical reasoning ( a somewhat flaky concept created by Marxist educators). Democrats are socialists, therefore Democrats are incapable of critical thinking. The only statement here that could be questioned is the equating of Democrats with socialist, but I think that resent history has demonstrated this to be largely correct.
tadchem says:
April 20, 2011 at 4:44 am
Excellent point. Or to paraphrase, being gullible predisposes one to leftist politics – and vice versa.
The headline says it all.
Of course people believe that climate change is happening… because the climate always changes.
I assume that people also believe in global rotation.
But now, thanks to relentless propaganda, it is perceived as a problem that we can or should ‘fix’ that allegedly requires this question of why?
So now we are stuck with this false premise and false question, thanks to the Orwellian blurring of language that has people seeing every cloud as some sign of the apocalypse.
In related news, why did Saddam put those WMDs in ice cream trucks?
“If the scientists are right, evidence of climate change will become more visible and dramatic in the decades ahead. ”
It seems to me the left must have held more focus groups and decided they needed to drive the message home that they are the ones backed by science. They need to redefine the issue from catastrophic warming or significant warming to any warming whatsoever and redefine the rational stance of most conservatives into them believing that humans have no effect. I am long past getting tired of alarmists that might as well be doomsday cultists being defined as scientific. I am also getting tired of any warming being defined as necessarily harmful and worth any cost to stop. The tone of certainty in their writings really only exists in religions and political propaganda. It has no place in actual science.
Even calling it climate change is irritating as if an actual scientist with half a brain believed that climates are ever unchanging. The left is talking about catastrophic warming that needs to be stopped at any cost and not any insignificant change as implied by “climate change” or disruption or whatever else they use to justify their redistribution and tax schemes. Conservatives saying they don’t believe in climate change usually doesn’t mean they believe that climates don’t change. It means they don’t buy what the left has redefined as climate change which is serious or catastrophic warming caused by humans.
How many people believed Y2K was a serious problem? How many billions were spent by IT departments to address a problem that was not a problem? An IT friend of mine noted that poorer South American companies spend almost no money to address Y2K and had no problems.
Observational evidence and the paleoclimatic record does not support the extreme AGW position/paradigm: melting ice sheets, rising sea level flooding Florida, Al Gore Inconvenient truth paradigm. There is no scientific or environmental reason to cap atmospheric CO2. Plants benefit from higher levels of atmospheric CO2, commercial greenhouses inject CO2 to increase yield and reduce growing times. Planetary cloud cover increases when the planet warms (negative feedback), which means a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming not the 3C predicted as the IPCC base case (the 3C requires positive feedback in the order of 3 times.)
There are not Trillions of tax payer dollars to cap or roll back atmospheric CO2. There are other environmental and governmental problems that need to be addressed.
It appears the “Green Movement” and their supportors accept with questioning and without understanding the fundamentals. They appear to look for a movement to save the world.
In the end, the truth will be found out by all. Trillions of dollars will not be spend to address a problem that is not a problem.