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.
@richard S Courtney
April 20, 2011 at 10:41 am
Excellent analysis, thanks!
RE: “Climate Change” and Ice Age Cycling…
Some form of “warmth-ing” caused Ice Age ice to melt. It was turtle slow and generally continuous and continuing into today, with minor interspersed reversals.
I speculate that the atmosphere has been thickening in volume from ongoing volcanic activity. Gasses trapped within the mantle are released over time by volcanic events and add to the total volume of the atmosphere. This added volume makes a thicker “blanket” around the Earth allowing for more heat to be trapped by the planet, and allowing the warming to occur.
Intermittent reversals could be occurring from asteroid/meteor impacts or close calls that eject some of the atmosphere off into space, or by just causing the “nuclear winter” effect for brief periods.
I predict the answer to this dynamic will be “settled” at some point, but “humans” and “AGW” will at best be found to be an almost imperceptible sliver of contribution and certainly not worth the time, money, or effort to influence any “reversal”. We are fools to attempt any bureaucratic, lunatatic, political “solution” to “warming”.
If this idea has been presented heretofore, please heretoforgiveme.
DesertYote wrote: “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.”
Oh I quite well understand Conservatism and deeply appreciate it. Bill Buckley’s take down of the Drug War throughout the years was incredibly heroic, and I’ve read his first and last books from cover to cover to gain better insight into what drives conservative though. I also re-read the New Testament every year or so, in order to better separate in my mind the huge divide between the various versions of the church and the actual Bible, though no I have not gotten through the bulk of the Old. My point, though not fully rounded out, was that Republicans are not very conservative at all in my lifetime (born ’65) if you consider anybody but Reagan.After their early efforts to end racist policy something shifted very deeply and they sort of lost their way due to success in achieving their original libertarian ends. I still don’t understand how and what this sea change represents. The white hoods were all donned by Southern Democrats, but in old school communist fashion, that huge century or more long fight between what I’d call the “labor party” of democrats who were voted for by those afraid of fully emancipated slaves ruining the labor market and very old world libertarians was suddenly replaced by Marxists fighting mere “Bible Thumpers”. I’m currently reading Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall’ to establish better insight into what is going on now. In volume one of three, so far, it’s all about labor union problems. Seriously. Their public sector was the army and the whole story so far is about how things went well unless they allowed the army too much slack which created rebellion along the outer borders.
Your point is well taken though. As a scientist though by training it was in my formative years the Republicans (not necessarily Conservative in general) that very much rubbed me the wrong way.
>>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,
Interesting. What other field of science is defined by your political preference, rather than the science itself?
A clear indication of how political Environmentalism has become.
.
>>Jack
>>Gas $5.00 in lots of places.
Come to Europe, it is €8.30 a gallon in Belgium. (imperial gallon) About $12 at current exchange rates.
.
We had another large snowstorm, and it was 13 degrees F. here in Montana this morning. Imagine how happy I am to know my two Democrat senators voted to let the EPA go after the plants that generate my electricity on the pretext of “global warming”: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/senate_democrats_reject_attack.html
DesertYote,
Thanks for supplying an example of conservative pontificating, 11:19 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…”
If that’s your view, I suspect you’re a dittohead, as I’ve listened to El Rushbo push such nonsense. Communism is definitely, among other things, “the God that failed,”
but that says nothing about other political philosophies.
There is no such thing as pure capitalism or pure socialism except in the black and white world of some extremists. All governments are blends of both. Critical thinkers would identify specific policy or statute and show why it’s ineffective or counterproductive or has unintended consequences. Lazy ideologues, on the other hand, would speak ex cathedra and use perjorative labels without reference to political philosophy, history, economics, psychology, and science. The quote above is a good example of politics as religion and is so very much like the AGW religion, a priori statements not to be questioned. If conservatives want to make effective points about climate science, as I wish they could, they need to quit demonizing and take off their political hats long enough to be seen as contributers to a converstion rather than holier than thou partisans. The same could be said for liberals.
Doug Allen
“What fools these mortals be” Puck, A Midsummer Night’s Dream
Richard S Courtney said @ur momisugly April 20, 2011 at 10:41 am
“OK, if that is true then why is it only true in the US and not elsewhere (e.g. throughout Europe)?”
I don’t think we are supposed to notice this, or that US “World Series” sporting events are open only to teams from the US.
Doug Allen says:
April 20, 2011 at 1:37 pm
DesertYote,
Thanks for supplying an example of conservative pontificating, 11:19 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…”
If that’s your view, I suspect you’re a dittohead, as I’ve listened to El Rushbo push such nonsense. Communism is definitely, among other things, “the God that failed,”
but that says nothing about other political philosophies.
###
Ahh, spoken like a true brainwashed useful idiot. Give it up. You can’t possibly understand what I have to say. If this was not the case, you would not be spouting the nonsense that you are. As it is, you have demonstrated my main point perfectly for all to see. Socialists are cognitively dysfunctional. They have to be or else they would not fall for such a ruse.
And BTW, I could teach Rush and Beck a thing or two, I can even use a chalkboard to do it …
NikFromNYC
April 20, 2011 at 12:25 pm
###
Sorry. I think I pretty much agree with your main point, but as a Christian and a Scientist, who has no problem with REAL evolutionary theory (not the socialism supporting pseudo-science presented in non-specialist science curricula) I am a bit touchy about references to Bible-Thumpers.
I have a pretty good handle on why the GOP ended up where they are now, but it is a bit complicated, after all were talking about 50 years of convoluted history. A clue is that socialists (mostly Marxists) have literally been the gate keeper of all Public discourse since at least the 30’s until just recently.
You might want to study up on the history of Greece lead up to its domination by Rome. You might start by looking up the origin of the word Tyrant. Edward Gibbon is a good start, but a bit dated. Some of the conclusions should be taken Cum Grano Salis.
Jeff L says:
April 20, 2011 at 5:39 am
“What they fail to realize is the reason people are divided along political lines is because this is fundamentally a political issue first and a scientific issue second. AGW is just a means to an end for the left & the right realizes that. Why do you think there is such extreme alarmism in trying to “promote” the AGW point of view? The fact that the authors don’t seem to grasp this obvious observation is either a stunning lack of perception or clearly showing their bias for the left wing AGW position. WUWT’s strength is in trying to flip the debate – put the science first & the politics second.”
Very well said. I live in academia and there the communist onslaught is almost wholly successful. The “global warming” propaganda and the hysteria that it supports are just one among several Leftist programs that are identical in structure. All of them are thoroughly irrational. Let me illustrate the irrationality by using the case of the “Diversity Dean.” Every college campus has a Diversity Dean. That dean is the visible part of a power structure involving administrators, sympathetic faculty, and many others that enforces a raft of Leftist policies under the flag of “Diversity.” What this means to me, in practical terms, is that I cannot criticize the concept of “Diversity,” at least not as it is embodied by the dean. I cannot criticize the claim that “Diversity” is an inherent good that is of immense value.
Ponder the broader implications. A concept that Western culture has employed, debated, and discussed for about 25 centuries has been removed from all debate in academia. Can you name another important concept that has suffered the same fate? Liberty? Justice? Freedom? Everything else can be debated. So, there is the clear evidence of the irrationality, the desire to harm Western culture, and the use of political power to overwhelm the traditional academy. The “manmade CO2 causes CAGW” people employ exactly the same tactics because they are exactly the same people with the same goals.
I enjoy visiting WUWT because I can debate CAGW. Debate is possible because CAGW must seek some scientific credibility and because there are enough people on WUWT with an understanding of science to resist the Leftist political program behind CAGW. There are enough people to provide a genuine forum for debate of genuine climate science, not CAGW. Science among the people is the only thing that keeps debate alive. Otherwise, we would live in a world of CAGW zombies just as I live in a world of “Diversity” zombies.
‘BravoZulu says:
April 20, 2011 at 11:38 am
“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.’
That’s the problem. Pro AGW get to redefine “The Goal Post” and Con AGW don’t do enough point out the distance between the “Old Goal Post” and the “New Goal Post” and hold the Pro AGW accountable for the change.
Doug Allen
Thank you for eloquently stating your position which closely resembles my own. I read WUWT on a daily basis, and agree that it is significantly diminished by arrogant conservatism which seems just as blinded to genuine scepticism as some of the CAGW proponents they criticise. Equally, there seems to be a strong feeling that conservative=skeptical=good, while liberal=CAGW=bad. Not always so!
Malcolm
“The greatest polarization occurs among people who believe they have the best understanding.”
Another empirical datum: when sceptics and alarmists debate, the sceptics usually win. Alarmists now tend to avoid getting into debates.
So whose “best understanding” is right?
This survey is a typical example of sampling bias. By using the term “climate change” rather than “global warming” they get higher percentages for their biased conclusion than otherwise, because most people understand that the climate changes all the time and has throughout Earth history. This study tries to hijack people who know and understand this truth to bolster those who believe in the much less supported AGW hypothesis of human causes. Furthermore, they dont specify what TYPE of climate change, specifically, people believe is happening. Its obvious that those who believe we are headed into an ice age don’t believe the CO2 AGW hypothesis.
Political affiliations should be irrelevant.
It is the data that counts.
Bruce of Newcastle says:
April 20, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Another empirical datum: when sceptics and alarmists debate, the sceptics usually win. Alarmists now tend to avoid getting into debates.
Seems to me that they have avoided all debates for years now. When talking points are all you have, you don’t do very well in debate.
Unfortunately, the ideologues of the Left command the national discussion at every level, and have taken what should have been legitimate climatological inquiry and turned it into a causes celebres, a weapon with which to attack the values of the West. Or do you think the eco-Marxists have dispassionate, objective scientific research on their minds?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/13/socialists-of-the-world-unite-for-youth-climate-conference/
Should people interested in science and the environment ignore these fanatics? Or should we fight back, by pointing out who and what they are? Their allies in the White House and Congress damn near got an insane, draconian Crap and Tax bill passed last year. Don’t think they will give up.
/Mr Lynn
DesertYote wrote: “I have a pretty good handle on why the GOP ended up where they are now, but it is a bit complicated, after all were talking about 50 years of convoluted history. A clue is that socialists (mostly Marxists) have literally been the gate keeper of all Public discourse since at least the 30′s until just recently.”
I need an Amazon.com direct-link reading list from you if you want me to learn anything.
Do you believe in love?
Hamilton says:
Even if “scientists” are wrong, evidence of climate change will become more visible and dramatic in the decades ahead.
What will become more visible is the cause of that change and the lack of integrity of science in failing to apply the scientific method.
Mr Lynn says:
April 20, 2011 at 9:05 am
Call your senator. Thursday is the review by the Energy & Natural Resources committee. The committee chair was one of the original sponsors of RGGI, his officemate will likely vote against the the bill too. That will be enough for the committee to not endorse the bill, but either way it will go to the full senate.
My testimony for tomorrow, err, today is at http://wermenh.com/rggiwatch/enr_testimony.html
The house committee hearing stretched well into the afternoon. If everyone who showed up for that shows up for this, it will be a long day.
Uh oh…here we go with that liberal opener….”most Americans”….what kind of most Americans…retarded ones?…ones who dont think for themselves? certainly not anyone who is in touch with reality! MOST Americans are not that stupid…I hope!
Doug Allen:
Thank you, you speak my thoughts.
DesertYote said @ur momisugly April 20, 2011 at 2:09 pm
“Socialists are cognitively dysfunctional.”
Like Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Stephen Jay Gould…? And you are presumably far more cognitively functional than those “brainwashed useful idiots”. Care to explain? On second thoughts, don’t bother…
“and other nonscience sources.”
Oh, I thought that said “nonsense” sources.