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.
@William Howard
As someone at the coal face, so to speak, of application software development, I cannot help but feel somewhat irritated by the occasional comment here about Y2K having been a non-event. Sure, at the time there was some ridiculous hype in the MSM, but the problem was very, very real where it related to date handling in 6 digit format. I personally had to spend quite a lot of time and devise some fancy footwork in order to achieve seamless cross-over and backward compatibility with archived data. The only reason the public noticed nothing, and now are under the illusion that it was a non-event, is precicely because people like me burned the midnight oil and were effective at pre-emptively containing the problem. Else many, many, really serious problems would have arisen world wide. Don’t trash that effort because you clearly know nothing about it. I cannot comment on your IT friend, but the field is very wide and he was clearly active in some other area, or not well informed.
@John Q Public and others. I think there is a natural bias in ideology. Right-wingers believe there is a natural order of things (which may or may not be ordained by God) and that we cannot or should not mess with it. Hence the class system, slavery, lack of progressive taxation, etc. Left-wingers think that we must strive against anything that might harm us, and by the sheer force of the workers’ might, we will overturn that natural order. Neither is correct all of the time.
People seek out explanations and solutions that fit their worldview. Hence attitudes to climate change and what to do about it become polar(bear)ised.
However I’m a pinko lefty who is somewhat sceptical about the speed and causation of climate change. That’s because I’ve tried, like many WUWT readers, to educate myself on the scientific issues. Most people don’t, so they continue to believe what suits them.
Doug Allen:
It is pointless to argue with political bigots.
There is nothing you can learn from them, and they refuse to learn anything from anybody.
So, it is best to ignore anybody provides an irrational rant such as;
“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…”
Similar silly nonsense is provided by left-wing bigots but is aimed at the right.
Let them stew in their smug ignorance: they like it that way and there is nothing you can gain from any attempt to educate them (and you cannot because bigots refuse to learn).
Richard
Veronica says:
@John Q Public and others. I think there is a natural bias in ideology. Right-wingers believe there is a natural order of things (which may or may not be ordained by God) and that we cannot or should not mess with it. Hence the class system, slavery, lack of progressive taxation, etc.
Seems to me there may be a bias in your perception, as well.
Right or left you can usually follow the money and find the driving force in any political system. Either Plato or Socrates (someone help me here) said that enlighted, benevolent kings (dictators ?) were the only way that people would get a fair shake and historically I would say that seems to be true. Of course, living in a time and place with an abundance of material wealth probably plays a large role in what happens. There is a tyrany of socialism (communism) and a tyrany of democracy (mob rule) and even a well thought out constitution does not seem to hold for long. These are the facts of history, you can accept them or not.
Theo Goodwin, I always appreciate your comments. Thank you for being part of the discussion on here.
Doug Allen, you have made some very good points regarding critical thinking and demagoguery. Some people commenting here could stand to step back a little and examine their ideology with the same critical perspective they apply to others. It was that exercise that led me to skepticism about all religion, in spite of (actually as a result of) extensive, earnest, structured Bible study. I don’t necessarily agree with all of your viewpoints, but we could likely have an interesting dinner conversation, i.e. I don’t buy Keynesian economics.
Richard S Courtney, while we probably agree on many things, you’ve stooped to DesertYote’s level.
DesertYote, you probably have some very prescient and relevant information, including lessons from history, but you practically eliminate your credibility with your presentation. I probably agree with you more than I disagree, but you’ve stooped to the level of the “alarmist” advocates in your ad hominem style.
The beauty of WUWT is that all viewpoints can be presented in a civil manner w/o being censored by the moderator’s agenda. Viva la discourse!
NikFromNYC: What does love have to do with this discussion? Are you trying to appeal to emotion? To belief? Neither are useful for more than religion and “feeling good” and fail critical examination.
Pompous Git says:
April 21, 2011 at 1:46 am
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…
###
This is a silly argument. First, Albert Einstein was not much of a socialist, despite what socialists like to claim. Second, just because people who were very smart in one area, were taken in by the deceit early in the 1900’s is besides the point. Almost all who thought seriously about what socialism really was, abandoned it like the plague. Third, though Bertrand Russell did some important work, he was not all that impressive. I developed my own axiomatic set theory based on induction when I was 18, and with only a knowledge of three semesters of college calculus and an introduction to Abstract Algebra.
The fact is, socialist must be able to hold a whole set of contradictory notions in their head in order to be socialist. This is because, at its core, socialism is a justification of theft. This in turn presupposes the axiom that “The ends justify the means”. There are so many core socialist beliefs that are fallacious, it boggles the mind. The scary thing is that it is impossible to show a socialist this because they can not hold three thoughts in their head at the same time unless they are three thoughts that they have been taught to combine (so they really are one thought, but that is starting to get way to technical). Mark my word, planes will be falling out of the skies, not because of corporate greed, but because the engineers designing them can no longer think.
I did not just come by the theory that “Socialism is a cognitive dysfunction” because it sounds good. I developed it through 10 years of observation and testing in northern California, no less, where the moonbat runs free and wild. I can prove it, but you socialist can not understand the proof because your cognition has been molded to prevent you from being able to understand it. Do you think I like the idea that so many people are cognitively dysfunctional? To tell you the truth, it took me ten years to come to this conclusion because I did not want to believe it. Frankly, it terrified me. Most of my friends had a hard time believing it also, but that was years ago. Now they see what I am talking about, in fact it has become so evident that others have been discovering it on their own.
And finally, if socialism is so great, then why do its proponents have to lie, cheat, steal, and murder in order to force their notions on society?
Pompous Git :
Einstein did not have the benefit of 60 years of watching socialism fail, as have we, so could be excused for believing in a high minded system that does not work.
Theo Barker:
At April 21, 2011 at 5:35 am I said, “It is pointless to argue with political bigots” and that they exist on the right and on the left.
I said nothing can be learned from them and they refuse to learn. But they provide irreational rants such as one that I quoted.
Your response to that is:
“Richard S Courtney, while we probably agree on many things, you’ve stooped to DesertYote’s level. ”
Absolutely not! I stand by all I said and I consider your response to be a gratuitous and unjustifiable insult.
Richard
DesertYote said @ur momisugly April 21, 2011 at 11:19 am
“I did not just come by the theory that “Socialism is a cognitive dysfunction” because it sounds good. I developed it through 10 years of observation and testing in northern California, no less, where the moonbat runs free and wild. I can prove it, but you socialist can not understand the proof because your cognition has been molded to prevent you from being able to understand it. Do you think I like the idea that so many people are cognitively dysfunctional? To tell you the truth, it took me ten years to come to this conclusion because I did not want to believe it. Frankly, it terrified me. Most of my friends had a hard time believing it also, but that was years ago. Now they see what I am talking about, in fact it has become so evident that others have been discovering it on their own.
And finally, if socialism is so great, then why do its proponents have to lie, cheat, steal, and murder in order to force their notions on society?”
You say I cannot understand your “proof” that “Socialism is a cognitive dysfunction” because “[my] cognition has been molded to prevent [me] from being able to understand it”. I see no attempt at proof, merely assertion. You don’t even attempt to provide any evidence that I am a socialist. Maybe it’s because I’m not. My politics are ever so slightly left of centre and very libertarian. And for most of the last 45 years I have been self-employed in small business.
And to paraphrase you, if capitalism is so great, then why do its proponents have to lie, cheat steal, and murder in order to force their notions on society?
Of course they don’t. History is replete with despots of many political persuasions.
Personally, even though I never shared his politics, I remain impressed by Bertrand Russell. Did you know he wrote his books long hand without corrections? I remain singularly unimpressed by your contribution to Western philosophical thought.
Jim G said @ur momisugly April 21, 2011 at 12:54 pm
“Einstein did not have the benefit of 60 years of watching socialism fail, as have we, so could be excused for believing in a high minded system that does not work.”
Indeed. But that’s a separate argument.
“And to paraphrase you, if capitalism is so great, then why do its proponents have to lie, cheat steal, and murder in order to force their notions on society?”
You’re clearly confused. No society exists without capitalistic notions, because everyone is self-interested and free willed. How can you even force that notion on someone?
Are you sure you aren’t getting capitalism mixed up with mercantilism? Almost the entirety of socialist arguments against capitalism make that mistake.
Peter G says:
April 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm
“You’re clearly confused. No society exists without capitalistic notions, because everyone is self-interested and free willed. How can you even force that notion on someone?
Are you sure you aren’t getting capitalism mixed up with mercantilism? Almost the entirety of socialist arguments against capitalism make that mistake.”
No, I don’t believe that I am confused. Nowhere have I argued that society exists without capitalist notions. I substituted “capitalism” for “socialism” to (apparently unsuccessfully) point out the silliness of Desert Yote’s argument. Remember he originally accused socialists of being “cognitively dysfunctional” and that “its proponents have to lie, cheat steal, and murder in order to force their notions on society”.
I merely pointed out that Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Stephen Jay Gould were socialists. So far, no-one has provided the tiniest shred of evidence that these (IMHO) fine thinkers are “cognitively dysfunctional”, or that they ever lied, cheated, stole, or murdered “in order to force their notions on society”. Nor have I in my extensive study of history found that cognitive dysfunction, lying, cheating, stealing, or murdering to be exclusively socialist.
If you or Desert Yote want me to believe Desert Yote’s assertions, you are going to have to come up with something other than mere assertion. I am always open to being persuaded that my beliefs are incorrect; that discovery is called learning. And the fact that I have learnt much from Einstein, Russell, Gould and even Karl Marx, does not make me a socialist.
Instead of assuming that I am obviously “cognitively dysfunctional”, why don’t you provide supporting evidence for your theses?
Pompous Git
April 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm
###
I have pretty much given up trying to explain some things. It is usually a big waste of time. Trying to discuss cognition theory in comments on a blog is almost impossible. I have had these discussions before and they are almost always a failure. I do tend to be a bit judgmental in forums like this. I sometime have to apologies. My friends accuse me of playing to rough. Even though you have not given me any indication that you can understand anything I have to say (I really have given you some hints which you did not see), I will try to explain one simple thing and give a hint of another.
BTW, even people who’s cognitive capability has not been shackled by public schooling, are hard for me to communicate with. Expressing my thoughts in words is difficult for me.
Modern Socialism is founded on the works of Bentham and Mills. I have a much more abstract definition of socialism that is more amenable to analysis, but what most people, and probably you think of when the talk of socialism is Modern Socialism. So that is what I will discuss.
Socialism is an outgrowth of Utilitarian ethic. This is based on the theory that the total marginal utility of a resource is greatest when it has been distributed evenly.
Socialist believe that by controlling the distribution of resources, they can achieve the greatest good.
Sounds good so far?
Controlling the distribution of a resource means taking some of it from those with a lot and giving it to those with little.
Taking something from someone is usually called theft.
Therefore Modern Socialism is a justification for theft.
Theft is bad, but if it is done for the right reason then it is OK, i.e. the ends justify the means.
And just to be clear Socialism is doomed to failure:
Any resource that is subject to theft has zero marginal utility.
If I create something and society can take it at any time, then it has little utility.
If I can not create something but can get it any time from society, it again has little utility.
Next:
There are four main branches of institutional socialism.
Imperialism, (big s) Socialism/Communism, Corporatism/Fascism, and the last, which I still need a good name for that captures it two faces, is characterized by the dogmatic fanaticism of Gaiaism and other radical religions.
Pompous Git says:
April 21, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Jim G said @ur momisugly April 21, 2011 at 12:54 pm
““Einstein did not have the benefit of 60 years of watching socialism fail, as have we, so could be excused for believing in a high minded system that does not work.”
Indeed. But that’s a separate argument.”
Same argument, intelligent folks do not buy utopian ideas. Utopia, from the Greek, means “nowhere”. All political systems devolve into dictatorships based usually upon greed rather than benevolence, high life styles and special stores for the communist party leaders, great compensation and benefits plus campaign contributions for the democratically elected leaders, favors for the constituency and supporters, punishment for dissent. The only difference is in the degree of brutality inflicted upon the general population by those in charge, economic, mental and physical and the level of theft that is indulged by the leaders. Benevolent dictatorship is the best one can hope for.