More

HuffPost Social Reading

Why Global Warming Still Considered Target Of Skepticism For Americans

Climate Change Denial

First Posted: 02/17/2012 7:20 pm Updated: 02/17/2012 8:48 pm

If you follow the popular polls, you might think that Americans are growing ever more skeptical about man-made climate change -- despite the consensus among published climate scientists.

That's simply not true, Jon Krosnick of Stanford University told an audience of social scientists and cognitive researchers Wednesday, in Garrison, N.Y. He maintained that most Americans do, in fact, believe.

The problem, Krosnick said during his talk at the Garrison Institute's annual Climate, Mind and Behavior symposium, is that we haven't been asking the public the right questions. The other problem: Legislators are reading their misleading answers and hearing from a vocal minority of constituents.

"Public opinion has the potential to move legislators," he said. "But methods that political scientists are using to document the public will are going at a snail's pace."

With funding from major news outlets such as Reuters and ABC News, Krosnick's team has been conducting its own national surveys over the last several years. Since 2009, their findings have diverged from those of other survey organizations.

Gallup and Pew polls show that the percentage of Americans that believe in climate change now hovers around 50 percent, but Krosnick's latest poll -- which asked the question in a more detailed way -- suggests the figure is 83 percent -- up from 79 percent in 1997. Of the global warming believers, the majority also reported thinking that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities play a role. The trend held after the researchers broke the data down by political party: 66 percent of Republicans said climate change is happening.

Further, not a single U.S. state had a majority opinion on the skeptical side, noted Krosnick. Even in Oklahoma, the home of one of the country's most outspoken skeptics, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a large majority of the people polled agreed with the scientific consensus.

Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, doesn't share the same optimism. Combining various public opinion polls, including Krosnick's, he sees a downward trend in the percentage of Americans believing in global warming since 2007. Further, in a new open-ended poll, he's found that the first thing that came to the minds of 23 percent of people when they thought about climate change was a naysayer thought, such as a recent record snowstorm or a conspiracy theory. This is up from 7 percent in 2003, he told The Huffington Post.

Krosnick and his colleagues also looked at two ways of framing a question about the public's ranking of issues. In response to "What is the most important problem facing this country today?," the economy ranked at the top with global warming dead last. When this question was reworded to ask, "What will be the most important problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it?," the results were reversed: Global warming ranked No. 1.

"This message is not getting across to Washington," said Krosnick.

Scott Brophy, a philosophy professor at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, agreed that politicians are "out of touch" with the thinking of their constituents. Yet the problem remains, he said, that "1 in every 3 or 4 Americans doesn't believe in a basic fact."

For democracy to work, according to Brophy, we need to understand how and why people don't trust the scientific facts.

Research has shown that people are motivated to find information that supports their beliefs. "Encountering counterarguments causes us to marshal forces like an army of white blood cells to defend against them," said Brophy.

He pointed to the influence of massive disinformation campaigns such as the recently outed Heartland Institute. "This is a real threat to democracy," he told HuffPost.

"Krosnick is not addressing the nature of our political decision-making process, which is not driven by majority rule," added Bob Doppelt, executive director of The Resource Innovation Group, a non-profit organization affiliated with Willamette University. "It's driven by elites that paid for, fund and have the most access and, therefore, the most influence over officials ..."

In a way, the whole discussion is beside the point, according to Brophy. The question we should be asking, he said: "What are the policies we should adopt?"

"There, reasonable people can disagree. Policy doesn't automatically follow from the facts," added Brophy. "Yet we continue arguing about whether the Earth is round. This is crazy."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

If you follow the popular polls, you might think that Americans are growing ever more skeptical about man-made climate change -- despite the consensus among published climate scientists. That's sim...
If you follow the popular polls, you might think that Americans are growing ever more skeptical about man-made climate change -- despite the consensus among published climate scientists. That's sim...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,467
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (11 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
Chris1962 09:42 AM on 02/18/2012
>>>If you follow the popular polls, you might think that Americans are growing ever more skeptical about man-made climate change -- despite the consensus among published climate scientists.>>>

I don't how to break this gently, but the scientists' data and credibility have been tainted by email busts. And if that's not to mention the financing for "research" that's engaged in  Read More...
04:30 PM on 02/26/2012
This is an excellent summary of the global warming debate. This paper succinctly explains both sides - AGW via model, and the actual data (the skeptic side). The author worked for the Australian government - in their Climate change/Greenhouse office.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/theskepticscase.pdf

Note I have happily copied this from Anthony Watts site. Anthony Watts has traveled this country verifying the USHCN near surface temperature measuring stations are situated and operated to specification. His efforts on this project were in fact funded by Heartland in 2007. His work product is here http://www.surfacestations.org/ A Paper has been accepted for peer review in November of 2011. Note their are no references to global warming or lack of - it is intended as a service for the NOAA, and has been accepted as such.
06:28 PM on 02/26/2012
I was intending to link this site and say that is indeed a succinct summary of the debate and professionally done. Thank you for doing it.
05:51 PM on 02/25/2012
There are periods of warming and cooling.

The alarmists see the warming trends but don't see that overall the warming is slow and beneficial.

There is a funny graph from skepticalscience showing it going down then jumping up The trend is up is their point.

They miss the real point, the up is kept slow and harmless by the flat and downward sections .

[for example 1940 to 1978 and 1998 to present. ]
ubrew12
that crazy uncle from Amarcord
02:08 PM on 02/26/2012
Lets return to the hockey stick once more, shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Do you see the handle there on the left from 0AD to 1950AD? Thats what you mean by 'periods of warming and cooling'. For almost 2000 years, temperature varied between -0.2C and -0.6C of temperature anomaly, with an average of -0.4 C.
Do you see the blade there on the right, from 1950AD to 2004 AD? Thats global warming. Its also measured data: its the part of the hockey-stick the Koch Brothers paid big bucks to reevaluate, and all they ended up doing was confirm what was there before. Anyone like you who thinks this is just a 'period of warming or cooling' is out of their mind. Clearly, CLEARLY, something has changed.
Do you see the multiple plots of various attempts to understand the temperature record pre-1950? They all fall pretty near one another, offering additional confirmation that temperature DIDN'T CHANGE much between 0 AD and 1950 AD.

Maybe 'this fish fears you', but your fear of the hockey-stick is pretty obvious.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-hockey-stick-lives/
03:07 PM on 02/26/2012
The hockey stick has been broken for many years.

Many peer reviewed studies using non tree ring data has proved the Roman and medieval warming periods.

The modern warming is far from unusual as the alarmists would have you believe.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/where-is-the-positive-feedback-not-in-the-icecores/

The tricks Dr Mann played were unbelievable and the Wegman report was very lenient.

Dr Mann had his buddies peer review his work.

[If he had had a skeptic do it he would have been spared the embarrassment.]

He turned his data upside down so it better fit the story he was trying to tell. Which was that temperatures were flat or declining until mankind started creating lots of CO2.

He hid the decline in modern tree ring data to make his case seem more believable. If modern tree rings don’t expand when temperatures go up why believe ancient ones do ?

He relied on a single tree for his critical sample.

His code which he wouldn't release multiplied data which fit his story by 390 but the data which contradicted it was multiplied by one by 1.

I could go on and on but Dr Mann was a man with a mission. " Exterminate the Medieval warming period and the Little Ice age." was his mission.

The fish fear me because I tell the truth and can back it up.
03:10 PM on 02/26/2012
Slight AGW is not a hoax but the hockey stick certainly is one.

The fact that the modern day trees didn't show warming should make a reasonable person skeptical of their value as a proxy for temperature.
05:46 PM on 02/25/2012
The trend so far has been 1/2 ° C per century.

I predict the trend will continue and by 2100 it will be less than .5 ° C warmer.

We might even slip into an ice age.

Can I get a hummer then ?
07:14 AM on 03/14/2012
I know this girl......could probly set it up.
05:39 PM on 02/25/2012
The Weekly Standard has an excellent essay by Steven Hayward on the Gleick fiasco. This paragraph is particularly interesting for it goes against everything you hear form the CAGW crowd -

"The dog that didn’t bark for the climateers in this story is the great disappointment that Heartland receives only a tiny amount of funding from fossil fuel sources​—​and none from ExxonMobil, still the bête noire of the climateers. Meanwhile, it was revealed this week that natural gas mogul T. Boone Pickens had given $453,000 to the left-wing Center for American Progress for its “clean energy” projects, and Chesapeake Energy gave the Sierra Club over $25 million (anonymously until it leaked out) for the Club’s anti-coal ad campaign. Turns out the greens take in much more money from fossil fuel interests than the skeptics do."

We are constantly being told that big oil spends HUGE sums on anti climate campaigns. It is simply not true. It is made up to whip the faithful into a lather. This follows a long tradition amongst liberals - make it up and keep repeating it, until it becomes dogma.
01:16 PM on 02/25/2012
Although it is good press to say people are getting sick from Coal Plants, the EPA cannot produce on case of a person made sick by power plants - not one! Shouldn't they have to prove it?

In Los Angeles, Freedom of Information Act emergency hospital admissions data for 2010-11 from the large Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in West Los Angeles. The data show no correlation between hospital admissions for asthma and air quality measurements for ground-level ozone (smog) and fine particulate matter (soot) in Los Angeles, which supposedly has some of the “worst” air quality in America. There are no Power Plants there, just really dirty air.
ubrew12
that crazy uncle from Amarcord
01:55 PM on 02/25/2012
All I can say is: good luck with that one.
Wow. You really do have a problem with ALL of science, don't you? Do you also insist they 'prove' that cigarettes cause cancer?
03:53 PM on 02/25/2012
Show me one. Search it. No study has ever proven causality.
09:32 AM on 02/23/2012
I am not skeptical of slight beneficial AGW.

The manufactured catastrophe is where the lies and distortions happen.
09:18 AM on 02/23/2012
There is every reason to be skeptical of CAGW.

So far the warming has been mild and beneficial. Since records were started in the little ice age it would have been remarkable if it hadn't warmed.

The theoretical warming effect of a doubling of CO2 is only 1 ° C. To create fright the alarmists assume it will be amplified 3 to 6 times by water vapor.

Slight problem, water vapor has gone down since 1950 so how is this amplification possible

http://climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
photo
yeti7
not bigfoot
06:38 PM on 02/21/2012
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
Permalink |Hide replies

when I see this in the section does that mean it was my post that was "removed"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
09:39 PM on 02/21/2012
No, it means you're getting an award for erudition.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whiskeyman09
03:19 PM on 02/22/2012
So,so, so clever...
09:09 PM on 02/22/2012
Yes you have been honored and they= fish clearly fear you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
10:44 PM on 02/22/2012
Delerium Tremens.
photo
yeti7
not bigfoot
07:11 AM on 02/23/2012
i wish they would at least list the comment made so a person can learn by their mistake.
Like walking around in the dark
05:11 PM on 02/21/2012
I remember when sunsets were composed of yellow colors. Hardly any reds at all back in the late 1980's. I remember because the sunsets turned red during the Yellowstone fire of 1988. This was new and unusual at the time.Now it is everyday. People will argue over global warming and climate change but there is no denying that we have changed the sky.
photo
yeti7
not bigfoot
06:24 PM on 02/21/2012
too much pot smoking
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
09:40 PM on 02/21/2012
The red hues are due to particulate in the atmosphere, and the source of those can variously be fires, sandstorms, or the burning of fossil fuels.
ubrew12
that crazy uncle from Amarcord
03:40 PM on 02/21/2012
Could one of you skeptics take this 'inconvenient truth' back to your oil-sector paymasters for instructions?
"On average, solar power has reduced the price of electricity 10% in Germany. It reduces prices up to 40% in the early afternoon, when electricity demand is peaking and electricity typically costs the most. "
photo
yeti7
not bigfoot
05:07 PM on 02/21/2012
how much do people get paid by the oil companies to post here anyway?
09:08 AM on 02/23/2012
If you can't defeat his arguments attack the motives.

Standard alarmist red herring !
08:03 PM on 02/21/2012
How does that make "global warming" believable?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
floridan56
07:53 AM on 02/22/2012
I believe it when I see & feel it.
I've been alive long enough to know what is seasonally typical and what has clearly changed,.. everywhere on earth.
It is spreading like cancer. We are the cancer.
Why don't you see this?
01:51 PM on 02/21/2012
People understand that Peter Gleick, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Al Gore et al are a fringe element of society. There message is lost in their over the top rhetoric and branding people with whom they disagree with every disparaging remark possible.

Mr. Gleick was extended an offer by the Heartland Institute to speak to them, he declined. Within a few days, he apparently became so overwrought with paranoia that he stole confidential materials, by his own admission, from the organization that extended a hand out to him. He apparently felt those evil oil companies and Koch Brothers were up to nefarious things.

Now Mr. Gleick is nothing more than a common criminal, by his own admission. Mr Hansen, has found his way into several municipal jails around the country, Mr Mann spends an inordinate amount of time defending a graph that cannot be explained, and Al Gore, well AL is getting rich off the "true believers" and buying oceanside real estate.
photo
yeti7
not bigfoot
05:36 PM on 02/21/2012
Peter Gleick wasn't fringe. Until yesterday he had be chairman over at agu.org, they have now removed his name from everywhere on their site with no explanation, reminds of how USSR Stalin use to have people expunged or air brushed out of photos.
photo
yeti7
not bigfoot
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gerald Villella
01:40 PM on 02/21/2012
I see the comments are closed on the Peter Gleick travesty regarding the Heartland documents; and he is the central suspect in the fake one. Just more distortion, cowardice and outright fraud from the warmist cult. You true believers keep chanting "the science is settled" to yourselves, as more scientists, as well as climate events themselves, eviscerate the vastly overstated claims of certainty. Yes, there are real environmental concerns, and human activities can damage air, water, plants, animals and ourselves. The falsely-based effort to stifle all critical analysis of the assertion that the trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, only a part of which is human-generated, is causing the planet to overheat, has grievously damaged real environmentalism. Ditch the mantras and deal with reality.
01:52 PM on 02/21/2012
Well put.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
yeti7
not bigfoot
01:29 PM on 02/21/2012
what no update?
01:24 PM on 02/21/2012
The number of deniers and doubters in this country is sad but not surprising given the decline in science achievement in our schools and the massive disinformation and propaganda campaigns by the vested interests in the fossil fuel industry. And in a total perversion of the American dream of having your kids become college graduates, the right has cultivated a kind of resentful scorn for those with higher education, deriding them as pointy-headed intellectual elites who never worked a "real" job. So now scientists are immoral, money-grubbing, conspirators. Good grief.
01:40 PM on 02/21/2012
I am a skeptic and I am scientifically trained.

I doubt the catastrophe not that slight beneficial AGW may have occurred.

I think that good scientific education is responsible for all skepticism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
09:47 PM on 02/21/2012
Oh good lord.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whiskeyman09
03:31 PM on 02/22/2012
STOP BEING SO REASONABLE AND GET ON BOARD!!!! THERE IS A NARRATIVE TO SUPPORT!!!!!!
01:42 PM on 02/21/2012
The lack of knowledge among the true believers is astonishing to me !

they seem to know nothing about climate but believe any scare story they read.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
09:47 PM on 02/21/2012
Then why is it you who keeps getting banned for ly/ing and mis-representing the science?
photo
yukonsam
This space reserved for self-referential irony.
01:08 PM on 02/21/2012
A defining characteristic of any conspiracy theory such as Climate Denial is that it doesn't see itself as a conspiracy theory. It's a circular worldview in which any factual evidence disproving the conspiracy is considered part of the conspiracy. You can't convince a Denier any more than you can convince a disciple of the Roswell Coverup, Fake Moon Landings, Grassy Knoll or Birtherism.

Heartland, Heritage and the API have played the rubes like pros, and the Industries pumping "donations" into the right-wing stink tanks are certainly getting their money's worth and more.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katmandu01
01:24 PM on 02/21/2012
"A good conspiracy is unprovable. I mean, if you can prove it, it means they screwed up somewhere along the line." - Mel Gibson as Jerry Fletcher in Conspiracy Theory (1997)