Why the Polls on Climate Change Are Wrong

This Saturday, October 24, is 350.org's International Day of Climate Action. Citizens all over the world will participate in rallies and creative actions to let governments and delegates to the Copenhagen climate change conference know they want real solutions on climate change now, and not incremental steps or half measures that punt to some future day of reckoning.

Here's a little creative action you can do to mark the occasion right now from your computer. Go ahead and News-Google the words: New Survey Climate Change. Watch what happens. At present writing, the top two search results that come up are utterly, irreconcilably contradictory. The first is a writeup of a groundbreaking project that I advised, World Wide Views on Global Warming, which surveyed citizens in the US and 37 other countries; we found that everywhere, including in the U.S., citizens want much more aggressive action on climate change than either the U.S. Congress or the negotiators preparing for the Copenhagen seem prepared to consider. The second is an article about a new Pew poll that shows the number of Americans who see global warming as a threat has fallen 20% in the last two years.

Who's right? It seems that our representatives in Washington and delegates to the UN COP15 climate summit in Copenhagen are eager to believe the second poll. Congressional debate on climate change legislation and preparations for COP15 are both following a similar pattern of lowering ambitions and expectations, focusing on limited areas of current agreement and incremental steps, and deferring more contentious issues of targets, timetables, funding and enforcement until some later date. We are increasingly hearing from climate policymakers that it will take more time to do things right, that we have to meet people where they are instead of imposing radical reforms from above.

But there is reason to believe that they're dead wrong, and that citizens are way ahead of the policy makers, despite what some polls say. Climate change polls typically spend a few minutes on the phone asking a random sample of people a couple of superficial, often leading questions, frequently interrupting dinnertime. The process elicits off-the-cuff reactions to complex issues that are profoundly consequential to life on our planet. It's a dubious way to gather opinion on a sober subject like climate change, and many understandably shrug it off with some cynicism.

World Wide Views on the other hand is a citizen deliberative process distinct from polling, and expanded for the first time to the global level. Unlike polls or this summer's over-heated Congressional "town halls" on health care, World Wide Views participants received balanced expert information in advance, based on the Fourth Assessment Report of the Nobel Prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Then they spent an entire day learning together, in neutrally facilitated deliberations, prior to voting on policy recommendations.

Participants were everyday people selected to reflect general demographic tendencies in their nation or region in terms of age, gender, education, occupation, urban versus countryside, and ethnicity or race. Climate experts and staff from organized stakeholder groups involved with global warming were excluded. "I'm from West Virginia; coal miners don't talk a lot about climate change," explained Larry Ragland, a participant from Methuen, Massachusetts. "I'm not an environmentalist, and two weeks ago I had a completely different impression of what climate change meant."

Thousands of people like Larry gathered on September 26th in Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, and throughout Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe and Latin America. During the course of the day, they voted overwhelmingly that their leaders should do far more and go far faster, not scale back and slow down as they're apparently doing now.

Here are some of the key U.S. results from World Wide Views:

• 90% of U.S. participants say it is urgent to reach a tough, new agreement at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December and not punt to subsequent meetings.
• 87% said that by 2020 greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and other developed nations should be cut 25-40% or even more below 1990 levels (the Kerry-Boxer Senate bill would cut US emissions only 20% below 2005 levels).
• 71% want nations that fail to meet their obligations under a new agreement to be subject to severe or significant economic sanctions.
• 69% believe the price of fossil fuels should be increased.

And among participants worldwide:

• 88% want strict targets for keeping global warming within 2 degrees Celsius of pre-industrial levels (half of participants, especially in countries hardest hit by climate change, want measures to hold temperatures at the current level or even bring them down to pre-industrial levels).
• There is strong consensus for more fair and proportionate burden sharing, with 76% favoring 2020 emissions reduction targets for fast-growing economies like India, China and Brazil.
• 83% support significant or severe economic sanctions against countries that do not live up to their emissions reduction commitments (the citizen group in Bangladesh proposed creating an international court to try climate cases and "provide opportunity for negatively affected countries to claim compensation").
• 87% want strong new international financial mechanisms to support these goals.

These are ambitions that you'll either find very much dumbed down or absent entirely in current negotiations on Kerry-Boxer and COP15. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to sense something is wrong with this picture.

Considering the deep concern and striking calls to action evident in World Wide Views' global and U.S. deliberative results, what should we make of conventional polls that say Americans and some others aren't really all that worked up about climate change and don't support robust measures to combat it? Are those polls measuring informed public opinion, or does their approach give political cover to climate incrementalists and climate change deniers? You decide.

So when citizens around the world take to streets on October 24 to demand faster, more aggressive action on climate change from Washington and Copenhagen, don't fall into the trap of dismissing them as somehow on the fringe. The best and most thoughtful vehicle we have for registering considered public opinion indicates that in reality those activists represent the mainstream. If members of Congress and delegates to Copenhagen want to be responsive to public opinion, as they claim they do, then World Wide Views provides the survey results they need to take to heart.

 

Comments

[noneIn2008]

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”T.H. Huxley

[realpolitic]

None of the deniers are "skeptics". They are professional deniers. They deny every article on climate change, do not even acknowledge the overwhelming scientific consensus on the subject, cherrypick statistics, and repeat disinformation all day long. Is that your idea of a "skeptic"?

[Dmco]

Many people who have commented on this blog agree that global climate change is a serious threat that must be dealt with in radical ways. Also, many people on this blog express their disdain for climate change deniers. I agree with both of these positions. However, I find myself questioning how climate change deniers continue to be legitimized by being covered by the media. How do we go about changing the depiction of climate change and the people who support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions? According to Sclove there is overwhelming support in the U.S and globally to drastically reduce emissions. We need to figure out a way to compel our politicians and our climate change delegation to demand stricter regulations so one day soon we will see programs that are successful in reducing emissions.

[research]

Climate deniers (as separate from sincere folks questioning the science intelligently)

Have the big money on their side.

[noneIn2008]

The proAGW group has the BIG money and profits on their side. Try to get a grant for research to refute AGW.

[OliverTwist]

We should consider ourselves fortunate that the political parties and the media have decided it is safe for them to consistently render a public opinion that the sun does indeed rise in the east. The deniers of this fact at least do not get air time.

[Dunelm]

To those who say it is a "hoax"--have you flown recently? Have you seen the pollution hanging not only over large cities but just about everywhere? Did you know that, among others, the North Sea is warming so much that cold water fish cannot survive? Please do not stick your heads in the sand--I am not a scientist, but my common sense tells me that there is something wrong!

[Virgil Kane]

How long does it take to heat and cool a body of water as large as the North Sea? I'm not being facetious, i'm really wondering...

[BettyMcDonalds]

I hope everyone has read this already.
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

[realpolitic]

Fact:

The warmest decade on record was 1998 - 2008. While 1998 was the 2nd hottet year on record, 2008 was only the 8th hottest; therefore if you only look at those two years, you might assume there hasn't been warming. However, the ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008, and 2005 was the hottest year ever.

[imfedup]

The deniers are saying there has been no warming for the past 11 years. They also point to recent record low temps in many parts of the U.S. It's very hard to argue with someone who equates weather to climate. I'm looking for some explanation of why record cools would be happening. Can anyone provide it?

[restoreamerica]

Record Cold or snowfalls on a particular day occur all the time. I grew up in Memphis, Tennessee. Thirty-five degrees North lattitude. Altitude about 250 feet above sea level.

Temperatures there have ranged from -13 in December 1963 (along with 14 inches of snow) to 108 in July 1980. 17.1 inches of snow in late March 1968. Temperatures in the low teens in April, 1-2 inch snow accumutations. Thirty-one 100 degree (or more) days in the summer of 1980 from July until October. Normal high for January... 51, Normal low.. 31. Normal high for July..91 Normal low.. 72

Weather is weather....Climate is longer term trends. The ice caps ARE melting.

[realpolitic]

In Australia, they experienced record warmth.

[noneIn2008]

NASA restated the data. 1934 was the warmest year on record in the last 100 years. 1998 was the second warmest. Slight oops on the data. The retraction is buried on their web site.

[realpolitic]

More misinformation from deniers. You temperature data is for the United States only and not the entire world. You guys are so convinced you are right, but know nothing but misinformation.

[MCope]

Poll? it shows nothing. a few hundred Americans have embraced wishful thinking. Somewhat more have not.

Physics will be the arbiter of climate change. Physics doesn't care if you are right-wing or left. It is indifferent to how much you love your children. The only thing that will count (and, indeed, already counts) is how much solar radiation is retained by the atmosphere. This, in turn, (as could be demonstrated in any decent high-school science lab) will depend on how concentrated the greenhouse gases (C02, methane and a few others) are in the atmosphere.

The politicians can squirm as much as they like. They can deny and pretend, they can act tough and worldly. They can think of their seat, or the next election. Physics doesn't care. Only the greenhouse gases matter. They are already so concentrated that the world would continue to warm for decades, even if we put out every fire and other source of greenhouse gases today.

[realpolitic]

Very true! As they say, ignore at your own peril!

[maxwells]

For me, the significance of global warming sank in 40 years, as I stared as a student at the early CO2 data from Mauna Loa. I remember saying to a few friends that the warming signal would probably rise above the background noise in about 30 years. It did. But what I didn't see was how many Americans would stolidly avoid the implications of the avalanche of ensuing collaborating data. It wasn't until much later that I understood what Karl Rove meant by saying, "Facts don't matter". He meant that to a lot of Americans, they don't.

Yet, lately I've concluded, even with an 80% reduction of our CO2 footprint, that we probably can't sustain more than half the world's current population indefinately at present energy consumption levels. So, some major culling will occur, probably catastrophically. So, you denialists will successfully wreck our planet for many generations. I mean, even at 450-500 ppm of CO2, the global warming itself might just be manageable, barely. But the attendant political and military instability probably won't be.

Hey, I'm old. I have no grand kids. So, why should I care, right? But a few of yours may survive and they'll hate you for the havoc you'll have wrought, with your addiction to convenience and to feel-good ego-toys: your monster trucks, your bloated SUVs, your fat-laden fast foods, your pie-in-the sky denialist ideologies that bear no resemblance to reality at all.

[thedirtman]

Global warming theory has its roots in inorganic chemistry. The type of bond that exists in CO2 because of its molecular shape (which can be verified with an electron microscope) causes a reflection of heat. When basic phenomena in physics have been supported in both molecular theory and laboratory experiment there is a very reliable outcome. We can count on greenhouse gases to cause increasing heat retention in the same dependable fashion as other molecular phenomena such as thermal conduction, hydrogen bonding, or gravity to cause their respective effects, for example. Each of these are shown in molecular theory and supported in laboratory experiment, and can be calculated. That is why I am 100 percent certain that CO2 introduced into the atmosphere can only increase atmospheric heat retention.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/thedirtman?action=comments

[gallon]

Nice. Would you have any commentary on all the methane that is locked up but soon-to-be released? I see notice that the tundra is already beginning to give off its methane.

[thedirtman]

Just that I've read that it was also given up during the Permian extinction - the greatest extinction that we know about. I'm sure the methane accumulation has built back up.

[noneIn2008]

And the more potent green house gas is water. Stop the water?

[Truthandreason]

Man-made global warming is a hoax.
It is simply a clever ruse to redistribute the planet's wealth.
If Kyoto is ever passed, it will result in increased man-made CO2.
The sun is the cause of the last wave of global warming, which, by the way, has been in remission since 1998.

[spikeykitten]

Nice.

[realpolitic]

Funny how scientists just fell in line to go along with the hoax and no one ever came forward to expose that they were asked to be a part of it and rejected the offer? Did this subtlety ever occur to you? The Arctic must be part of the hoax because it is melting!

[gallon]

Amazing too, that the Russians and Chinese and everybody else just goes along with it. The only ones with the truth, apparently, are the deniers and FOX news.

[Publicola]

"Man-made global warming is a hoax." and other myths:

*** "Man-made global warming is a hoax."

Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

*** "The sun is the cause of the last wave of global warming"

the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth... The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

**" "global warming... has been in remission since 1998."

Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html?full=true

[OliverTwist]

Good.

Alas global climate change deniers are clowns.

This would not be a problem except that too many people take them seriously.

[noneIn2008]

Exactly right. Now you will be attacked. The manual states not to address your points but to personally attack you for making the above points.

[Javani]

"that in reality those activists represent the mainstream."

I estimate at least half of them are astroturfers for Wall Street Finance, though they might not know it if the money to them is washed through environmental-sounding front organisations. Half the time they sound like astroturfers fearing they are astroturf, and looking for solace for others in the similar trap.

[elmerfude]

The next time an Einstein comes along with a new theory, let's not collect any data. We can just conduct a poll to decide the validity of the theory. Should be a lot cheaper than paying for actual science.

[thedirtman]

I vote that e = mc^2. Are we allowed to vote on Calculus exams too?

[realpolitic]

Very true. Instead of taking tests in school, just take a poll!

[elmerfude]

Yes the whole thing gets pretty absurd doesn't it?

[gallon]

Something like this already happened long ago. In Indiana, I believe, they legislated the value of
pi to be 3 point zero. Made it easier for the kids in school, or something like that.

[elmerfude]

Holy smoke! But somehow it does seem plausible. History is stranger than fiction sometimes.

[realpolitic]

The poll should distinguish bewteen conservatives and liberals. Those with a liberal bent believe the scientific evidence on climate change and thus with a conservative bent ignore it. Conservatives go so far as to believe it is patriotic to burn coal like in "drill, baby drill!" Consider....

"While three-quarters of Democrats believe the evidence of a warming planet is solid, and nearly half believe the problem is serious, far fewer conservative and moderate Democrats see the problem as grave. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans say there is no solid evidence of global warming, up from 31 percent in early 2007."

Well, Republicans who turn to Fox News and AM radio for their information are misinformed about everything these days. The same percentage of conservatives who do not believe in warming also think Obama was born in Kenya, and that the government is creating death panels for grannies. They sort of inhabit a different planet anyway!

[guinganbresil]

I generally listen to Air America Radio on the way to work and conservative talk on the way home. Admittedly I have a very small sample size, but I would say I hear more about "birthers" and "death panels" on AAR than on the conservative talk stations.

It may be that I just am listening to the "wrong" programs, but the same seems to hold true when I (infrequently) switch the order.

Do you have any data to support the assertion that Fox and conservative radio is pushing 'birtherism'? I hear the assertion all the time, but haven't seen it myself. I am interested in the facts...

[realpolitic]

Yes, I have the data. Listen to Fox!

[Richard2]

Can we at least agree on "one man, one vote?"

Hopefully members of scientific organizations such as the APS will soon be able to vote on what their position is on global warming, with each physicist having one vote.

[spikeykitten]

Tax weighted vote - the more you pay in taxes the more your vote should count.

after all you are voting on on how your tax dollars should or should not be spent.

[realpolitic]

Yes, the APS has a robust position on climate change

In 2007, APS adopted an official statement on climate change:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes."

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society

As the APS says, "The evidence is inconvertible." Besides if we had a vote on science wouldn't you vote to teach Intelligent Design in schools? It is scary to demagogue such issues

[gallon]

We could have a vote on whether the earth is flat. Reality would still have nothing to do with the vote. In fact, centuries ago, the general belief was of a flat earth. That's how
science is sometimes. When something is new, only one scientist knows the truth. The
rest of us are guessing, opinionating, making policy, and voting about it. Only one knows.
This current global warming resembles the old flat earth debate.

[OliverTwist]

Yeah! Science by poll. Frank the high school student who took a physics course gets a vote and Einstein gets a vote. No problem there.

[lightningbolt]

We should not be making decisions on this subject based on polls. We should be making decisions based on the conclusions of the majority of the world's scientists, who actually have the ability to measure what is going on.

[Richard2]

You are right about making decisions. However, there is still a lot of nonsense in the media about "there is a consensus," or "almost all scientists believe in AGW."

From my own readings, I would guess that most scientists in the "hard sciences" like physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy would not think that AGW is real.

On the other hand, most of the scientists in sociology, psychology, and environmental science would think that AGW is real. The man centered sciences generally support the idea of man-made global warming. The sciences centered on the natural world generally support the idea of natural forces influencing climate change.

At least when I was at the university, the really smart people went into the hard sciences, while the rest of us went into the social sciences, including economics and political science.

[lightningbolt]

When I said the majority of the world's scientists I was referring to the group of scientists who have studied climate change. This does not include sociologists, psychologists, or any scientists who are not related to the subject matter because they did not work on climate change, therefore they cannot make a conclusion. The majority of the world's scientists who WORKED on climate change agree that humans are causing the climate to change significantly.

[realpolitic]

R2 is substituting his religious point of view which he explains as "man centered" vs. "natural earth centered" for science. It is a total fabrication because the closer a scientist is to a specialization involving the climate the greater his belief in anthropogenic climate change.

"The world's most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil, and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying:

"The scientiifc understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. it is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."

[realpolitic]

R2, would you link to what you read to give you the point of view that physical scientists do not believe in anthropogenic warming? I would like to see why you are so misinformed!

[mickthebiologist]

Polls. What are they?

Did the Pew and Harris polls objectively discern the extent of current information reviewed by those poll participants? Did they discern if that info was read, examined, queried by those polled? Was there ANY background knowledge level (meteorological/climatological/biological/physics) on GCC of those polled discerned prior to asking them their subjective opinions of the reality of GCC?

I already know the answer. Hell no.

This is why Dr. Sloka's post is so vitally important, and why it will be ignored by the not-interested-in-the-truth media sources whose job it is to dig deep and post ALL info from all sources, juxtapose this info, present debate and objectify that debate into conclusions that can be digested by those citizens who are polled, as well as those not polled.

Polls have become/are nothing more than another psychological tool of manipulation paid for by the highest bidder, whose interests will be served by their propaganda whores, the truth be damned.

[Richard2]

Didn't like the results of this poll, yes?

[gallon]

Lies
Damned Lies
Statistics
Political Polls