Banner
By News Staff | January 27th 2010 12:00 AM | 6 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
The scientific community may agree that anthropogenic global warming poses a real threat, but the general public isn't all that worried about the changing climate. Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to the results of a national survey released today by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.

The survey found that Only 50 percent of Americans now say they are "somewhat" or "very worried" about global warming, a 13-point decrease. The percentage of Americans who think global warming is happening has declined 14 points, to 57 percent. The percentage of Americans who think global warming is caused mostly by human activities dropped 10 points, to 47 percent.

In line with these shifting beliefs, there has been an increase in the number of Americans who think global warming will never harm people in the United States or elsewhere or other species.

The results come from a nationally representative survey of 1,001 American adults, age 18 and older. The sample was weighted to correspond with U.S. Census Bureau parameters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence. The survey was designed by researchers at Yale and George Mason Universities and conducted from December 23, 2009, to January 3, 2010 by Knowledge Networks using an online research panel of American adults.

"Despite growing scientific evidence that global warming will have serious impacts worldwide, public opinion is moving in the opposite direction," said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change. "Over the past year the United States has experienced rising unemployment, public frustration with Washington and a divisive health care debate, largely pushing climate change out of the news. Meanwhile, a set of emails stolen from climate scientists and used by critics to allege scientific misconduct may have contributed to an erosion of public trust in climate science."

The survey also found lower public trust in a variety of institutions and leaders, including scientists. For example, Americans' trust in the mainstream news media as a reliable source of information about global warming declined by 11 percentage points, television weather reporters by 10 points and scientists by 8 points. They also distrust leaders on both sides of the political fence. Sixty-five percent distrust Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sarah Palin as sources of information, while 53 percent distrust former Democratic Vice President Al Gore and 49 percent distrust President Barack Obama.

Finally, Americans who believe that most scientists think global warming is happening decreased 13 points, to 34 percent, while 40 percent of the public now believes there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is happening or not.

"The scientific evidence is clear that climate change is real, human-caused and a serious threat to communities across America," said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. "The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to educate the public about this important issue."

Comments

logicman
"The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global
warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to
educate the public about this important issue."


Come on science bloggers!  Let's roll!

Concern for the findings and interpretations of science, e.g. climate change, has a direct correlation with the trust that people have in the scientists themselves. Education is important, but so is trust building.

logicman
Education is important, but so is trust building.

A good name is more of an asset than any amount of money in the bank.

Trust must not only be earned, but must be spread as reputation by word of mouth. Or by hyperlink, in this modern age.

Good luck with your new blog.
Saving our wildlife, whether in our woods, in our streams or in our
oceans is important for the survival of our spirit as well as for the
survival of our planet.

http://freeoutdoors.com/blog/
It seems that the public just doesn’t share the worry some of the activists have.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/25/pew-poll-global-warming-dead-last-...
(Tip of the hat to David for the link in his blog.)

"The scientific evidence is clear that climate change is real, human-caused and a serious threat to communities across America," said Edward Maibach.

If Maibach's statement is correct, then the scientific community has a serious communication problem. I see youtube videos and articles coming out provided by people with scientific cridentials that dispute this statement. (I have a brother who reguarly provides these for me.) What I don't see is the scientific community presenting a data-centric, cause-effect establishing case. I also don't see the scientific community providing serous rebuttal to the scientists on the other side who are making their case. Either there isn't a whole lot of data that proves AGW, or the scientific community is actively withholding the data. The smarter ones among us are convinced by data, by facts. The less smart among us tend, in my opinion, to trust the smarter ones that they know.

My simple message to the scientific community is -- convince me. I'll convince my neighbor (and brother.)

logicman
the scientific community has a serious communication problem

Most definitely.

Many scientists work alone in the field or in very small groups.  Their findings are delayed by the peer-review process.  Those findings, once published, get picked up by organisations such as the IPCC.  The IPCC publication process is very slow due to the complexities of editorial control by multiple experts.

Any ordinary member of the public can publish any claim whatsoever about science on the web.  Instantly.  It is currently fashionable to publish "evidence" that climate change/global warming just isn't happening.  Such publication is subject to neither peer review nor editorial control.  The prominence in Google search results of such published articles and videos is more due to their wide circulation amongst like-minded people than to their veracity.

Fortunately, even the media gets satiated by such stories.  The recent northern hemisphere love affair with "global cooling", and the "Himalayan glaciers are not melting" scored a huge number of hits globally.  The more recent report that the IPCC "got its forest loss data from the WWF" has, fortunately, not received so much media attention.

Mainstream climate scientists are usually too busy to respond to stupidity in the media.  The IPCC has no mandate to engage the media in debate.  Fortunately there are many scientists, and people with scientific backgrounds or training, who are willing to devote their time to setting the record straight on climate change.

The record of proofs of climate change can be found in the paleogeological records.  The record of proofs of anthropogenic climate change can be founded on "The Earth As Modified By Human Action", George P. Marsh, 1874.  In that book, which investigates matters going back as far as the Roman Empire, there are 204 references to earlier studies of anthropogenic effects on the environment.  All of which goes to show that the theory of anthropogenic climate change cannot possibly be the product of a conspiracy by any modern group to promote a false idiology.

Recommended reading:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6019

There is a lot of human nature, psychology and politics involved here. Major business interests like oil and coal will wage a misinformation campaign, while it is more comfortable for human nature to deny the uncomfortable, poking their head into the sand. Furthermore, most Americans have more immediate concerns about the economy and can't see how AGW may affect them or their grandchildren many decades down the road from now. It is also hard to convince many people when the effects of AGW have been minute so far because a very resilient planet has safety buffering systems and feedback loops which tend to bring climate stability back into equilibrium. But you can only push the limits of nature's safety mechanisms so far. They either deny or fail to realize that a certain threshold level of CO2 in ppm may be reached in which the effects suddenly become more noticeable and dramatic. It's a very obvious and undeniable scientific fact that CO2 does indeed do what it does.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.