Image: AZRainman/Flickr
Nearly 40 percent of Americans are part of categories called the "alarmed" or "concerned," meaning they are more likely to say global warming is man-made and are motivated to do something about it.
At the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, there are the "doubtful" and "dismissive," -- the 25 percent of Americans who are more likely to express climate skepticism or doubt that climate change will ever harm them personally.
In the middle are two other categories of Americans: the "cautious" and the "disengaged," the 35 percent who either say there is little urgency to the problem or simply haven't thought about the issue at all.
Those findings came yesterday in a joint survey from Yale and George Mason universities, examining broadly how adults think about climate change and what policies they would back to curb warming temperatures.
"I think that people tend to divide others into 'believe' or 'do not believe,'" said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of Yale University's Project on Climate Change and a co-author of the report. "It is a much more complicated and interesting picture than that."
According to Leiserowitz, the aim with the documentation of the "Six Americas" is not to examine why people feel the way they do, but provide a more sophisticated tool of measurement and track it over time.
There are some "slight" demographic differences between the groups, with the "dismissives" being more likely to be white, male, religious and conservative, Leiserowitz said. The "alarmed" are somewhat more likely to be female, he said. But most differences between the six partitions are not explained by an obvious label such as age, ethnic group or economic status.
Overall, the researchers found that 47 percent of Americans say that global warming is "caused mostly by human activities," while 36 percent say that it is "caused mostly by natural changes in the environment." About 30 percent say they think there will be many more "deaths and injuries" from floods and hurricanes over the next 20 years if nothing is done to address climate change.
Twenty-eight percent say the United States should make a large-scale effort to address global warming, even if has large economic costs.
'A stabilizing of beliefs'
But when you break the numbers down within the "Six Americas," the picture is much more complex.
For example, 23 percent of Americans total say that global warming will harm people in developing countries a great deal. With the "alarmed," the number surges to 85 percent. For the "concerned" -- those who believe climate change is happening but are less urgently worried than the "alarmed" -- the percentage drops to 36 percent. Within the group that is sure global warming is not happening, "the dismissives," the percentage worried about harm to developing countries drops to zero.
The universities have been tracking the beliefs of the Six Americas since 2008, with little change in the overall percentages occurring between this year and last, Leiserowitz said.
The biggest shift in attitudes came between November 2008 and January 2010, when the number of "dismissives" more than doubled and the "alarmed" decreased by 8 points. That mirrored other polls showing a growth in climate skepticism over the same time frame, a phenomenon that has been explained by the economic crisis, weather and the "Climategate" scandal, which revealed scientists wrangling in hacked emails (ClimateWire, Dec. 3, 2009).
"What we see here is a stabilizing in belief from last year," said Leiserowitz. "The drop has stopped."
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentCompare the public perceptions of the science with what the scientific community thinks. In 2009, a peer reviewed article appeared in the American Geophysical Unions publication of Eos that showed 97% of the relevant experts believed global warming is real and that humans are causing it:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExamining the Scientific Consensus
on Climate Change:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
It found that:
"Results show that overall, 90% of par-ticipants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research
and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our sur-vey, the most specialized and knowledge-able respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate sci-ence as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer- reviewed papers on the subject of climate change"
Page 21
Clearly there is a disjunction between what the science says and what the public believes.
Similarly, most Americans see no immediate threat from regularly eating sugary, fatty foods, failing to regularly exercise half an hour, or failing to save enough of their income to be able to retire comfortably. Humans didn't evolve to be able to instinctively evaluate long-term threats.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, we Americans are mostly incapable of evaluating risk and a great many of us are lacking in the essentials of mathematics and critical reasoning skills that are prerequisite to that ability. As such, Americans are, for the most part, herded around by media sensationalism. Many people are more afraid of being abducted by space aliens than of getting in a fatal wreck on the highway. What are the odds?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo begin with, the odds of little green men taking you to their lab for a vigorous probing are nil, while about 48,000 Americans are killed in road wrecks each year. Americans are afraid of vaccinations because they once used thimersal as a preservative, which would give you a dose of mercury that might be comparable to eating a spoonful of canned tuna fish. Yet between 1979 and 2001 between 27,100 and 55,700 Americans died annually from influenza which, of course, is a disease that can be prevented by vaccination.
So, when it comes to the rising average temperature of the Earth and its inevitable consequences, our ignorance requires a series of major disasters to hit all at once to get our attention. And I'm afraid this still won't do it. Hurricane Katrina destroyed a major American city, something that hasn't been done since General Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground. Yet that wasn't enough even though Katrina was followed in rapid succession by Rita and others. A record outbreak of tornadoes will be ignored by all but those whose homes have been blown to sticks. Unprecedented flooding happening more frequently than at any other time in the historical or geological record will still be chalked up to weather by the deniers whose homes aren't reeking of mud, mold, and sewage.
Mass ignorance has its own inertia but once the herd gets moving then move it will. It's what we call a stampede. And here's my prediction: when the rate of destruction by weather hits enough of the ignorati in the head with hailstones, wipes out their homes with floods, wildfires, and tornadoes, and they can no longer water their lawns because of drought then they'll be howling, "Why didn't the climate scientists warn us about this!"
Sad that 40% of Americans think it human induced climate change is an immediate threat. Some scientists say that it will warm up 1 degree on the equator and the 10 degrees on the poles. If this is true it would reduce the average temperature difference between the poles and the equator by 9 degrees. How would that cause more extremes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNicpet Says: Some scientists say that it will warm up 1 degree on the equator and the 10 degrees on the poles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: More energy in a system means more energetic events. May I suggest reading Peter Atkins' "Four Laws that Drive the Universe."
http://www.amazon.com/Four-Laws-That-Drive-Universe/dp/0199232369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309395491&sr=8-1
These comments are worth thinking about because they are from people whose expertise and understanding is in this subject matter. I might also add that the use of the term "Americans" is sometimes objectionable to all the nations of Southern America, Central America, including Northern America--because the "United States of America" does not represent all of the geographic, economic, cultural, intellectual or multi-ethnic perspectives embodied within countries in South America, Central America and North America (e.g., Canada). The world has gone global, and the U.S.A. is a team player, or should see itself as a team player amongst nations as we work together to address the emergence of global warming. We all have a lot of work ahead in terms of educating, reversing current practices and exploring new economic pathways toward a green economy. Corporate offenders of all nations who refuse to reverse their current practices must be held accountable. This is certainly a big problem within the U.S.A. I am just a nurse interested in public health, global health and economic health for everybody.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother non-scientific article by 'Scientific' American that feeds the global warming cultists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"dismissives" being more likely to be white, male, religious and conservative" who found that surprising? The same people who think humans rode dinosaurs 6k years ago don't believe yet another scientific finding. The bigger question then is why does a nation that spends so much on education have such a disproportionately high percentage of the most ignorant people in the western world? Thump your bible if you know the answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn interesting read on this whole subject of AGW is found here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf Perhaps CO2 isn't the bad boy here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@geojellyroll, your comments reflect more on you than on the target of your B.S. For a person who keeps claiming sciam is not scientific you don't seem to get it that simply making an accusation is not enough to establish its truthfulness. So, perhaps the reason you don't think sciam is scientific is because you don't understand science. But then again, right-wing nut jobs only care to understand their own dogma, everything else is blasphemy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Postman1, and perhaps you are just peddling snake oil. Another paper attacking climate science by someone who is not a climate scientist. Thanks for the contribution. Perhaps I'll get my dentist to write a paper about string theory. Gerlich at least takes an interesting approach by denying there is such a thing as the green house effect. Well I guess they are called deniers for a reason, they'll deny anything that is inconvenient, even basic facts. Here's a link to a discussion on the paper with a link to the rebuttal. Postman, I hope the heritage foundation is paying you well to sacrifice your kids futures for the sake of short term profits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://climatephysicsforums.com/topic/3292392/1
Ok, so around 40% of U.S. people actually know how science operates. 25% are antagonistic to the scientific method and 35% are apathetic. That sounds about right. I think that 25% of people are pretty much the same 25% that rabidly watch Faux News or listen to right-wing radio and wasn't it about 25% of the people that thought G W Bush was doing a good job as president by the time he left office? Hmmmm, both groups of the 25%-ers ignore reality and substitute their own delusional narrative when the real world doesn't seem to mesh with their ideology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's why they still believe in "trickle down the leg" economics even though it's been tried continuously for over 30 years with disastrous results: Stagnating wages for the bottom 90% of income earners, exploding deficits, crumbling education systems, environmental catastrophe, increased outsourcing and decreased economic competitiveness. The very definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing again and again expecting a different result. Climate change is no different.
Indeed, some of us just don't seem to get it:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Being smarter about how we use our resources, investing in cleaner types of energy, and studying the adaptation process now will not "save the planet," as some activists so breezily say; the planet is not in peril. What it will do is save ourselves from a lot of future hurt."
[Corey S. Powell, EDITOR IN CHIEF. 2011. The World is not ending. DISCOVER, June, p. 6]
robbie- Sounds as if most of the money is going to the warmers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html
Seems to be paying for a lot of 'scientists', you know, like the railroad engineer in charge of the IPCC.
40% seems like alot to me. Global warming is a complex subject, convincing that many people that the proposed threats are probably real is quite good. 40% is also more than enough to move politicians into action. So I found myself put-off by the article's language which is very doom and gloom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets also not mix up scientific prowess with belief. The bottom line, 99%+ of the human population of the world does not have the knowledge nor the scientific training to properly evaluate Global Warming. There are many factors, it is difficult for experts to properly handle them all (a main reason why it is easy to attack the idea but attacks should always be welcome because they lead to better research, explanations and thus better understanding).
So 40% is huge when you consider that 40% BELIEVE that glkobal warming is a threat. The work over the past ten years has shifted the people of the US. That is very impressive, such ideology can take decades to change (such as bigotry).
In the US evolution can be a hard sell in some regions, just think how hard a sell Global Warming is in those same areas? But it is happening. That is a hopeful sign, IMO. I am more about anti-polution, no idea why anyone would want more small particulates, less oxygen and more cancer causing chemicals in their environment. So even though I find outrageous claims on both sides of global warming, the fact that people are becoming more concerned about their environment in all areas is what has me most hopeful.
And I must also do some justice by saying not all Global Warming backers are scientific. Much like their 25% counterparts, its all about belief. Like they believe we can magically switch to solar and electric cars but that evil people stop that from happening. They don't consider the large engineering obstacles to such a big move. They also tend to be anti-nuclear even though nuclear power is a very good option in some areas of the world.
Basically, set aside egos and believe the majority of experts and engineers. And learn to recognize the ones using pseudo-science for their own political agendas (which is what really causes massive problems).
You can see the wheels in motion on all of this in the US (finally ;) ) and as well as around the world. I just wonder if we'll burn up most of teh oild and coal anyways, since how can we stop developing nations from using coal? Its unfair to demand it, so can only do so by paying them to make solar, wind, geo or nuclear plants. I don't see that level of committment in the US yet but 40% could become 50+%...
When "Science" and "Belief" are mixed in an opinion poll, the science loses out. This is nowhere more true than in a politically-laden subject like climate change. I know many sceptics, scientists and otherwise, but I don't know any that would not agree that humans cause carbon dioxide emissions and a lot of other changes to our planet. They would also agree that global warming is taking place and has started before the industrial evolution. They will point out that global cooling also takes place from time to time and has been more common during the past million years tan warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurveys and Opinion polls on scientific matters taken from the public at large are unable to provide more than gut feelings, which are irrelevant to science and only useful to politicians. Cause and effect get mixed up, survey questions are pre-loaded and "beliefs" get created by expensive propaganda campaigns.
Throughout history physical scientists, whose names we all know, have been at the receiving end of persecution and rejection because the establishment of the day, be it religious or political, could not fit their findings into their belief code or their pocket book.
Message to pollsters: Leave science alone. We have enough trouble holding scientists to the Scientific Method and scientific ethics.
"I might also add that the use of the term "Americans" is sometimes objectionable to all the nations of Southern America, Central America, including Northern America--because the "United States of America" does not represent all of the geographic, economic, cultural, intellectual or multi-ethnic perspectives embodied within countries in South America, Central America and North America (e.g., Canada). "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know what? Those La Raza types can all go to hell. We will call ourselves what we want. Unlike every single one of them, we have no other name for our country but America. Their insistence that we quit using the term "Americans" for ourselves is like someone in Albany insisting that people in Manhattan should not be allowed to call themselves "New Yorkers". I am quite through with tolerating this politically correct bullshit from banana republics.