"Climate Change" or "Global Warming"? Two New Polls Suggest Language Matters

On Friday, a new Yale-Associated Press-NORC poll on environmental attitudes reported that just 56 percent of Americans believe global warming is happening.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


On Friday, a new Yale-Associated Press-NORC poll on environmental attitudes reported that just 56 percent of Americans believe global warming is happening. This seems a bit low to me given our UT Energy Poll data on climate change over the past three years looks like this:

[Click for larger]

But then I thought about language. The Yale-AP-NORC poll asks about "global warming" and the UT Energy Poll asks about "climate change."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Several academic studies have attempted to measure whether there is a difference in how we perceive or respond to "climate change" and "global warming" with mixed results. Poll responses can also be influenced by where a question appears in a survey and several other factors. Still, we do know Democrats and Republicans certainly use these terms differently.

When Fivethirtyeight'sHarry Enten looked at the number of times each appeared in the Congressional Record between 2009 and 2014, he found Democrats are far, far more likely to discuss "climate change" while Republicans use "global warming" more often.

In fact, guess who used the term "global warming" most in Congress:

Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who doesn’t believe that global warming is man-made.

And who mentioned "climate change" most?

Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who has been on a one-man crusade in trying to get Congress to act on climate change.

Now returning to those very different results from the UT Energy Poll and the Yale-AP-NORC poll:

* Yale-AP-NORC Poll. Base: 1,578, Nov-Dec 2014, MOE 2.9+ UT Energy Poll. Base: 2,105, Sept 2014, MOE 3.0

 

I am not suggesting that one result is more accurate than the other, but I do suspect that language matters.

* Note: The UT Energy Poll asks the subset of respondents who "think that climate change is occurring" about what factors they think contribute to it. A portion of this percentage do not attribute climate change to anthropogenic causes. Considered together, the percentage of respondents who think that climate change is occurring AND attribute it to human behavior would be closer to the Yale-AP-NORC result.

Sheril Kirshenbaum is executive director of Science Debate, a nonpartisan org working to get presidential candidates on record on science policy. She co-directs Michigan State University's Food Literacy and Engagement Poll and hosts the NPR podcast Serving Up Science.

More by Sheril Kirshenbaum

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe