The Battle for U.S. Public Opinion on Climate Change is Over
April 26th, 2007Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
We’ve argued here that it has been over for a while, but this survey from the New York Times should make it obvious:
Americans in large bipartisan numbers say the heating of the earth’s atmosphere is having serious effects on the environment now or will soon and think that it is necessary to take immediate steps to reduce its effects, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds.
Ninety percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans said immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the global climate. Nineteen percent said it was not necessary to act now, and 1 percent said no steps were needed.
Recent international reports have said with near certainty that human activities are the main cause of global warming since 1950. The poll found that 84 percent of Americans see human activity as at least contributing to warming.
The poll also found that Americans want the United States to support conservation and to be a global leader in addressing environmental problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal.
For those still looking to play the skeptic game there is also good news as there are still a few left: 4% said recent strange weather was caused by “God/end of world/bible” and 2% said “space junk.” 
In all seriousness, I don’t expect the skeptic game to end any time soon, despite the overwhelming consensus of public opinion.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Now the question is, if or when the policies (taxes) are adopted, how long people will continue to support the now requested actions?
When people realise how restrictive these actions need to be and for how little short term benefit we will enjoy. I guess that they will quickly go back to skeptics.
Even more that we are use to have now and pay later. With climate change it is buy your car now for and enjoy it in 2107.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Roger,
I have been an AGW crisis skeptic for 17 years, while the self-proclaimed best and brightest in the climate change field insisted I was wrong. If I was not convinced by them, why would I be persuaded by the masses. It is a tribute to the American people that they managed to hold out so long against the constant flow of misinformation.
You are well aware of the misleading stories about global warming and hurricanes since Katrina. Well, I see the same skewed reporting in all aspects of climate change. The public is told only the worst of all possibilities as if they were the most probable. Disease, sea-level rise, severe weather, animal extinctions, drought, flood, starvation, migration, misery and despair beyond their wildest imaginations. The public hasn’t been convinced with knowledge; they have been terrified with nightmare images supposedly bearing the seal of approval of ALL the worlds’ scientists!
I find it all extremely sad and extremely serious. I am wondering what you mean when you say: “…I don’t expect the skeptic game to end any time soon…”? From my perspective, the skeptics are the only serious scientists in the bunch. The rest are the ones constantly playing computer games!
April 27th, 2007 at 6:30 am
I note your previous post shows that the public have been so aware since 1997. One might expect in that time that they would not buy SUV’s, not buy larger houses, not move to the coast in droves, not have the air conditioning continually on at a glacial temperature or perhap even stop flying. But all these activities have increased almost in line with the CO2 rise. Why there’s a coincidence! Did they not realise it was their own consumerism that pushed up CO2 levels? Or do they just say what they think people want to hear? Is this more of what Phillip Stott calls “global hypocrisy”? What in fact do they want the government to do? Higher fuel taxes? Probably not I think! Ah yes, they want the CO2 sucked out of the air so they can happily continue being profligate with the worlds resources. It’s great to be educated isn’t it?
April 27th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Roger
I think your reading of the US polls are absolutely right. But I’m afraid you’re wrong on your conclusions.
You seem think that the attacks on climate sceptics are a silly game that can now be ended in view of what you call an “overwhelming consensus of public opinion.” It would appear that you don’t fully appreciate the social and psychological dynamics of an apocalyptic faith.
The problem is simple: Given that there now seems to be an “overwhelming consensus of public opinion” in most countries – how can it be that CO2 emissions are still rising around the world?
The reason is quite simple too: when asked by journalists and pollsters, neither governments nor people are actually telling the truth. They’re just saying what they are expected to say. In reality, they don’t believe in climate armaggedon – otherwise they would drastically cange their policies and behaviour.
Evidently, there is a massive gap between rhtoric and action, between words and deeds. And guess whose fault it is that neither governments nor people take the right actions? Exactly: climate sceptics who are responsible for the lack of appropriate policies.
And since climate alarmism is essentially an apocalyptic and salvationist movement, its agenda will, sooner or later, call for the forecful conversion of the whole world and every single human being since this is regarded as the only way to save humankind from ecological doomsday.
If you don’t believe me, I suggest to read what the British environment secretary told a climate conference in the Vatican earlier this week:
Miliband calls for worldwide ‘ecological conversion’
Climate change must be tackled through a coalition grounded in morality and ethics, the environment secretary, David Miliband, told a Vatican conference today….
In his speech today, Mr Miliband said there needed to be a worldwide “ecological conversion”, a mobilisation of governments, businesses and citizens, and a need to change the way we live, work and travel.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2066149,00.html
April 27th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Roger
I forgot to mention one other issue in this context: attempts to restrict free speech and calls for censorsphip that are inherent in salvationist creeds thoughout the ages. Apocalyptic radicals have routinely tried to stifle the expression of *any* doubts that may endanger their dogma. It wuold appear that climate apocalypticism is no different in this respect.
Thus, I was not surprised when people like Bob Ward, the former spokesman for the Royal Society, warned climate sceptics that “free speech does not extend to misleading the public by making factually inaccurate statements.”
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070425/climate_film_070425/20070425?hub=Entertainment
It’s the deafening silence of the scientific community, science writers and journalists in face of this rather blatent call for censorship that speaks volumes.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:29 am
JamesG and Benny- Thanks for your comments. Seeing how Europe, the US Congress, and others seek to close the gap between words and deeds will be interesting. The dynamics of Anthony Downs issue attention cycle seem alive and well:
http://www.anthonydowns.com/upanddown.htm
April 27th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Roger
One thing seems pretty obvious to me. Now that the scientific consensus has been firmly established by IPCC WGI, WGII and WGIII and every conceivable doomsday scenarios has been published in the peer reviewed literature, there really is no more need for large-scale funding of climate science. Let’s face it: how many scientists get funding for gravitation research?
The science is settled, the debate is over and it’s time for action. Regrettably, climatologists have no clue about about engineering, economics or energy analysis. Neither have they any expertise in either of these fields.
In short, if governments want to make progress on the development of new energy technologies, cost-effective policies and adaptative infrastructures, they will have no option but to shift most of state funding away from climate science and towards high-tech, social and geo-engineering. At the end of the day, nobody will complain about such a prudent decision now that the science is settled once and for all.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Roger,
I fully agree Benny and remain to see further when it’s not only unethical but criminal to try to study alternative explanations of global warming.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Benny- I can attest to the fact that climate science is indeed feeling such pressures in both the US and Europe. These concerns have been raised at a meeting I am at just this week.
However, the funding of alternative energy research is going to require a lot more money than climate science receives — which is about $4B worldwide. Hoffert et al. suggest 10 times this amount is needed … Thanks.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Well, the funding has to come from somewhere. And cutting climate science funding seems to be a good start for various reasons.
In any case, politicians the world over seem to be rather glad to see the back of climatologists since they are seen as potential trouble maker who tend to remind politicians that they are failing to deliver on their habitual promises.
Nobody seems to be in need of obnoxious climate scientists. What governments are looking for now are engineers, economists and political scientists who are happy to assure the public that the problem can be fixed. The moor has done his duty, the moor can go.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Benny’s idea of reducing funding for climate research, now that the science is “settled”, if promoted loud enough might cause a backlash across the priesthood. They might even have to voice a few uncertainties in order to justify their existence or, heaven forbid, become skeptics themselves. I do not intend to start saying Te Gaias instead of Te Deums or going before the Inquisition so what can this heretic do to get the movement underway?
April 28th, 2007 at 12:20 am
“We’ve argued here that it has been over for a while, but this survey from the New York Times should make it obvious”
Roger, did you not take those “mass behavior” classes in grad school?
It’s never over. When it comes to public opinion, nothing is ever “over.”
For example, lets say you took a survey on what Americans thought of smoking in 1948, why wouldn’t that overwhelming “consensus” mean the debate was “over”?
April 28th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Look. We all have to make personal sacrifices to save the planet. When Al Gore or David Miliband demand that we need to change the way we live, work and travel, why should climatologists be excluded? Their sacrifice will help to save humankind and to make the world a better place. Just think about the children and stop being selfish.
April 28th, 2007 at 7:10 am
In another forum some scientists (geologist Steven Mann)complain about G.W. Bush cutting founding for climate change research (not sure if he was right).
Wouldn’t it be better that money be spent on research for greener technologies than to research what we already have the answer to. Or is it that we don’t have the answer and people are mislead into believing that we do have it.
April 28th, 2007 at 9:37 am
“When Al Gore or David Miliband demand that we need to change the way we live, work and travel, why should climatologists be excluded?”
I’m always astonished at the number of people who says that we should change our of life and at the same time exclude themselves from the equation because their work is so much more important than everyone else.
Why is every proposed solution end up in higher cost. Why solutions never include ban of private airplane, heated pool, spas, heated driveway, non fuel-efficient car, or simply limit on how much energy a house can use? isn’t because this would mean that people who ask changes would really have to do what they say instead of simply paying more.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
The recent IPCC “Summary for Policymakers” stated that the likelihood that “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures” is due to “the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” is 90%. Now 90% certain is fairly certain but does it put the issue beyond all reasonable doubt? I am inclined to think that 90% certainty is sufficient to justify some action but it is not enough to justify the shutting down of all serious debate. There seems to be a weird disconnect between the IPCC report and the public commentary. Or am I missing something?
April 28th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Which means they’re 90% sure that 51% of “global warming” is due to ghg increases, right?
Considering what we know we don’t know about clouds and precipitation, and the fact that every percent change in global precipitation is worth 0.78 w/m^2, and all but the most arrogant of us knows there are things we don’t know that we don’t know, 90% is a little high, I think…
April 29th, 2007 at 10:38 am
The most recent issue of Skeptical Inquirer, The Magazine of Science and Reason Has “Global Warming, a Position Paper” proudly(?) displayed on its cover. Even the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has apparently been overcome by the wave of media disaster predictions.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:16 am
“It’s the deafening silence of the scientific community, science writers and journalists in face of this rather blatent call for censorship that speaks volumes.” [Benny Peiser]
Not this science writer, but the only media interest I’ve raised is from the Guardian’s Comment is Free blog. Given the tone of debate on that site, I’m not sure I want to accept the commission.
I criticised Ward and the open letter in the Psci-com email list, and was shouted down for my troubles. Part of this was due to me drawing a link between the object of Ward’s opprobrium – Martin Durkin – and an ultra-left political clique that has an influence in the British science communication community out of all proportion to its numbers. But Ward, in the email list discussion, is being very aggressive toward those who do not like his open letter.
I can’t quote directly from the list discussion as that is a members-only forum. However, I did publish two blogs on the matter:
http://skysong.eu/2007/04/science-advocacy-and-political-lobbying/
http://skysong.eu/2007/04/spittle-flecked-invective-pfui/
Why the silence from others? Many and varied reasons, I’m sure, but one may be professional self-interest. I’ve certainly done myself no favours in speaking out.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:20 am
I am confused. Since when did polls and public consensus mean SCIENTISTS or policy makers should end their questioning? There was a time when everyone thought the world was flat, but that did not stop Galileo. Please show me proof that human activity alone through forced CO2 will cause unnatural havoc to humanity. I am extremely concerned about oceanic methane being released from the sea’s depths as the result of increasing temperature. I am in favor of alternative energy (for reasons including national security) and efforts to reduce humanity’s negative impact on Planet Earth. What disturbs me are polls and public opinion trumping real “scientific consensus”. In the seventies and eighties, many pundits talked of an eventual ice age, earth-destroying meteor impacts and even the eventual disruption of our magnetic shield that protects us from lethal solar radiation. Why is CO2 not simply trapped in increased biomass? How do we decide if losing bees to cell phone transmissions is worse than a warming of half a degree? Without clearly understanding the actual mechanisms of GW through models that include all significant variables, how do we create intelligent policies of mitigation and adaptation? I think it is prudent to demand the same bar we place on evolutionary theory that today is still rejected by much of the world. The fact that the UN now calls GW theory, Gore’s GW theory shows an uncomfortable blurring between polls and scientific inquiry.
As we leave comments here, there exist today efficient solar cells that power our Mars explorers, Norwegian gas extraction that sequesters CO2, energy plants that can sequester the CO2 from coal and coal tar (as opposed to the dangerous proliferation of more nuclear power plants), cars that can run on biofuel and machines that can capture the power of wind and waves. It is not a stretch to move now towards reducing humanity’s GHG, but to close the book of the science of human induced GW or the natural mechanism propelling us towards an unknown future is both foolish and unscientific.
April 30th, 2007 at 9:02 am
So, the american public has been convinced/hornswoggled. Whoopee. What’s that Lincoln quote about “some” and “all”? Put me in the “!some” category. I’ve worked on and with physical simulation for too long not to recognize how tenuous all of these “conclusions” really are.
And 90%! I love that part. I read carefully through that summary, and could find no reference to how that number was calculated. IMNSHO, someone remembered the aphorism that “If you can’t describe it numerically, it isn’t science” and said, “We need a number here, gentlemen, to protect our phoney baloney jobs.” “90% sounds good, it’s impressive, but we can wiggle out of it when we’re wrong.” “Let’s go with it.” Given the complete dearth of hard information in the “Summary”, I’d say my scenario is just as likely as not.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Bud:
I agree with you that it is funny that very few commentators focus on this.
I wrote an article for National Review that speaks about this, that you can find here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmViY2Y3YzY1YmVkYTg4NjczODhkYWU1Mjg1YzhjMTI=
The key relevant passage is:
“The current summary indicates that the IPCC is “90% confident” that we have caused global warming. The summary further implies that if we double the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, the IPCC is 90 percent onfident that we will cause further warming of 3° C +/- 1.5° C.
But what do these statements of confidence really mean? They are not derived mathematically from the type of normal probability distributions that are used when, for example, determining the margin of error in a political poll (say, +/- 5%). IPCC estimates of “confidence” are really what we would mean by this word in everyday conversation—a subjective statement of opinion. This is a very big deal, since bounding the uncertainty in climate predictions is central to deciding what, if anything, we should do about them.
Jim
May 1st, 2007 at 3:24 am
Now that Americans seem to be convinced the AGW is a real phenomenon, will we end up with a least-cost solution from our legislators and diplomats (and one that focusses on the need for governance reform and adaptation in poorer nations) or an ineffectual gravy train, with the pork spigots directed to more wasteful spending?
The wisest solutions will target creating costs for net CO2 emissions and other forcing, while creating incentives for sequestration and development of new technologies – without the government taking a direct role in directing technology investments.
But since the US experiences some benefits from climate change, I am concerned that our Congresscritters may be more interested in more government spending without changing fossil fuel consumption incentives, and without really focussing on China or India, much less the other nations that need to become more affluent in order to adapt to the changing climate.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:27 am
Now that Americans seem to be convinced the AGW is a real phenomenon, will we end up with a least-cost solution from our legislators and diplomats (and one that focusses on the need for governance reform and adaptation in poorer nations) or an ineffectual gravy train, with the pork spigots directed to more wasteful spending?
The wisest solutions will target creating costs for net CO2 emissions and other forcing, while creating incentives for sequestration and development of new technologies – without the government taking a direct role in directing technology investments.
But since the US experiences some benefits from climate change, I am concerned that our Congresscritters may be more interested in more government spending without changing fossil fuel consumption incentives, and without really focussing on China or India, much less the other nations that need to become more affluent in order to adapt to the changing climate.
Yes, the battle for spoils will soon be on. Let’s try to minimize the wastage, and strive for effectiveness.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:03 am
Roger,
What is your definition of a skeptic? Anyone who doesn’t believe with the IPCC summary that scientifically there exists at least 90% confidence that mankinds attribution on 20th century temperature increases is greater than 50%? Would your dad fall under it?