Politicos Steer the Climate Debate
Do you want to know who really influences public opinion on climate change? It’s not famous climate scientists (or climate bloggers) or Exxon Mobil, or even the media (well, just a little). It’s politicians. They drive the debate (for better and worse).
Don’t believe me? Read this recently published study, which I discuss in a new post at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media.
For additional perspective, check out Curtis Brainard’s take at CJR and this straightforward writeup, which includes a nice overview:
The study found that the state of the economy was the second biggest factor affecting perceptions of climate threat. The incidence of extreme weather events had no effect on American’s view of the climate change threat. New research published in scientific journals had no impact on public views, but major reports on climate change and articles in popular science magazines did have a small but noticeable impact. The work of advocacy groups also had some effect. The quantity of media coverage also affected perceived threat levels, but that coverage was mostly a function of what political leaders and advocates were saying.
“The most important factor remained the polarized positions taken by Democrats and Republicans in Washington,” [co-author J. Craig] Jenkins said. “When our political leaders can’t agree on whether climate change is a threat, the majority of people can’t either. The public is divided because our political leaders are polarized.”
My own sense (which I hint at in my Yale Forum post) is that climate activists and communicators are going to be flummoxed by this study.
Politico’s are our national ‘sales people’.
The fact that they can ‘sell themselves’ well enough to get elected makes them extraordinarily well qualified sales people. They are also particularly adept at determining which policies ‘can’t be sold’.
It’s not famous climate scientists (or climate bloggers) or Exxon Mobil, or even the media (well, just a little). It’s politicians. They drive the debate (for better and worse).
Keith, this is beyond naive. The positions politicians take are directly influenced by pressure groups like ExxonMobil, sometimes directly, but far, far more often by the anti-regulatory “think tanks” (like Heritage, Heartland, Freedom Works, American Enterprise Institute, CEI, CATO, CFACT, et al.) that try to minimize any threat to unfettered pursuit of profit and provide the talking points to politicians in the first place.
A great example of this is the evolution of conservative political views on health care. When the possibility of genuinely universal healthcare was a real fear, the conservative alternative was an individual mandate. It was conceived as a position for Republicans by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, and was subsequently adopted by Republican congressmen in the early 90s, as a way to beat back Clinton efforts at universal health care.
Fast forward twenty years, and the Obama administration proposes this originally conservative idea. This presents an interesting dilemma. If the plan was actually based on conservative ideals, rather than a cynically political ploy to derail something more consequential, the think tanks and original supporters of the position should have welcomed it. We all saw how that turned out.
The same think tanks and political groups that once supported it were decrying it as socialism.
I have no doubt that what politicians say greatly affects the opinions of voters. Political positioning has become increasingly about identity politics rather than core intellectual beliefs.
But let’s exercise some critical thinking here. When someone like Paul Ryan drafts a budget, whose economists is he using?
Do you actually think these conservative politicians, who as recently as the last presidential election were much more bullish on climate action (at least nominally), are really having a sudden fact-driven reversal of opinion?
Isn’t it far, far more plausible that they know on some level that if they don’t adopt the anti-regulatory party line that they’ll be primaryied by Club For Growth, Heartland, Freedom Works, et al.-sponsored candidates until they either lose or get religion?
Sure, politicians matter. But politicians in this day and age don’t draft their own white papers, and they sure as hell don’t read science journals. The influence, even if it’s a step removed, of industry interests are as plain as day on the evolution of political beliefs in this country.
It’s not famous climate scientists (or climate bloggers) or Exxon Mobil, or even the media (well, just a little). It’s politicians. They drive the debate (for better and worse).
Keith, this is beyond naive. The positions politicians take are directly influenced by pressure groups like ExxonMobil, sometimes directly, but far, far more often by the anti-regulatory “think tanks” (like Heritage, Heartland, Freedom Works, American Enterprise Institute, CEI, CATO, CFACT, et al.) that try to minimize any threat to unfettered pursuit of profit and provide the talking points to politicians in the first place.
A great example of this is the evolution of conservative political views on health care. When the possibility of genuinely universal healthcare was a real fear, the conservative alternative was an individual mandate. It was conceived as a position for Republicans by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, and was subsequently adopted by Republican congressmen in the early 90s, as a way to beat back Clinton efforts at universal health care.
Fast forward twenty years, and the Obama administration proposes this originally conservative idea. This presents an interesting dilemma. If the plan was actually based on conservative ideals, rather than a cynically political ploy to derail something more consequential, the think tanks and original supporters of the position should have welcomed it. We all saw how that turned out.
The same think tanks and political groups that once supported it were decrying it as social:sm. And so the self-identified conservative voters follow suit.
I have no doubt that what politicians say greatly affects the opinions of voters. Political positioning has become increasingly about identity politics rather than core intellectual beliefs.
But let’s exercise some critical thinking here. When someone like Paul Ryan drafts a budget, whose economists is he using?
Do you actually think these conservative politicians, who as recently as the last presidential election were much more bullish on climate action (at least nominally), are really having a sudden fact-driven reversal of opinion?
Isn’t it far, far more plausible that they know on some level that if they don’t adopt the anti-regulatory party line that they’ll be primaryied by Club For Growth, Heartland, Freedom Works, et al.-sponsored candidates until they either lose or get religion?
Sure, politicians matter. But politicians in this day and age don’t draft their own white papers, and they sure as hell don’t read science journals. The influence, even if it’s a step removed, of industry interests are as plain as day on the evolution of political beliefs in this country.
Woops. I tripped a filter and resubmitted the comment and the formatting went all screwy.
Also, should read “The positions politicians take are influenced by pressure groups like ExxonMobil (sometimes directly), but far, far more often by the anti-regulatory “think tanks” (like Heritage, Heartland, Freedom Works, American Enterprise Institute, CEI, CATO, CFACT, et al.)”
Didn’t mean to say directly and indirectly simultaneously.
TB,
I don’t get what you are complaining about. Are you taking issue with the study’s findings, or my interpretation of them? If you’re looking for spin, you can go here.
Well said TB. It’s woefully inappropriate to truncate the causal chain as Keith is inclined to do here. To assume that politicians are somehow enlightened philosopher kings is of course ridiculous, so the obvious next question then becomes what influences/determines the cues (to use the language of the paper) of the politicians themselves.
In fairness, the study itself doesn’t look at these deeper questions, so I can’t really fault Keith for failing to do so either in this post.
Woefully inappropriate? Man, you guys are woefully trollish today.
BTW, #6, I’m still waiting for you to tell me what I got wrong about Roberts’ post. You did a driveby and then pretended like you never got the question.
Should I expect the same here?
I’m not ‘looking for spin’.
And I’m not complaining, really.
I’m just saying it’s incredibly naive to claim that stake holders who wield enormous political clout directly and more importantly indirectly don’t shape the positions that politicians themselves hold. This is a demonstrable fact, as evidenced by the health care positioning.
Sure, individuals are swayed by politicians. But it’s no mystery how politicians develop the positions that they themselves hold. It isn’t from evaluating the primary scientific literature.
If there were significant ideological or economic/regulatory implications hanging on the existence of the Higgs, you can bet your @$$ that you’d see the same stake holder positioning, politicians absorbing these positions, and then these positions eventually expressed by individuals who self-identify with the political groups.
ok maybe the woefully was in itself inappropriate 😉 but did you forget to read the second sentence or did it just go over your head?
I have had similar conversations about the ultimate origins of climate “skepticism” going back years. In April of last year, as but one example, I tried to explain it at Lucia’s this way:
– direct industry funding of climate denailism/skeptics/what have you exists but not at the level used as a rhetorical weapon on either end of the spectrum. I.e. those that mockingly ask “where’s my oil money for doubting the mainstream” are just as mistaken/arguing a straw man as those who assume the average commentor on blog or news sites who profess doubt about the mainstream are in the pay of industry interests.
– direct industry funding is neither the proximate nor the ultimate reason for public rejection of the mainstream, although it plays a part (to be discussed further down). The ultimate reason for both A) industry funding and B) public rejection of the mainstream stems from the perceived implications of environmental or health “threats” to B) hierarchical and individualist ideologies that have become conflated with conceptions of A) unfettered capitalism.
– industry funding for climate “skeptic” pressure groups specifically and anti-regulatory groups generally exerts an influence on public rejection of the mainstream indirectly by narrowing the “acceptable” political position on policies at a given time (the parallel example was health care legislation). To be sure this is also influenced by public opinion and general economic factors as well (environmental regulations generally become politically less or more acceptable based on economic conditions).
The available evidence to date supports the case that public opposition to the mainstream on climate science does not arise out of knowledge of and legitimate objections to the scientific evidence, but rather is shaped by partisan self-identification, the stated position of “trusted sources”, whether or not the issue is presented in the context of conflicting or affirming preexisting ideological positions, etc.
#11,
“The available evidence to date supports the case that public opposition to the mainstream on climate science does not arise out of knowledge of and legitimate objections to the scientific evidence, but rather is shaped by partisan self-identification, the stated position of “trusted sources”, whether or not the issue is presented in the context of conflicting or affirming preexisting ideological positions, etc.”
In a sense. Partisan self-identification determines what you would consider legitimate objections to the scientific evidence, which sources you consider “trusted”, etc.
Few people on either side know the science. Opinions on both sides are based on other considerations.
“It’s politicians. They drive the debate (for better and worse).”
Way too simplistic. What drives the politicians? Why is Obama now all but silent on this issue?
Step one. Behind the scenes somebody decides to push message x.
Step two. The media is launched on a campaign to manufacture consent, with or without the early overt help of politicians.
Step three. As consent is built, politicians overtly jump on and ride it to fruition, or…
Step four. Consent collapses and the politicians back off – like now.
I find much to question about this study.
“The incidence of extreme weather events had no effect on American’s view of the climate change threat.”
This is beautiful. It begins with the presumption that there has become some change in the “incidence of extreme weather” which should logically have some effect of public perception. But, other than the media focus on unusual weather events, including anything and everything they can find from anywhere in the world, there is no real change in this incidence at all… other than trends contrary to the doomsday forecasts (e.g. the lack of hurricanes).
So what this really says is the ‘climate disruption’ propganda isn’t working.
“New research published in scientific journals had no impact on public views, but major reports on climate change and articles in popular science magazines did have a small but noticeable impact.”
Another beauty. First, the public is only selectively informed by the usual media. While any paper that does support the AGW view has been publicized far and wide, the opposite WAS true of any paper that did not. That is changing now.
Moreover, this new research does get through to the public indirectly, not so much via “popular science magazines” but through the blogosphere – the new primary source for information about this. If one had to rely on things like Scientific American to present the whole story, they would still be waiting.
“The work of advocacy groups also had some effect.”
I’ll say. But not the pro-AGW groups anymore.
“The quantity of media coverage also affected perceived threat levels, but that coverage was mostly a function of what political leaders and advocates were saying.”
In other words, the media they looked at was just the state-parrot media. The silence of these same sources – except for some later dismissive spin – on Climategate told us that. And the muffling of this same media line since Climategate tells the whole story of its real effects.
I should add that the media isn’t exactly “muffled.” They have just switched gears from the in-your-face doomsday screaming to a more subtle program of ‘extreme weather’ coverage designed to subliminally plant the ‘climate disruption’ message.
With cell phone cameras everywhere, the media can always find images of something somewhere, most of which the public never would have heard about before.
Wow, look at that mud slide in Bolivia. Wierd.
Public opinion in the UK has taken a similar path to the US – the high point for the alarmist view was in 2009 and it’s been downhill ever since.
British people do not generally listen to Fox News or US talk radio and they don’t hear from the US Republican party.
In the UK all 3 main parties follow a very green theme – it’s a lockstep issue where they are afraid to break ranks. The BBC is people’s main source of news and it is totally in the tank for CAGW.
So the “pols are to blame” idea does not hold up.
NiV #12
“Few people on either side know the science. Opinions on both sides are based on other considerations.”
True. But given the gap between them, at least one side of this debate is badly wrong.
@ 11
The available evidence to date supports the case that public opposition to the mainstream on climate science does not arise out of knowledge of and legitimate objections to the scientific evidence, but rather is shaped by partisan self-identification, the stated position of “trusted sources”, whether or not the issue is presented in the context of conflicting or affirming preexisting ideological positions, etc.
Change “opposition” to “support” and you’ll get another correct statement. What are the conclusions though?
Jack Hughes @ 14
Good point. The UK climate landscape is markedly different from that described in the US. It would be career suicide for a mainstream politician to be off-message as far as CAGW is concerned. Nigel Lawson can get away with it, though for hatloads of abuse, because he’s no longer in need of votes for his career. He can tell it like he sees it.
@ 15
But given the gap between them
Given? I don’t think so.
at least one side of this debate is badly wrong.
How many sides do you count?
#17 Anteros
Looks like the times they are a changing in the UK.
– 12 NiV –
“Few people on either side know the science. Opinions on both sides are based on other considerations.”
Here are two things that are interesting about that. (1) Conservatives (Tea Partiers and Republicans) disproportionately view themselves as being well-informed and not in need of any more information to come to an opinion. (2) It seems that on both sides of the debate, more information only tends to confirm the opinions that one could rather easily predict based on social and/or political and/or cultural identity.
I would imagine that would all be true w/r/t other issues just as it is with the climate debate.
People jockey back and forth to gain the upper hand in the rhetorical battlefield, flinging jello mold in the best tradition of Junior High School cafeteria food fights, without stopping to take a look around at what’s happening.
Anteros –
I had a though for your consideration. I am becoming increasingly convinced that arguers on both sides of the debate are symmetrically unable to consider the emotional and psychological context behind the rhetorical point scoring.
Once again, an observation (purely subjective, of course) that your symmetry in the “alarmism” is nothing other than an artifact of your own biases.
– #11 – tb –
“The available evidence to date supports the case that public opposition to the mainstream on climate science does not arise out of knowledge of and legitimate objections to the scientific evidence, but rather is shaped by partisan self-identification, the stated position of “trusted sources”, whether or not the issue is presented in the context of conflicting or affirming preexisting ideological positions, etc.”
What evidence do you have to show that is true more of one side than the other?
@22 Joshua:
What evidence do you have to show that is true more of one side than the other?
What evidence do you have to show that I claimed that was the case?
🙂
@20
Conservatives (Tea Partiers and Republicans) disproportionately view themselves as being well-informed and not in need of any more information to come to an opinion.
Do you have evidence?
#23 – tb
Fair enough. It was an assumption I made. Are you saying that you don’t think it is the case?
#24 – Sashka –
Of course, as any poll, the data are worthy of evaluation – but this is a good starting point since the numbers are pretty striking:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/q74.jpg
Sorry – I hit post before I meant to:
There’s this too.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/q54.jpg
It seems I overstated the case with Republicans (where the differences don’t seem likely to be statistically significant) , but not with Tea Partiers?
My guess is that if the “Democrats” were broken down by something like “hard-left” and “center-left,” there might be a somewhat similar pattern that shows up with Tea Parters vs. Republicans.
#27 Joshua
Looked at your graphs. Given the unreliability of that source – a fully invested advocate – plus the questions, plus the lack of very pertinent background information, I find them to be as convincing as the hockey stick.
But then, I find this whole attempt to try to clinically analyze the nature of this debate to be back in the USSR in any case. But that is probably just due to my lizard brain, apparently.
#14,
Good point.
Although it’s not clear to me why the UK politicians do that. Usually, politicians chase votes, not the other way round. But British pols seem to go their own way.
#15,
Agreed.
#20,
I recall the discussion when Chris Mooney put up survey results apparently showing that on climate change the right grew more sceptical with increasing scientific literacy while the left grew less so. But on nuclear power, both left and right were more supportive of it the more scientifically literate they were.
It was actually a pretty impressive thing for Chris to do, because at the time he had a similar theory to the one expressed here: that more knowledge only increased people’s built in political biases, because they could construct better arguments in support of their beliefs. But the inconsistency between climate change and nuclear power contradicted that, and it was good of him (in a scientific/rational sense) to have highlighted it and pointed out that it conflicted, and he would have to change his view.
My (maybe slightly tongue-in-cheek) theory to explain it was that the left tended to go with what the scientific authorities said, while the right tended to go with what the evidence said. Needless to say, that did not go down well with the left. I can’t remember what alternative hypothesis Chris shifted to supporting; something that fitted the left’s worldview better, I’m sure. But we all do it.
That’s why we need to debate with people who have different biases, so they can see into our own blind spots and tell us about it.
– 28 – EdG
I have to say, I’m not exactly shocked to read of your reaction to “my” graphs.
I’d say that there is always room to question how polls are worded, and how the people conducting polls might be biased.
However, I’d say that George Mason University and Yale have fairly good reputations for being able to conduct scientifically reliable polling. Absent anything specific from you other than conspiratorial speculation about bias in this particular case, I hope that you don’t mind if I don’t consider your reaction to be particularly well-supported?
Here – make sure that you don’t waste any time trying to come up with anything more specific to support your assertions of bias.
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PoliticsGlobalWarming2011.pdf
# 29 – NiV –
I think that you “mis-remember” the discussion over at Mooney’s.
The data show an insignificant greater likelihood that “skeptics” know more about the science. However, they show a much greater association, on both sides, that more knowledge correlates with confirming beliefs that are predicted by social and/or cultural identity:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503
Here’s an interesting question for you: Why do you remember the data as showing something that they don’t show?
And BTW – NiV –
If you think about it, the conclusions of that study are not surprising, and they are consistent with many other studies w/r/t “confirmation bias,” “motivated reasoning,” etc., and the natural human tendency to selectively use more information to reinforce what we want to believe.
# 29 – NiV –
I should back off, because maybe you’re speaking of discussion of a different study than the one that I linked.
Apologies. If you can link the discussion that you spoke of, I would appreciate it.
# 29 – NiV –
I really stepped into it big time, there. Again, I apologize. I responded w/o reading your post carefully.
In particular, I wholeheartedly agree with you here: “That’s why we need to debate with people who have different biases, so they can see into our own blind spots and tell us about it.”
On that basis, I look forward to future discussions with you, and hopefully I won’t screw up (as badly) in the future.
#31,
Yes, that’s what I said.
I didn’t mention the bit about scientific literacy correlating with scepticism overall – apparently the study did say so, but it wasn’t the point I wanted to make. While the pattern was of confirming beliefs for climate change, scientific literacy disconfirmed the left’s partisan beliefs in the case of nuclear power. The latter point was the one I wanted to make.
(And I have to say, I looked at the questions on the literacy test and wouldn’t hang anything on either result. The political categories were not entirely convincing, either.)
#33,
The post I was thinking of is here. There were several around the same sort of time, I think, following on from this and expanding on his “conservative white males” theme.
#34,
Thanks, and no problem. I don’t at all mind if people misunderstand, it’s a good excuse for me to come up with a different way to explain it. It doesn’t bother me if people don’t mention it, although I’m impressed when they do.
My respects to you for doing so, and I hope we will have many future discussions.
From the study:
The greater the quantity of media coverage of climate change, the greater
the level of public concern. This is in line with the Quantity of Coverage theory of media effects, and existing individual level research on the impact of television coverage on climate-change concern. The importance the media assigns to coverage of climate change translates into the importance the public attaches to this issue.
So much for media not affecting views, as is often pushed here. I’m wondering, though, if quantity really matters if so much of it is faux balance or contrarian propaganda. This statement is problematic, however:
“When our political leaders can’t agree on whether climate change is a threat, the majority of people can’t either. The public is divided because our political leaders are polarized.”
There are serious chicken/egg assumptions implied here. The statement presumes that causality starts only with political leaders, as if they are supposedly some great oracles, and cascades down. In reality, politicians are to a large extent puppets of various interests, including their voting base, entrenched industry dollars and short-term interests. Voters are to some extent influenced by media coverage (see the first quote above), which is thus a partial indirect cause of political rhetoric. Of course, media is often influenced by what people want to hear, and there are plenty of junk journalists willing to deliver that. It becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. Responsible journalists (the few that exist) can help break the cycle, cut through the spin, and cover the science straight.
Joshua @ 21
I’m not quite sure where your interpretation comes from. My point in agreeing with Jack Hughes was to observe that the political landscape in the UK is very different from that in the US. I believe it is. It wasn’t about point scoring.
I’m surprised in two ways. Firstly you forget that I believe in AGW, am a warmist, and have no political affiliation. If you frequently perceive a political angle to my comments, it might well be because you have a tribal prism yourself. Not everyone has a first order political filter on every subject under consideration.
The second thing is that I am not alarmed. At all.
The alarmism I see in people worried because of the catastrophes about to befall civilisation [and some reflection of that on the other side of the debate], to me are like people being afraid of the dark. It is just part of human nature.
I am certainly interested in the history and psychology of alarm, and the strikingly ubiquitous belief that things in the future are going to be ‘bad’ but it is not a view I hold myself. I am very much ‘unalarmed’.
What was it about my comment that irked you? Did it sound tribal to you?
Joshua –
Perhaps if I pick out most clearly what it was about Jack’s point that I agreed with [and characterised as being about career suicide]
“In the UK all 3 main parties follow a very green theme ““ it’s a lockstep issue where they are afraid to break ranks”
The issue can be seen as one of greenwashing. Whatever their beliefs and whatever their actual policies, all three parties have to claim to be the greenest of them all – in everything. It is somewhat like my analogy of righteousness. Being ‘environmentally friendly’ friendly has overtones in public discourse of beling righteous – before the negative connotations arrived.
From an environmentalists point of view this is almost worse than having some unashamedly anti-environmentalist politicians. Everyone claims to be green because they have to to get elected. It correlates very little with environmental policies.
In one respect, it is somewhat less honest than the situation in the US although I don’t know if that is going to be very convincing
Joshua (#31),
The problem with conclusions drawn from that study, is that it determines “scientific literacy” by asking basic questions learned in a K-12 education, many of them very early on. Example:
Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?
I would not expect those who answered this question correctly to necessarily have the abilities to confirm the general consensus on global warming. “Scientific literacy” is very much weakly defined in this study. As surveys of experts imply, there comes a point in one’s learning of more advanced atmospheric science where ideological barriers are overcome (although sometimes those barriers are rather thick for a few holdouts). But as noted, most people don’t and shouldn’t be expected to reach that level, so people form their views from a variety of other factors, including ideology, media, and perception of consensus among experts.
On tea partiers, they have a tendency to think that climate science can be mastered from a few kooky blogs, which might explain their inflated sense of expertise.
the political landscape in the UK is very different from that in the US.
Yes, the UK doesn’t have coal that can be extracted at a profit for $14/ton. If I read the financial reports of UK Coal PLC it doesn’t even have coal that can be extracted at a profit for $80/ton.
http://miranda.hemscott.com/static/cms/2/4/2/6/binary/5107037307/31840358.pdf
Why would a US politician voluntarily forgo the economic advantage of burning coal that only costs a fraction of what our European Competitors pay for coal?
I would think they would need compelling evidence.
Anteros –
Chill. That comment wasn’t in response to anything in particular you said, it was just a general thought I had with reference to our general standing debate. It wasn’t directed at you. It came out of the blue – not your posts.
Although I will again remind you that there is more than one kind of partisanship; political is not the only one.
30 Joshua
Following your previous link to Tamino, there was no indication of the source of those graphs. Thus my response.
That said, the idea that having doubts about the validity of information from a known advocate is somehow ‘conspiratorial’ says more about your mindset than you probably wanted to.
Now that you have provided the source of that survey, I can look at the source – critically. Because one thing I have learned from the AGW project is that institutional reputation means nothing.
So here is how they created the four subgroups:
“Any respondent who answered “Yes” was assigned to the Tea Party category. Some self-identified Democrats, Independents, and Republicans also self-identified as members of the Tea Party and were therefore assigned to the Tea Party category. Thus the Democrat, Independent, and Republican categories include only those Democrats, Independents and Republicans who did not consider themselves members of the Tea Party movement.”
Can you see any problems with this methodology? What exactly does being a self-identified “member” of the TP “movement” mean and why would people choose to describe themselves that way, or not. Further blurring boundaries, some otherwise Democrats (etc.) also identified themselves that way.
So what is it looking at, exactly? So many questions to explore. But in terms of results, I think this sums it up:
“Democrats are more likely to agree that the record heat waves of the summer of 2010 (not 2011) strengthened their belief that global warming is occurring, while Republicans and Tea Party members are more likely to disagree.”
By contrast, Tea Party members are more likely to agree that the record snowstorms of the winter of 2010-2011 in the US caused them to question whether global warming is occurring.”
In other words, everybody is dumb enough to have their biases confirmed by weather, if they let them.
– NewYorkJ – #40 –
I’ve seen people argue on both sides that the methodology for determination of scientific literacy undermines the conclusions of the study.
Could be. Sure, if they controlled for in-depth knowledge for technicalities of climate change, it might have changed the results of their analysis – but my sense it wouldn’t have. I read opinions of lots o’ people on both sides of the debate who are well-informed, and almost universally I find a strong correlation with their political perspective. I hang at Curry’s blog, and it’s always hilarious to watch as someone who starts posting there on the science over time reveals a political orientation that aligns with their view of the science.
And the results from that study are consistent with a bunch o’ studies that examine the influence of confirmation bias or motivated reasoning in how people formulate views – particularly on controversial topics with as much overlap onto social and political issues as climate change.
One thing that I think that the “skeptics” probably get right is when they argue that the viewpoint that “skeptics” hate science, or are necessarily scientifically illiterate, or even disproportionately scientifically illiterate, is not valid. I also think that argument is ultimately counterproductive. It doesn’t work as a tool to rally support from those not already committed one way or the other, and it only keeps the Junior High School cafeteria food fight going on endlessly.
EdG –
What is conspiratorial is assuming that the poll results were biased without even bothering to research the source or ask about the source – simply because the graph was linked at Tamino’s blog. did you think that he conducted the poll? And even if he did, to just dismiss a poll without bothering to examine the methodology is, indeed, conspiratorial.
Glad that you took time to dig into the poll, however.
I can see no reason why the problems you had with how they divided the sample would invalidate the results. Those who identified as Tea Partiers, to the exclusion of the other possible choices, were more likely to think that they didn’t need any more information about the science to make up their minds. It is what it is.
“In other words, everybody is dumb enough to have their biases confirmed by weather, if they let them.”
I don’t share your condescending attitudes towards other people. But regardless, in my view, “smart” people are very likely to be subject to various forms of confirmation bias just like “dumb” people. In fact, there is a pretty strong body of literature that shows that the more information people have on topics (not exactly a measure of “intelligence,” but close enough for Jazz), the more likely they are to use that information to confirm their biases.
Read WUWT some time. Compare the # of posts they have up on unusual warm weather events and the # of posts they have up on unusual cold weather events. What does that tell you? That Anthony Watts is “dumb?”
Joshua
“I don’t share your condescending attitudes towards other people.”
In response to:
““In other words, everybody is dumb enough to have their biases confirmed by weather, if they let them.”
Everybody doesn’t merely refer to “other people.” It refers to everybody, including me. That said, “dumb” was not the right word. I should have used the word “human.”
Again, I dispute your use of the word “conspiratorial.” My reluctance to accept an unidentified graph posted at an advocacy site is based on experience and reality. Posting cherry-picked information is what advocacy sites do, and only a true fool would accept anything on them without checking the source.
Perhaps the next time you want to make a substantiated point you could post the original source or, at the very least, include that source.
I read WUWT all the time, and have for years. I judge each post on its merits, which include its contents, the links that support it, and the additional feedback and links provided by the comments there. I have learned much about Tamino/Foster there. But I have not noticed any particular skewing in the number of warm v cold events covered – if there is one? – as they don’t particularly interest me, They are almost all irrelevant to the central question – which brings us back to the quote you took issue with.
Joshua
You may find this entertaining, or perhaps disturbing. And, for the record, I did not bother even looking any further into this.
A study in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry has concluded that distrust of the government is a treatable mental disorder. Known as “AGP” or “anti-government phobia,” the study claims: “…that unfounded fear of government is a recognizable mental illness, closely related to paranoid schizophrenia. Anti-Government Phobia (AGP) differs from most mental illnesses, however, in that it is highly infectious and has an acute onset. Symptoms include extreme suspiciousness, conspiracy-mongering, delusional thought patterns, staunch ‘us against them’ mentality, withdrawal from reality, and often religious fanaticism…”
http://www.breitbart.tv/study-distrust-of-government-a-mental-disorder/
Back in the USSR.
Show me someone who believes whatever a politician has to say…and I will show you a fool.
This is another exercise in mis-application of statistics (the single greatest disease in climate science and medical research). Cause and effect are obviously confused.
Nobody here is in the USA buys anything a politician has to say without confirming it with a reliable second source. Congressional approval rating of 9% anybody?
To say that politicians are driving skepticism because a left leaning academic came to this conclusion with some statistical “wizardry” in an election year adds zero credence to this theory.
Yet another in a mind numbing long line of blame it on anything but the scientific facts meme of skeptics are brain damaged.
Still waiting for the posts on why the lack of acceleration in temperature and sea level rise do not cause scientists to question their positive CO2 forcing theories, and what causes this mental affliction. No room in the billions of AGW funding for this apparently. Curious.
I think it is in the nature of US two-party politics that issues become polarized. Abortion, AGW, gay rights etc.
However, in #39 Anteros brought in a very important point from Europe. Even when parties compete to look green, the actual policies may not be so green.
I think that in the US, eventually both parties will accept that doubling the CO2 will raise global temps by at least 1 degree Celsius (argument of feedbacks will continue).
What policies will result is another question completely. The history of US environmental regulations reveals a deep awareness of the cost efficiency of policies for the US (not the planet). CFC’s, Clean Air Act (acid rain, biofuels) are all cases in point. The costs of these policies were smaller than the expected damages. As we all know, AGW presents a different equation: costs are huge and the benefits for the US much smaller.
Whether politicians agree or not on AGW, I cannot see the US committing on drastic emission cuts if developing countries do not agree to cut emissions too. Unilateral commitments become ever more senseless as time goes by as the emissions in developing countries skyrocket. Even Europeans are beginning to see that.
It was -27 C this morning, time to light the fireplace…..
Well said TB. It’s woefully inappropriate to truncate the causal chain…
Of course it is. Otherwise you wouldn’t have the evil corporation hook to pull all the lefties over to the warmist side of the debate.
TB and Marlowe have a point, they just don’t know what it is. The left tends to want do “do something” about climate not because they care about CO2, but because it meshes with their socialist agenda to punish successfull capitalists and increase government control over the economy.
All driven by the misguided notion that economic losers only lose because winners cheat, and it is governments role to make the losers win at the expense of the winners – because winners cheat.
It’s a well worn theory. The lesson of the 20th centruy was that this theory won’t work. How quickly we forget.
@50
“…because it meshes with their socialist agendas…”
You forgot to throw in the feverish bit about their UN Agenda 21 plot, too.
Seriously, you probably don’t see the irony of your statement, the way it imputes motivation.
@50
Corporations aren’t evil nor are they good. They are, by design, amoral. They exist solely to maximize profit for their shareholders.
Wrt to my beef with CO2 it’s pretty simple. I love the ‘free’ market so much that whenever I see an externality I go batshit crazy. Wanting to preserve a livable planet for my children and their descendents is secondary.
Oh and I’m a communalist not a socialist 😉
@51
I’m not sure kdk33 is capable of the kind of introspection that is needed to appreciate the irony here…
wow, this really sums it up nicely. seriously, here in the US we have such a divide because of
1) Al Gore
2) People who don’t like Al Gore
Michael Scarf,
Nobody here is in the USA buys anything a politician has to say without confirming it with a reliable second source. Congressional approval rating of 9% anybody?
That’s the approval rate of politicians from other states and other districts. The approval rates of individual politicians by their own constituent’s is considerably higher.
My congressman is a fine upstanding citizen who would never tell a lie…of course he has to work with the other 434 congressman who are all crooks and thieves.
The reality is that all ‘good’ congress critters work hard to insure the federal government doesn’t disadvantage their constituents. They are ‘local’ representatives in a national body.
On the West Coast of the US, due to geography(mountains) and prevailing winds,the NOx emissions from burning coal creates health and aesthetic(visibility) problems.
All of our politicians believe in global warming and all of our politicians believe their should be a CO2 tax. We have to economically compete with states where burning ‘cheap coal’ doesn’t pose the same problems.
We would like a level playing field where everyone has to incur the same energy costs as we do as a result of our geography.
If I go to the other side of the Rocky Mountains coal is a principal driver of economic activity. Burning coal their doesn’t create the same air quality problems as it does West of the Rocky’s. The politicians their don’t believe is global warming and they certainly see no reason why burning coal should be taxed at the Federal Level.
Yes, yes, yes Marlow, TB, and Keith. I understand how introspection is consistent with this:
The positions politicians take are directly influenced by pressure groups like ExxonMobil, sometimes directly, but far, far more often by the anti-regulatory “think tanks” (like Heritage, Heartland, Freedom Works, American Enterprise Institute, CEI, CATO, CFACT, et al.) that try to minimize any threat to unfettered pursuit of profit and provide the talking points to politicians in the first place.
Now, as soon as you guys drop the big oil funded disinformation campaign meme, perhaps I could start to take you seriously (I confess I would actually require more, but that would be a start).
In the meantime, you will continue to blame your failures on evil capitalist and use that hook to attract left leaning followers. Yes keith, lefties that favor big government also tend to favor global governence – all part of the same misguided political bent, not the conspiracy theory you would like stuffed with straw.
Funny that Marolow wants to correct an externality he can’t begin to quantify and whos effect may indeed be beneficial. This indirectly points to the other underlying warmists motivation: humans are un-natural and anything anthropegenic in origin is by defintion bad. Paganism lives on.
Never mind that anthropogenic energy creation – brought to you by evil oil companies – makes possible every aspect of our modern lifes and has freed much of mankind from virtual slaver (to torture the analogy further…) and granted them long lives.
Let’s get back to windmills. Yeah, that’s the ticket…
Carry on boys.
@55
You really have no clue at the irony of your own thinking on all this, do you?
Pantheism. To be more precise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
Keith,
At what point did I quibble with your thesis?
Marlowe –
A nitpick? I have to disagree a bit here:
“They exist solely to maximize profit for their shareholders.”
I would say that in reality, they also exist to benefit their workers and their executives (by virtue of the actions that workers and executives take for their own benefit that don’t always translate into profit for shareholders). I would also argue that they have an obligation to the larger society and community. In the long run that would mean maximizing profit for shareholders, but in the short run sometimes those two causes work in opposition, and actions become justified that can’t be directly justified as maximizing profit for shareholders.
#54 – harry –
Heh.
Ahh heck Keith I’ll just spell it out for you.
Politico’s don’t steer the debate – politicos aren’t that important. (I’m assuming that by politico you mean political leaders)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/politico
However, politics and “religion” underlie and are key in the debate.
If you think big government programs and government control of the economy is generally a good thing (ie you’re a lefty), then you tend to favor the kind of activities needed to limit CO2; you don’t view these as risky. You might even leverage AGW as a means to achieve your political ends.
If you consider government a necessary evil, want it contained, and prefer (very) free markets (ie. are smart, like me), you view these programs as very undesirable. Only to be implemented in the extreme.
AGW science is (despite claims to the contrary) very uncertain in terms of impacts to humanity. If you view humans as unnatural – something other than the environment – you are inclined to think any anthropogenic impact on climate is dangerous.
If you view humans as part and parcel of the environment, you tend to think anthropogenic impacts on the climate are a natural consequence of our existnence and will require a much more certain case for danger.
Politicians just want to get elected. They don’t really lead much.
@61
You have an analysis that is a caricature of reality. For example, that big government program known as social security: when can we expect Republicans to agitate again for its privatization? What about sugar and corn subsidies? Can we expect Republicans to take the lead on slapping big government’s hand away here, in the name of free markets?
You see what I’m getting at? Your own political ideology and tribalism forces leads you to make a selective argument.
This notion that democrats (and greens) are closet socialists eager to institute world government is a parody that folks like Glenn Beck and apparently some segment of the tea party takes seriously. And you.
Keith,
You are arguing with yourself. Nowhere did I use the term Republican or Democrat. It is your worldview and tribalism that prevents you from viewing the world in a larger context.
My point is that a person’s political bent and their religion factos prominently into their risk benefit analysis. Left leaning pantheist are inclined to “do something”, right thinking christians not so much. Is this controversial?
The notion that democrats are closet socialist is unique to you. I never made that claim. Nor did I mention Glenn Beck or the Tea Party – these obsessions are yours.
That socialists tend to favor world governance is not controversial. It would be inconsistent if they did not.
why am I in moderation?
Late getting to the top of this thread – just wanted to say that I think thingsbreak (#2) pretty much nails it.
a cynically political ploy: Cornhusker kickback
Just sayin’
@64
You’re not in moderation. My own comments are suddenly being moderated, as well. Lots of others are, too. Some quirk of the system has been triggered.
@63,
Yeah, silly of me to assume that lefty meant Democrat. What about righty Christians/Evangelists that believe in climate change? Same social/political values as you, but they think govts should do something about climate change. Where do they fit.
And those righty christians that have no problem with wanting big govt to outlaw abortion and contraception. That consistent, too?
You’re not responding to my charges of hypocrisy. You just want to select your own evidence. I think we’ve taken this as far as it can go. By all means, have the last word and tell me I’m arguing with myself, again. You’d be right on that score.
What about righty Christians/Evangelists that believe in climate change?
what about them, I never mentioned them.
they think govts should do something about climate change.
Only the ones that are confused :-). Seriously, I didn’t argue absolutes, I said political and religious values are important in the cost benefit analysis. Believing in climate change does not necessarily require one to do something about it – I “believe” in climate change (climate science, not so much, but that’s another big government story).
The democrat party isn’t consistently lefty, and the republican party isn’t consistently righty – hence the ttea party you are so fond of caricaturing.
And those righty christians that have no problem with wanting big govt to outlaw abortion and contraception. That consistent, too?
I’m here to argue climate and trade barbs with the believers; not taking this bait. But nice try.
You’re not responding to my charges of hypocrisy
Hypocrisy? Political and religous values are important. I have them. They influence my cost benefit analysis. I have a side and I defend it – never claimed otherwise.
Of course, it helps that I’m right.
I think we’ve taken this as far as it can go.
That’s too bad. It’s a slow day.
Kieth, I have noticed that moderation is being turned on automatically by active links brought in by cut and pasting the various cited comment links. This can be averted by highlighting the link and clicking the unlink button on the WYSIWYG editor.
Kieth Kloor you are a very fair host and I have not noticed that you have ever censored dialog.
Keith Kloor Says:
February 10th, 2012 at 11:16 am
“What about sugar and corn subsidies? Can we expect Republicans to take the lead on slapping big government’s hand away here, in the name of free markets?”
KK, I think this is a topic that is very complex and can be discussed in a non-partisan manner. Got Milk and milk subsidies? Do we as a nation preserve open farm land so that when we one day need to exclusively grow our own food or feed the world during times of famine? This topic is much more complex than free market principals.
Corn subsidies… how about the ethanol subsidies?
Sugar subsidies….my head just exploded. Maybe Toll or RPJ can chime in and put the related macro-economics in perspective.
(My non-republican view from the right is that social security should be preserved and not raided by the general treasury. Adjustments for cost of living need to be made as well as adjustments for mortality and productive working years. – bridge and road tolls should be used for bridge and road maintenance and not for general treasury or the perpetuation of government offices)
Hmmm….
#71,
Interesting video, and it sounds like a good idea to me. Both from a business point of view, with a large untapped market (maybe), and from a political point of view, extending the democratic debate by introducing more of the Australian public to a set of ideas they don’t usually get to see.
Of course, it might just flop like Al Gore’s TV station did, but that’s the free market for you…
The only thing I don’t understand about it is why some of the added video captions say it’s a talk to mining executives, when it actually appears to be a meeting held with a free market think tank? Am I missing something?
After having spent about 7 years working in DC on the Hill, this study is unsurprising and basically common sense. On the contrary, I don’t know or work with very many “activists” or “communicators” that would be flummoxed by it. Inf fact it re-inforces why we send so much time trying to work at the federal level. I find that empiricism helps those that are legitimately undecided, of which some do exist, and quite naturally tend to younger and thus students.