The latest Pew survey on Americans' attitudes toward the climate crisis is so depressing, I am reminded of that old Busby Meyers song, "What's the use of getting sober, when you're gonna get drunk again?" I mean, really. Why bother? But because the only alternative to carrying on is to not carry on, here's my attempt at giving the numbers a positive spin.
The Pew study found that "[T]he proportion of Americans who say that the earth is getting warmer has decreased modestly since January 2007, mostly because of a decline among Republicans." Since January, the percentage who recognize reality has dropped from 77 to 71. Not a huge drop, and I suspect that the lion's share of the drop can be attributed to all the miserable winter weather that blasted major urban centers in just about every region.
Of course, it's silly to change one's mind about long-term trends because of a few weeks of contrary temperatures, but humans are not programmed to respond to long-term abstract threats. Still, that doesn't explain the difference in the changes according to party preference. Democrats fell just two points, from 86 to 84, while the percentage of Republicans who acknowledge what climatologists are telling us fell almost seven times as much, from 62 to 49. Yikes. Fewer than half of those who aren't embarrassed enough by the current president's record to hide their party affiliation believe the bloody obvious.
The really interesting bit involves the educational background of the GOP respondents. This isn't the first time the relationship has come to light, but it's probably significant enough that we should be paying attention.
Among Republicans, similar percentages of college graduates and those with less education say there is solid evidence of global warming (46% and 51%, respectively). Yet for Republicans, unlike Democrats, higher education is associated with greater skepticism that human activity is causing global warming. Only 19% of Republican college graduates say that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming and it is caused by human activity, while 31% of Republicans with less education say the same.
Essentially, it seems to be saying that the more Republicans know, the more gullible they become to pseudoskeptical arguments about climate change. Now why would that be?
There must be some other factor involved. For example, more educated Republicans are probably richer, and therefore more likely to believe that the status quo is good, and therefore less skeptical of the propaganda that tells them not to worry about whatever it is the climatologists are on about. At least, that's one theory. But it doesn't explain why among the Democrats, the opposite is the case: "Fully 75% of Democrats with college degrees say that the earth is warming and that this is caused by human activity. Just 52% of Democrats with less education express this view."
What about the schools those Republicans are attending? While some are probably the product of a Bob Jones University education and the like, there aren't enough religious colleges to explain the disparity. Something else must be switching off the critical thinking circuits of educated Republicans. And I have no idea what it could be.
If we could figure out that mystery, it might just be possible to make climate change more of an issue this election year. Because unless the people start demanding it, real change is never to going to happen, even under an Obama presidency. All you have to do is look at the Pew survey's numbers on where American's rank the climate on a list of "top priorities" (whatever that means). While such a description is given by a predictably lower number of Republicans -- just 12 % -- the figure for Democrats still fails to rise to half of respondents, at 47 %.
And just in case anyone thinks McCain is at least better than what we have now, take look at what he said this afternoon. According to the Washington Post:
It is unclear exactly what that approach will look like. McCain initially had draft language in his speech saying he would favor imposing punitive tariffs on major emitting developing countries if they did not adopt more stringent curbs on greenhouse gases, but he cut that section from the speech. He spoke of working to engage China and India on the issue, and his spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said he would opt for "diplomacy and technological solutions" to ensure developing countries cut their emissions in the future.
"McCain wanted to make sure he was not being seen at odds with his support for free trade," Hazelbaker told reporters after the speech.
So where do I find comfort in the Pew numbers? Well, there is this one little snippet: "Overall, 74% of those who say there is solid evidence of global warming say it is possible to reduce its effects, up from 67% in June 2006."
Now, what the average American thinks is possible is entirely irrelevant to what actually is possible. But since no one knows how close we are to tipping points, and just what it will take to avoid catastrophic climate change, it is at least somewhat comforting to know that there's still a fair bit of optimism out there. Because not even trying is the least attractive option.
- Log in to post comments
I do think it has to do with the shift from total ignorance to conservative "laissez-faire" thinking, which would place them in the camp that is inherently skeptical to science that might prompt social change or government programs. I sure do not have studies of this, but that has been my experience.
The better-educated Republicans might be more aware of the claims that 'global warming has stopped' because of the relatively low temperatures globally in January and February. Apart from that, yes it is odd and I have no better suggestions.
Something else must be switching off the critical thinking circuits of educated Republicans. And I have no idea what it could be.
Most likely it is this switch was never turned on in the first place. Wasn't there some study in Canada that showed conservatives, which we may as well substitute for Republicans, were tattle-tale / teacher pet / whiney types growing up?
Critical thinking would not be a trait of this personality type, in my opinion, and there is no reason to think this behavior would change with age or education.
Study: Whiners Grow Up Conservative
http://fromopinionnation.blogspot.com/2006/03/study-whiners-grow-up-con…
Knowing a few of these college educated AGW denialist Republicans myself, I'd say it is a combination of overconfidence in their ability to figure out the issue on their own combined with a self-selection bias in the data they believe. They don't accept the scientific method (though they'd say they do), and instead rely on a modern Platonism, both to determine their opinion on this issue, and to weed out as not credible any sources of information that disagree with them.
"I suspect that the lion's share of the drop can be attributed to all the miserable winter weather that blasted major urban centers in just about every region."
I'd say that's close, but not quite it. I would guess it was the AM pundits and other such reality revisers bombarding their audience with non-stop propaganda about the weather proving global warming is bunk and what not.
Anecdotal response:
I know a well educated Republican who doesn't believe in warming. We attended the same university but he got a business degree and I got a science one. He reads listens to all the "free market" think tanks that say global warming is bunk and dismisses anything or anyone that says AGW is real as "liberally biased."
Hume's Ghost is on to something. There are strong differential forces in play. Not the least of which are different preferred majors and what you might call 're-binning'. There is substantial evidence that as people progress through college they tend to move from the conservative towards the liberal side of things. That, among other things suggests you have a higher percentage of 'true believers' (although lower absolute numbers) left behind ( pun intentional ) on the conservative side who are impervious to mere evidence (and additionally have more frequently chosen majors that don't challenge their beliefs).
And before a conservative leaps down my neck, yes, there *are* hard numbers that back up my statements as to the question of 'conservatives' not being convinced by physical evidence as readily as 'liberals'.
From my experience, a lot of the more conservative college students don't take what their professors say at face value, because they assume that college faculty members have a liberal bias. I'm not sure what to do about that, given that they decide that professors have a liberal bias if the professors don't agree with Rush Limbaugh.
They might also be less trusting of their fellow man. Their judgment can be colored by the people making the claims. If the warming true believers appear to be the same crowd as in past "crises", global warming gets tarred by that brush. Hyperbole is not your friend here.
On another note: the change from 86 to 84 is larger than it seems and the change from 62 to 49 is smaller. You are treating proportions as if they are numbers on the real line. They aren't. Consult your local statistician/survey researcher.
I am not sure why you are surprised that Republicans who have attended colleges (left wing echo chambers) are the most skeptical of global warming. I recalled other surveys showing that conservative students' positive perception of academia declines from before college to graduation while liberal students' positive perception increases.
Personally and anecdotally, my perception of academia decreased each time I got a degree up to a PhD and then decreased even more the longer I am at my assistant professor job. Through this time, I have had numerous liberal professors abuse their position of power as teachers by advocating for partisan purposes. This makes me skeptical of just about anything that comes out of academia.