Waffling on climate change? Consult friends, not science

By Sarah Laskow
June 7, 2012

Ever since climate scientist James Hansen first testified before Congress about global warming in 1988, the scientists, advocates, academics and former vice-presidents who work to stop climate change have presumed that the science matters. Hansen began his testimony by telling the assembled senators: “The earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements,” in full confidence that instrumental measurements would matter more than the weather outside the politicians’ front doors. Like Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth, Hansen depended on graphs (he called them “viewgraphs”) and numbers to help make his case. Almost two decades later, when Gore first raised the alarm about climate change with his documentary, his strategy rested on that same science: I dare you to look at this PowerPoint and tell me climate change isn’t a problem! It is an expectedly rational assumption to make, that a rational science like science should be a trump card. Inconveniently, it’s not true.

A study published last week in Nature Climate Change, a leading, meticulously vetted journal of climate research, showed that the more scientifically literate people are, the less worried they are about climate change. “As respondents’ science-literacy scores increased, concern with climate change decreased,” wrote the study’s authors, a group that includes researchers from Ohio State, George Washington University and Yale University.

The decrease is small, but what’s telling is that the researchers didn’t come up with the opposite result. You’d expect to see that as scientific literacy increased, so should the sense that climate change is a serious problem. That, after all, is what scientists have assumed in their warnings for more than two decades.

If smart people aren’t relying on science to guide their climate-change views, the study did suggest a reason so many are willing to dismiss climate change: They belong to a social group that finds it advantageous to do so.

The researchers tested another hypothesis, too: that “cultural cognition” – which is to say, the tendency to form ideas based on group identity – determines belief in climate change. That idea checked out. “Hierarchical individualists” – think of a well-off owner of a small business who resents anyone interfering in his business decisions – rated climate change risks lower than did “egalitarian communitarians” — the type of people who hold up Sweden as a dream society. Not surprisingly, the first group tends to gravitate toward conservatism and the Republican Party, while the second has an affinity with liberalism and the Democratic Party. In either case, the study’s authors suggest, a set of climate change beliefs comes with a social advantage.

A hierarchical individualist who expresses anxiety about climate change might well be shunned by his co-workers at an oil refinery in Oklahoma City. A similar fate will probably befall the egalitarian communitarian English professor who reveals to colleagues in Boston that she thinks the scientific consensus on climate change is a hoax.

In other words, people form opinions about climate change based on their worldview and the views of the communities to which they belong. Science, yet again, has little to do with it.

These findings give heft to the vague feeling that’s been dogging climate campaigners, that political affiliation, not science, is what determines a stance on climate change. Note that Gore, who declined to talk to Reuters for this piece, followed up his first climate project by recruiting a cadre of volunteers to help spread climate science with a new presentation, an updated version of the Inconvenient Truth slideshow. The Climate Reality Project, which enlists and trains these volunteers, has worked “to try and recruit presenters from all walks of life and all demographics of life and to arm them with facts and slideshow,” says Kevin Curtis, the project’s program director.

But this second round of “climate reality” hasn’t ginned up the same horror Gore’s first slideshow did. Everyone he could convince already believes him; anyone who doesn’t trust him on this by now won’t ever believe him. Even with a fresh batch of recruits, a scientific slideshow can’t save the planet; it’s too tempting to simply shoot all of these messengers. The assailants don’t distrust science, necessarily. It’s just that they’re a skeptical bunch.

Remember, too, the evolution of Lindsey Graham, the senator from South Carolina. In 2009 Graham put his name beside John Kerry’s in a New York Times op-ed that declared: “We agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security.” Less than a year later, Senator Graham told reporters that “the science about global warming has changed … I think they’ve oversold this stuff, quite frankly.” Graham actually seemed to trust climate scientists. But he failed miserably at using scientific facts to rejigger the worldview of the political side he represents, and to keep his place in that group, he had to pull his own statements in line with its popular opinion.

And look at the creeping shift in Mitt Romney’s rhetoric on climate change, which keeps edging closer toward uncertainty. Romney’s been more mealymouthed than Graham about climate science, and it’s easy to interpret his drift toward skepticism as political opportunism. As recently as 2010, he allowed that human activity “is a contributing factor” to climate change; by the fall of 2011, he was saying that “we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.” Why should Romney be any less susceptible to the pull of “cultural cognition” than another educated person or politician? As a conservative, he may very well believe that climate change doesn’t pose a particularly worrisome risk to the world.

The study indicates, though, that liberals don’t hold any particular claim to superior scientific integrity. On climate change, rigorous science happens to uphold the worldview to which they subscribe, but a better understanding of science isn’t driving left-leaning Americans to support action on climate change. They support climate action because it fits in with their preconceived notions of how the world should work: It makes sense that carbon-spewing corporations are selfishly threatening the well-being of the rest of us.

Liberal defenders of science, after all, don’t always take the same hard line on facts as they do in the climate debate. They oppose, for example, the spread of genetically modified food crops, citing links to allergies, immune reactions, and the possibility of other, unknown health risks even though reams of scientific research have shown that GMOs pose little threat to the environment or human health. Last month, hundreds of protesters planned to rip up fields of genetically modified wheat crops at a research center just outside of London because they were a symbol of giant agribusiness. And giant business, no matter the kind, selfishly threatens the well-being of the rest of us, according to liberals. Mainstream science might say that GMOs are safe. But knowing that won’t change anyone’s – and certainly no liberal’s – opinion.



We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Mr. Gores’ story of whats going on with nature is neither the truth nor is it a lie, but the “fact” is life has been changing with nature forever, nature is perfect, its a fact

Posted by running | Report as abusive

Than @running – what’s “perfect” nature up to?

The glaciers still melt and the seas slowly rise? A warmer average temp means they also expand in volume a bit. But “a bit” in a few hundred feet of depth, is quite a bit.

Perfect nature seems to have a fondness for freaks of nature too. She also has an enormous appetite for blood. Think Durga or Kali, not Gaia.

It isn’t healthy to get to know that kind of “perfection”. It makes nonsense of the word. She may also dislike so many people being alive at one time? You could very well be one of the tidbits she feeds her favored children. Even hear of the Thugees? They loved nature’s destructive power and total lack of scruples or moral principals too!

Posted by paintcan | Report as abusive

“The researchers tested another hypothesis, too: that “cultural cognition” – which is to say, the tendency to form ideas based on group identity – determines belief in climate change. That idea checked out.”

How was it tested, and what does the highly unscientific phrase “checked out” actually mean? In some English dialects, it would mean that it died, but that doesn’t appear to be what you mean here.

The three claims of this paper taken together strongly imply that scientific literacy is positively correlated with being a small business owner (and what’s a small business owner doing working in an oil refinery anyway?), whereas intuitively you’d expect there to be no correlation overall (even in the high-tech industry, the owners tend to be marketing people) – and indeed a small negative correlation in an economy with a strong publicly-funded university sector, such as the US. Treating this as what scientists call a “sanity check”, it casts doubt on the claims themselves.

THERE IS A FAR SIMPLER EXPLANATION WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE APPEALS EITHER TO POORLY ARTICULATED HYPOTHESES OR TO POLITICAL PREJUDICE. It’s simply “worry fatigue”, to give it a trendy name that will appeal to an op-ed journalist. As noted in the article, the scientifically literate have been worrying about this since the 1970′s and 1980′s. They are now living as frugally as they can reasonably manage, and know that the rest depends on their neighbours doing the same; the problem is out of their hands. One might as profitably worry about the overdue next eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano. But its much more profitable to worry about stuff you can actually affect.

Posted by Ian_Kemmish | Report as abusive

The article reads as if the author assumes that the people deciding what constitutes “the science” and when it is justified to cross fields from the science to the political advocacy, are somehow immune, at least on this subject, from the effect she describes.

Better minds than ours have explained convincingly that the scientists are not immune. For example: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/ 02/CargoCult.pdf

Perhaps those with more knowledge knowledge of science are more familiar with the consequences of these failings of human nature, hence, a little less inclined to accept the incontrovertibility of anthropogenic global warming.

Posted by Phil54 | Report as abusive

Actually no body should talk about doing something to alter climate change, can’t do anything abt it, it’s being like this for millions of years.
What we all must talk and DO something, is abt toxic waste, plastics, carbon firing, oil firing.

Nature can heal itself, but we shouldn’t leave rocks and potholes on her way.

Posted by hanlong | Report as abusive

“As respondents’ science-literacy scores increased, concern with climate change decreased,” wrote the study’s authors.
Looking at the graphs, it would be more accurate to say that the level of concern became more extreme: higher if already high, lower if already low. Maybe the scientifically literate are more confident of their own judgment.

Posted by haruspoex | Report as abusive

If the Science is flawed the Entire Argument is Pointless.
There either is or is not Verifiable Scientific Evidence that CO2 is a Poisoning Climate gas or is a Life Sustaining Gas that Most if not all life forms need for survival.
Any other Conclusions are Driven more by Monetary Concerns or a Flawed Ideology based on Flawed Science and Poor Scientific Theory.
It may be high time to call out the Supposed Climate Change Gods for what they STAND TO MAKE FINANCIALLY and be less concerned with there Fantasy of what a Future World may look like.
I’m old enough to remember the first time the Environmental Gurus tried this . If I remember correctly according to them we should not even be having this Conversation because we have long since FROZEN TO DEATH! So same tired lines, the only thing that has changed is the Direction of the Mercury in the Grand Global Green Movement.

Posted by ottisdurka | Report as abusive