Climate Change Confuses Most Americans, Study Says

[kristopher]

No real surprises except the final para which is included. It was really refreshing however, to see the discussion handled as science rather than as a political commentary.
Link to study as PCMag.

Climate Change Confuses Most Americans, Study Says

Most Americans don't understand climate change, a Yale study has shown. Of the 63 percent of U.S. adults that believe that global warming is happening, only one in 10 say they are "very well informed" on the issue.

Yale's Americans' Knowledge of Climate Change report takes a look at what people know about global warming and climate change, including its impacts, causes, and possible solutions. Funded by the National Science Foundation, it surveyed a demographic mix of 2,030 American adults.

<snip>

It "found important gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change and the earth system. These misconceptions lead some people to doubt that global warming is happening or that human activities are a major contributor, to misunderstand the causes and therefore the solutions, and to be unaware of risks," the report
Not many Americans would make the grade if tested on climate change. Just 8 percent know enough to score an A or a B, 40 percent would make a C or D, and 52 percent would fail.

That said, most Americans see that car emissions and the burning of fossil fuels are part of the issue. Seventy-five percent of people surveyed said they would like to know more about it, and 68 percent would like to see climate change education in schools.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2370952,00.asp

[ben_thayer]

1. TV remotes confuse most Americans... eom

:crazy:

[Dead_Parrot]

2. You owe me a keyboard.

:spray:

[kristopher]

6. My tv system has 5 remotes

And since there is no such thing as a true universal remote, I have to keep all of them on hand for occasional use. The ones I use regularly are not a problem, but I do punch a few wrong buttons when I dredge up the original maker's remotes.

I do understand climate change, but it took several graduate courses to gain a full appreciation for the scope and gravity of the problem.

[Nihil]

3. As you say, "no real surprises".

Still K&R'ing for visibility.

[alc]

4. when "they" hype the hottest day/month/year ever as climate change

then criticize the other side for hyping a cold winter because that's just "weather", it can be confusing.

The problem is "they" includes scientist, environmental groups, business groups, and governments. Each has a different goal but the media lumps them all together. It is confusing because the media doesn't say if this or that report came from a scientist, an environmental group doing an unscientific survey and call it a study, a business wanting to sell something whether or not gw is real, or a government wanting to raise taxes without caring whether or not gw is real. The last 3 are all trying to sell something and exaggerate (and sometimes lie).

[kristopher]

5. You need to dig a bit deeper.

First, you shouldn't lump governments and NGO in with business. Governments and NGO CAN co very good science although there often are problems. Researchers use their data and conclusions, but only after fairly stringent review - the profit motive isn't considered to be a real factor for these "gray sources" to falsify their work (but there are reasons the work is sometime unacceptable). There are also consequences related to loss of personal prestige for bad science in these realms.

Business is different in that the profit motive is front and center AND because loss of credibility in science is of absolutely no concern to them; if they lie and get caught, they just tell another lie.

What might confuse you is the massive amount of false information that is produced by right wing "think tanks" which were created specifically with the mission of offsetting science that disrupted the interests of powerful moneyed interests, such as the entrenched energy industries.

The strategy was pioneered by the tobacco industry in their fight against loss of control over their product. If you haven't seen the movie "Thank You for Smoking" I highly recommend it as a boots-on-the-ground view of how that worked.

This disinformation network was expanded and turned loose on "environmentalists" and global warming in response to the world's cooperative approach evidenced at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

This massive disinformation campaign (and the accompanying efforts to delegitimize any source of information except right wing outlets) has been successful. That is why the public is confused.

Some reading you might appreciate:

Very valuable work from an NGO is described in this Press Release from the Union of Concerned Scientists that documents the effort by entrenched energy. What is described is, however, only the tip of the ideberg:

January 3, 2007
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

* raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
* funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
* attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
* used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.

Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.

"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit," said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about global warming."

ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific understanding of global warming—under the guise of "sound science"—for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.

"As a scientist, I like to think that facts will prevail, and they do eventually," said Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on climate change impacts. "It's shameful that ExxonMobil has sought to obscure the facts for so long when the future of our planet depends on the steps we take now and in the coming years."

The burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional atmospheric carbon dioxide that blankets the Earth and traps heat. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Though solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change.

"ExxonMobil needs to be held accountable for its cynical disinformation campaign on global warming," said Meyer. "Consumers, shareholders and Congress should let the company know loud and clear that its behavior on this issue is unacceptable and must change."

You'll find the full report and more at the "Global Warming Contrarians" section of the UCS website.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/

Here is some work from academic community:

Rearguard of Modernity
Peter Jacques in the journal Global Environmental Politics

Environmental skepticism denies the reality and importance of mainstream global environmental problems. However, its most important challenges are in its civic claims which receive much less attention. These civic claims defend the basis of ethical authority of the dominant social paradigm. The article explains how political values determine what skeptics count as a problem. One such value described is “deep anthropocentrism,” or the attempt to split human society from non-human nature and reject ecology as a legitimate field of ethical concern. This bias frames what skeptics consider legitimate knowledge. The paper then argues that the contemporary conservative countermovement has marshaled environmental skepticism to function as a rearguard for a maladaptive set of core values that resist public efforts to address global environmental sustainability. As such, the paper normatively argues that environmental skepticism is a significant threat to efforts to achieve sustainability faced by human societies in a globalizing world.

Download here: http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques/Papers/71775/Rearguard-of-Modernity

The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism

Co-authored with Riley E. Dunlap and Mark Freeman published in the journal Environmental Politics, June 2008

Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed 'sceptics' claim to be unbiased analysts combating 'junk science'. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.

download here: http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques/Papers