Respondents were asked “In the last year, about how often
have you overheard, but not participated in, conversations in public places
(buses, trains, restaurants, etc.) in which the people were talking about the
climate change/global warming issue?” On
a scale where 1=never and 7=almost every day, responses were: 1 never- appx. 3%; 2=appx. 17%; 3=appx. 21%;
4=appx. 17%; 5=appx. 23%; 6=appx.
16%; and, 7 almost every day appx. 4%
It would seem there is a lot of conversation amongst the
general public concerning climate change.
I have to say, I have never noticed this tendency.
About science per se, respondents were asked “In the last
year about how often have you overheard, but not participated in, conversations
in public places (buses, trains, restaurants, etc.) in which the people were
talking about the climate change science?”
With the same scale the results suggest that the general public have
much less interests in the science of climate change: never 1 – appx. 23%; 2 –
appx. 32%; 3 – appx. .20%; 4 – 10%; 5 – 10%; 6 – appx 5%; 7 almost every day
0%.
As one would expect, less people talk about science than the
conclusions of science.Regardless, I must say this has not been my experience at all. It is very seldom I hear people randomly chatting about climate change. This is not to say the respondents to the survey were inaccurate in their perceptions, just that their experience differs from mine. It might be interesting to see if any particular culture stands out (but not today). Of more interest, is the content of the conversations, but that is another project.
Posts
18 comments:
Dear Dennis,
I just love that kind of statistics! I really wonder where, when and how climate scientists commute. Personally, on the current job, I have been communting between a fair sized German city and an adjacent university town for almost 14 years. In total, that makes on the order of 6,000 trips on the local train. I can´t recall ANY conversation about climate topics - or any other kind of science related topic. You do not really want to know what people actually where talking about. Yesterday´s most appalling TV show might rank among the Top 5, but that´s it in terms of sociology.
Perhaps our locals and the students riding the train are somehow especially dull?
Moreover, in private conversations within the company, climate change for the same period of time never was a topic, not even for framing weather events.
The only topic in 14 years actively addressed by others or overheared by me was the Fufushima event, when many people expresses dismay with the German media coverage. Maybe that´s because I am working with a private, technology based enterprise - people have suffiecent knowledge to make preliminary judgements on the basis of available information, but not enough time or intrinsic fear to deal with may-be-if-bla-bla -scenarios.
Hi Rainer S
My interest in what people were saying is limited to what, if anything, they are saying about climate change. Are they skeptic, are the living in fears, etc. are they thinking about it at all? But your experience is similar to mine. It would be interesting to hear the 'listening' experiences of other blog readers.
I think the insights gained from such an approach might compliment the public surveys which always sensitize the respondent: "Are you concerned about climate change?" "Of course I am concerned about climate change!". In measuring such attitudes there is a great need to employ unobtrusive measures, a live content analysis if you will. 10 data collectors on 10 trains for 10 days might be a start. Also, before and after a climate extreme event or mediafied catastrophe. But this might produce insights that differ from 'what we know all aready'- just about any survey results you look at confirm the world is half scared to death.
Dennis
I my experience, too, that the topic rarely comes up in conversations I overhear. In my personal network people would ask me specifically because they happen to know that I am somehow researching the area. Many would try to find answers to the links between weather events and global warming.
Regarding the potential of unobtrusive methods: I guess you would need to bug whole trains, buses and pubs. Perhaps the secret services can provide the data they have collected ("Free our data!").
On the other hand, these conversations in natural settings suffer from the same response bias as the interviewer/respondent setting. Participants in a conversation do not want to step outside socially desirable/acceptable boundaries (norms of appropriateness). The interesting question would then be: are the norms in everyday communications different from the norms of the 'dominant discourse'. Is there a disengagement on the micro-level?
Hi Reiner
For a sample you wouldn't have to bug trains etc. Just be a roaming passenger for a few days. The person collecting the data would not have to engage in any conversation. Just note how many times they heard people talking about GW and the nature of the content. With no prompting, there would be no questioning of socially acceptable prompting. This is of course where surveys have a great weakness. The disengagement on the micro level would also make an interesting study but would require a control group and an experiemental group. Ah - so much work and so little time (and resources). As for the use of the Digital Communications Data Set (a fictitious name :-) ) it would be nice simply to see the number off SMSs that actually reference anything to do with global warming. Which brings me to the idea of the worth of such an analysis on something like Twitter???????????????
Hi Dennis,
very interesting results indeed. You can count me to 1=never. I cannot remember any situation where people were talking about climate issues in public. The exception was the "Inconvenient Truth" period in cinemas...
It is surprising that your statistics indicate that I should clean my ears.
One reason it rarely comes up in conversation is because it is so controversial. Talking about climate with friends would be a good way to lose friends.
@Rainer S #1:
Moreover, in private conversations within the company, climate change for the same period of time never was a topic, not even for framing weather events.
Good point to include "framing weather events" here. I guess that most conversations contain the typical weather small talk almost on a daily basis. In some sense this could mean that people wonder about "unusually cold winters in the last years" etc. Some may associate this with climate change ("shouldn't it become warmer?") while others don't.
So the difficulty is in the end: Where do you want to draw the line? Current weather vs. experience about the history of recent weather in the context of weather in x decades etc. Per definition, the latter point could be associated with the statistics of weather and hence loosely with climate change as well. The question is if you perceive it as a discussion about climate change and if others don't and vice versa... I guess this could to some extent explain the statistics.
Dennis
I think you did not get my point about social desirable biases. My point is that people engaging in conversations (NOT in interview settings!) are bound by the same pressure to comply to social norms.
Hence you do not need a control group. All you need is data to examine if conversation in natural settings has different slant compared to survey results.
@Rainer S #1:
Moreover, in private conversations within the company, climate change for the same period of time never was a topic, not even for framing weather events.
Good point to include "framing weather events" here. I guess that most conversations contain the typical weather small talk almost on a daily basis. In some sense this could mean that people wonder about "unusually cold winters in the last years" etc. Some may associate this with climate change ("shouldn't it become warmer?") while others don't.
So the difficulty is in the end: Where do you want to draw the line? Current weather vs. experience about the history of recent weather in the context of weather in x decades etc. Per definition, the latter point could be associated with the statistics of weather and hence loosely with climate change as well. The question is if you perceive it as a discussion about climate change and if others don't and vice versa... I guess this could to some extent explain the statistics.
indeed one, maybe the important, question is: what does the listener perceive as "conversation about climate change". I can only remember one (recent) conversation where a meteorologist was asked by a computer scientist (business) about recent "weird weather" who also explicitly including the option of climate change in his question. So I probably would be in the second category.
So maybe the categories tell more about the listener than about the conversation.
PS: The captchas are unreadable today.
Hi Reiner
Do you think people in real life situations consider a conversation about climate chaange to be as sensitive as say religion? It used to be 'Around the dinner table we do not talks politics or religion". Are yopu suggesting we now need to add climate change to that?
Well, isn't a conversation on climate-change likely to touch environtalism &/or energy and is, thus, equivalent to politics?
That should read: environmentalism.
I definitely count as a 1=Never. Never heard a single word about it, as best I can recall.
It seems pretty clear that these climate scientists are in a different environment from mine. Is it possible that "public places" for them includes the cafeteria at their university, where their colleagues at the next table are busy discussing their work at lunch?
Dennis
you asked "Do you think people in real life situations consider a conversation about climate chaange to be as sensitive as say religion? It used to be 'Around the dinner table we do not talks politics or religion". Are yopu suggesting we now need to add climate change to that?"
I think anon 6 and OBothe 13 made the point. In addition, there is the risk of making a fool of yourself if you talk about sciency topic if you're not a scientist. And you are making a fool of yourself if you go against the (perceived) grain of the general discourse.
@3 Reiner,
I dare say there is a huge difference between every day conversation and the "dominant discourse". Most people simply are not really aware of what the "dominators" opine. In order for some kind of "Schweigespirale" to kick in, folks need to know what is "appropriate", and, in addition, the topic in questions needs to be morally loaded.
In my job and private environment, climate change, is non-toxic, as are almost all other "scare" topics, health or environmental. People derive their current - and very transient - opinions from the media coverage de jour, and it is no problem at all to discuss these topics, even when this entails setting straight some misconceptions. The only common denominator is a - IMHO - an ill-conceived interpretation of the precautionary principle, which can in most cases be easily overcome by making clear the magnitudes of effects in question.
q o.Bothe #11,
in my personal setting, it´s the other way ´round. The topic is (German) energy policy and its obvious and/or perceived shortcommings.
Only a minority of people are making the connection to "The Science" that might have informed these policies.
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)