On March 12, Gallup published a short report titled ‘Climate
Change Not a Top Worry in U.S’. Results
from the poll ‘puts climate change, along with the quality of the environment,
near the bottom of a list of 15 issues Americans rated in Gallup's March 6-9
survey.’ And, ‘Thirty-one percent of
Americans indicate that they worry "a great deal" about the quality
of the environment this year, marking the lowest level of worry about the
environment more broadly since Gallup began measuring this in 2001’.
This after the USA experiences its third coldest winter on record. Still, rumour has it that the third coldest winter on record could be attributed to the warming of the polar ice cap. Perhaps someone could take the initiative to see if warmer polar temperatures were evident in 1899 and 1979, the other two coldest winters on record. No wonder the American public is losing interest. As for the low concern for the environment in general, could this reflect a hangover from the Great Climate Change Binge? Now, there’s a negative impact of climate change rhetoric.
The short Gallup report can be found here:
Posts
31 comments:
third coldest winter?
Actually it was the 34th coldest, not even a single state had the third coldest winter on record.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/Statewidetrank/201312-201402.gif
@ Mr/Ms Anyonymous
This link has somewhat of a contrary figure
http://my.umbc.edu/discussions/10989
The few links below and a hundred or so of others would also debate you claim
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2014/02/26/winnipeg-experiences-third-coldest-winter-in-more-than-a-century
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-01/news/chi-chicago-snow-records-20140301_1_snowfall-total-inches-snowiest
http://mashable.com/2014/03/03/usa-winter-temperatures-records/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/03/06/the-four-worst-winters-ever-in-chicago/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkDvqQKGgDA
http://xkcd.com/1321/
Raffa
Sorry, Gentlemen,
but what is the point of bombarding each other with weblinks without giving even the slightest clue what they're about? If everybody were so lazy in verbalizing his arguments, there would be no debate any more whatsoever.
Regardless of the scientific merits of the issue, I do find it surprising that a number of Democratic Party leaders seem to be indicating that they're pushing this issue for the 2014 elections. Seems like a real bad idea. On the other hand, maybe they need to distract attention from Obamacare, which won't be easy; it's always been unpopular, but it's getting really really unpopular now. So anything else might be an improvement: "Look! We're not talking about something you hate, we're all talking about something you vaguely approve of and don't care about much."
Bam, you have been insulting.
@Dennis Bray and anon#1
Your links are in line with each other. Just compare the locations of Chicago, Winnipeg, etc. with this map. Did you not notice this? For example, it was one of the coldest winters in Illinois (Chicago is in Illinois). 4th or 9th worst... does not matter at all. I would not notice a difference, would you? In contrast, it was the warmest in California, and one of the driest. @Dennis: Did you know there is a serious drought in the SouthWest?
This is a typical case of the climate (science) debate: Debating about nothing.
Anyway: I believe: we do not really live in climate. We live more less in weather. I suppose, extreme events are much more important than gradual change for noticing a climate change.
Nobody.
remark:
of course, Dennis statement "one of the coldest winters" in US is simply wrong. It was one of the coldest in parts of the US and Canada.
Nobody.
@Dennis Bray: It is a pity that anyone would link to Steve Goddard - unless we're looking for an example of how to mislead, tell half-truths, or just make things up.
As anonymous at the top of this thread has pointed out, this winter in the US 'only' ranks as the 34th coldest -- not the 3rd coldest.
NOAA Climatological rankings
I would hope that the UMBC article would be updated with the correct/current information.
@anonymous 2 (I guess? – anonymous is such a popular name on blogs). Don’t California and the South West suffer droughts on a periodic basis? Hasn’t the exploitation of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers reached the point of being an ecological threat? Wasn’t the South West prohibited from using Colorado River water some ten or twelve years ago, for the same reason? Doesn’t this indicate that California and the South West are naturally dry areas? Anyway, no, I was not aware of the serious drought in the south-west. Thanks for the information. Are you aware of the unexpected flooding in the UK following a forecast for near drought conditions for the 2013-2014 winters? But I do agree that extreme events are more poignant for the public than gradual change. But I am not sure how this has anything to do with public perceptions in the US according to a recent Gallup poll.
@ Kevin O'Neill: Steve Goddard, NOAA – is there really that much difference? R Peilke Jr (and a few hundred other people) had a nice posting on that matter in 2011 called Anatomy of a Cherry Pick. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.de/2011/11/anatomy-of-cherry-pick.html. I guess it just matters which eye one uses to view the data.
@another anonymous - you anonymously said that ‘one of the coldest winters in US is simply wrong’. Of course! Then again, maybe the conclusion was derived by looking at a ‘non-linear trend’, which sounds a little like an oxymoron, but seems to be an accepted means to an end in climate attribution literature.
What is amazing about the comments to the posting is that no one commented on the results of the Gallup survey. It was not about the coldest, driest, wettest whatever, it was about the fact that the US public is losing interest in climate change. Yet the focus is on ‘it is the coldest – it is not the coldest’. No wonder the public are losing interest.
@Mr. Karl Kuhn, who says, ‘…there would be no debate any more whatsoever.’ As you can see, the public are indeed losing interest in the debate, but the debate is alive and well in the climate change cyber silo. But let’s not lose sight that in the grand scheme of things, this silo might not be as big as we think.
@ Dennis Bray
"What is amazing about the comments to the posting is that no one commented on the results of the Gallup survey."
Maybe because of your unwillingness to correct your fault (third coldest winter). We should try to get the facts right before we start a discussion.
BTW: Your claim is based on an anonymous source.
Andreas
Andreas, ich finde, daß ist eine ziemlich kleinkarierte Antwort. In der Tat ist doch das Resultat von Gallup interessant, gerade auch wenn man bedenkt, daß der Winter in den USA als ziemlich heftig (kalt) wahrgenommen wird - auch wenn dies nur in Teilen der Fall ist.
Was bedeuten diese Ergebnisse? Sind das Hinweise auf ein anhaltendes Verlust an Aufmerksamkeit für Klima- und Umweltthemen, oder ist es nur das Wellental eines Aufmerksamkeitszyklus? Für Hamburg hatten wir ja die FORSA-Umfrage, die derzeit wieder gemacht wird - damals sahen wir ab 2007 einen steten Niedergang der Sorge, der dann aber in den letzten 2 Jahren gewendet zu sein schien.
Statt sich über ein unsauber recherchiertes, in der Sache aber belangloses Detail aufzuregen, wäre es doch viel interessanter mal in unseren Bekanntenkreisen nachzuhören, ob wir auch dort eine Veränderung der Aufmerksamkeit bemerken?
Ich rege mich überhaupt nicht auf, dafür ist das ein viel zu triviales Detail. Herr Bray war lediglich überrascht, dass niemand das Thema diskutiert, und ich habe meine Gründe erläutert, was mir die Lust genommen hat. Werbeleute wissen um die Wirksamkeit der Verpackung, und diese hier finde ich nicht ansprechend. Manchmal sind Details auch Proxies für mehr, und manchmal sind es einfach nur lächerliche Details.
Hätte ich Lust, dann hätte ich die jüngste Eurostat-Umfrage aus diesem Monat zum Thema Klimawandel verlinkt (auch hier leichte Abnahme). Und eine Umfrage aus den USA, wonach gerade bei den Jüngeren sich immer weniger als Umweltschützer bezeichnen. Trend oder Rauschen? Wirtschaftskrise? ...?
Andreas
Meanwhile in Europe ...
Half (50%) of all Europeans think that climate change is one of the world’s most serious problems and around one in six Europeans (16%) think it is the single most serious problem.
Compared with 2011, there have been small decreases in the proportion of
Europeans thinking climate change is the single most serious problem (-4 percentage
points) and the proportion mentioning it as one of the world’s most serious problems
(-1 point).
Climate change is perceived to be the third most serious issue facing the world,
behind poverty, hunger and lack of drinking water, and the economic situation. In
2011 it was seen as the second most serious, with the economic situation now seen
as more serious.
The majority of Europeans recognise climate change as a serious problem. On a scale
of 1-10, where 10 means an “extremely serious problem” and 1 represents “not at all
a serious problem” the overall average score for the EU28 stands at 7.3. This
compares with a score of 7.4 in 2011.
Nine in ten Europeans (90%) think that climate change is a very serious or a serious problem, with 69% scoring it 7-10 and 21% scoring it 5-6." Only a minority (9%) believe that climate change is not a serious problem (scoring it 1-4). These results are similar to those reported in 2011.
What is wrong with these Americans? Weather? Culture? Lack of PIK's awareness building publication efforts ? ;)
For all those upset about the 'coldest winter' comment. On March 17, Scientific American reported on "Warmest Winter on Record Worsens California Drought"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/warmest-winter-on-record-worsens-california-drought/
Hottest, coldest, wettest, driest - will these make any difference to public opinion?
@hvw - this is the new Euro Barometer report, right? One significant difference between the surveys is the EuroBarometer asks about climate change is the entire world, where as the other survey refers to the US. Consistently throughout the surveys conducted by myself and Hans von Storch, climate scientists have rated the impacts of climate change as always worse in other parts of the world than where they work.
It would be nice if the EuroBarometer asked about the 'most important issue in the country where you live'. It would make for the ability to do some comparisons and also provide some useful insight for EU policy. In a perfect world ...
One more comment. In a survey of US news sources and interests
http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/rational-attentive-news-consumer/
When asked 'Please tell me whether you, personally, try to keep up with news about each topic or not.' about 78% of the respondents chose 'Environment and natural disasters' as a topic, second only to 'Weather and Traffic'. So it would seem that people in the US are informed and interested, but simply not convinced of the ranking of climate change as an issue (Gallup results).
@Andreas
I am not too clear on what you perceive to be trivial detail. But if you refer to the public perceptions of climate change I would draw the conclusion that this is a very elitist and somewhat bigoted opinion, suggesting that it doesn't matter what the public thinks. If this is indeed the case, that the public do not need informing, then why is there so much effort directed to informing the public?
Dennis,
thanks for pointing out the difference in the questions (global vs. national). I am not clear what differences in interpretation of the results that entails, but it surely says something about the point of view of the survey designers. Intuitively, the global perspective for a problem that is inherently global and calls for a global solution in a globalized world makes more sense to me. Except you assume that the ethical values underlying the answers somehow can only apply to the respondent's compatriots, no?
Consistently throughout the surveys conducted by myself and Hans von Storch, climate scientists have rated the impacts of climate change as always worse in other parts of the world than where they work.
Are you implying a causal relationship between the workplace of scientists and their estimate of the spatial distribution of global warming impacts? Maybe you are overlooking some hidden variables here?
@hvw The difference between national and global is the fact that policies are made nationally. As we know, those who make policies are influenced by the voting population. So if the national population is not sympathetic to an issue the issue will be given like attention in the political platform. Of course, there are always unpopular and contested issues representing different political views, but public sentiments to sway political decisions, at least in regimes claiming to be democratic. As for the suggestion of everything global for a global issue, well, it hasn't worked too well so far. Also one other matter that arises is 'adaptation' and this is at a regional or national level.
As for the second part of your comment, I am not implying anything. First, it is not the workplace of the scientist, it is the place where they live. The questions read:
To what degree do you think climate change will have detrimental effects for some societies.
and
Too what degree do you think climate change will have a detrimental effect for the society in which you live.
The results indicate that a great majority are strongly convinced that climate change will have a detrimental effect for some societies but are less convinced that climate change will have a detrimental effect for the society in which they live. As the results are based on an international sample of scientists, I draw the conclusion that the climate scientists that too part in the survey perceived the dangers of climate change to be greater in places other than where they live, regardless of where they live.
As for hidden variables, maybe you could provide examples of what they might be.
A relevant detail would be - was the response to Eurobarometer and to Gallup done in the same way? Namely that a certain number of options were offered (seemingly in case or Eurobarometer), or that respondents were asked to tell what was in their mind (I had the impression, Gallup had it this way). If this is so it would be a major methodical difference.
Dennis,
... So if the national population is not sympathetic to an issue the issue will be given like attention in the political platform...
That the national population could be sympathetic to policies that benefit other people (in the future, in other countries) appears to be a strange idea to you? Where I live there is for example strong political support for the abolishment of weapon exports, even though that would only negatively impact the local population.
Also one other matter that arises is 'adaptation' and this is at a regional or national level.
Within the context of "adaption" I can't see how such a poll makes sense. With a very few exceptions, "climate change adaption" means either "adapting better to current climate" (e.g. see UK flood), or "change societies' structure in a way that makes them more resilient against unknown threats in the far future (science fiction, maybe Werner Krauss is working in that direction, that'd be nice), or "adaption to a low GHG-emission economy", however that might look like (also science fiction).
As the results are based on an international sample of scientists, I draw the conclusion that the climate scientists that too part in the survey perceived the dangers of climate change to be greater in places other than where they live, regardless of where they live. As for hidden variables, maybe you could provide examples of what they might be.
As for hidden variables, I was thinking mainly about the inhomogeneous geographical distribution of scientists. Most of them are located in well developed countries of the North that have high adaption capacity, comparatively low reliance on ecosystem services and that are exposed to only modest negative climate change impacts on essentials such as food production.
But apparently you corrected for that, geographically stratified the sample of scientists? In that case I am very surprised and mightily impressed. Should you be able to find a mechanism to explain this statistical result, you could be in for real fame.
In case you have not, your conclusion really is "that the climate scientists that took part in the survey perceived the dangers of climate change to be greater in other places than western Europe or the US, regardless of where exactly in western Europe or the US they live". (Don't get picky about Australia and Canada now, OK? ;)
I would like to have a look at the publication, but the questions you quote are neither in "CliSci2008: A Survey of the Perspectives of
Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change", nor in "A survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2013". Please tell, what survey are you referring to?
@hvw
I am not sure where you live, but I would hazard a guess that in many countries segments of the population are sympathetic towards distant and future populations. But it is not clear in your statement if you mean there is strong public support or strong political support for the abolishment of weapons exports. If you are talking about public sympathies being reflected in political action, there are three relevant questions: 1. How much of the population is active in asking for a reduction in the arms trade? 2. Has there been any political action? 3. How big of a public issue is the arms trade? If by your statement you mean there is strong public and strong political support for the abolishment of arms trade, then your statement simply supports my earlier claim. But not much of this has anything to do with the price of eggs in Stockholm.
You seem to confuse the adaptation vs mitigation debate. The former is to try and accommodate change; the latter is to prevent change. Adaptation might be creating a better means to deal with floods, mitigation generally means to prevent conditions that would lead to the floods.
The samples of climate scientists that took part in the surveys were indeed inhomogeneous. However, I still support my original claim. And no, I did not correct for a geographically stratified sample of scientists, just as the EuroBarometer survey did not correct for a geographically stratified sample of the European public. I am not sure what it is you wish to debate. The crux of the posting was that the there is a declining interest in global warming among the American public. Why is that so difficult to accept?
The sample demographics in the scientists’ surveys were
1996 – 7 countries (3 separate surveys)
2003 – 27 countries
2008 – 35 countries
2013 – 35 countries
1n 1996 and 2003 the questions read
1996/2003 Fig. 24 To what degree do you think climate change will have a detrimental effect for some societies
1996/2003 Fig 25 To what degree do you think climate change will have a detrimental effect for the society in which you live.
(Fids 26 and 27 repeat the questions but substitute negative effect with positive effect)
You can find the survey here: http://www.academia.edu/4484361/Climate_Scientists_Perceptions_of_Climate_Change_Science
In 2008 you need to look at questions 25 – 26, pp 48-49
You can find the survey results here http://www.academia.edu/2365610/A_Survey_of_Climate_Scientists_Concerning_Climate_Science_and_Climate_Change
For reasons of the length of the survey, these questions were not asked in 2013
You can find the results of the survey here
http://www.academia.edu/5191473/A_survey_of_the_perceptions_of_climate_scientists_2013
As for your last question, as you stated the names of the surveys, these are obviously the ones to which I refer.
die Gallup-Umfrage hat doch einen sehr interessanten Punkt: politischer Zeitgeist in den USA.
Man muss sich nur angucken, welche Themen besonders wichtig sind (Ausgaben der Bundesregierung, huh? und welche weniger wichtig sind (alle Umweltthemen, auch ein Punkt, der von Bray nicht genannt wurde). Und dann muss man sich ansehen, wo Republikaner und Demokraten am weitesten auseinder liegen. Man wird es erraten: Ausgaben der Bundesregierung und Umweltthemen, insb. Klimawandel.
Meiner Meinung sind die Änderungen eher ein Indiz für einen politischen Zeitgeist. Ich denke, wir alle kennen die seltsamen irrationalen Budgetverhandlungen, die Regierungs-Shutdowns, das Gekreische der Teebeutel, die gegenseitigen Nazivorwürfe usw. in den USA.
Ich denke, dieser seltsame politische Zustand der USA, den man als Europäer kaum kapieren kann, spielt eine große Rolle in dieser Umfrage.
Nobody
PS: @Bray mein Name ist nobody, nicht anonymous. Klar?
PPS: das sollte keine Wertung des politischen Zustandes der USA sein. Wie gesagt, ich kann das nicht kapieren, da ich als Europäer einer ganz anderen Ideologie folge. Schon okay... nur seltsam von aussen.
Dennis Bray (#20),
no, with trivial detail I meant this:
"This after the USA experiences its third coldest winter on record."
NOAA gives 34th rank:
http://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/map/cag/#app=cdo
If you like, you can play with the parameters at the right panel, e.g. statewide ranks, single months etc.
Yes, just an unimportant detail in the context of your article, but I'm surprised about your unwillingness to correct it, though.
Andreas
Dennis,
I am not sure what it is you wish to debate.
Yes, same here. This is getting confusing.
I wanted to understand why you believe it makes (more) sense to ask for people's opinion about climate change impact only within their national boundaries. Still don't get it.
The samples of climate scientists that took part in the surveys were indeed inhomogeneous. However, I still support my original claim.
I wanted to figure out whether there is some interesting/interpretable information in your result from asking scientists separately about their estimate of climate impact "here" and "elsewhere" (because you brought it up). It still looks like the only insight you get from that is "I selected scientists from places where most of the scientists are, and that is not where most of the global warming impacts are expected".
Btw, in the 2008 survey you asked for "potential for catastrophe resulting from climate change", a quite different question from "detrimental effect".
You seem to confuse the adaptation vs mitigation debate. The former is to try and accommodate change; the latter is to prevent change. Adaptation might be creating a better means to deal with floods, mitigation generally means to prevent conditions that would lead to the floods.
I tried to communicate that "adaption vs. mitigation" is a flawed concept, because you can't, for example, adapt to (fluvial) floods when you don't know where they will happen in the future (which we don't in general). Most impacts in most of the places can't be dealt with by "adaption", at least not now.
declining interest in global warming among the American public. Why is that so difficult to accept?
I totally accept that, no difficulties. I was just wondering whether there is a simple explanation for why this is different in Europe.
Good morning KlimaPeople
@Nobody: The intention was never to address the political zeitgeist of the US, but it is a good point. In fact, the issue needs to be explored a little deeper if you want to uncover an explanation for the US-European differences. You need to look at the evolution of the respective cultures; the ‘rugged individualism’ of the US vs the ‘cradle-to-grave’ welfare systems of (parts of) Europe. These are part of the two ‘ideologies’ you mention. They permeate many of the US-European differences. But if I understand your point correctly, the causal chain is the political zeitgeist changes so the public opinion changes?
@Andreas: I did admit there are differences of opinions. Which opinion you choose seems somewhat arbitrary.
BBC: February US retail sales thaw out after winter chill. 13 March 2014.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26560856
“The figures suggest the world's largest economy is gaining in strength after suffering the third-coldest winter on record.”
USA TODAY 6:34 p.m. EDT March 13, 2014,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/03/13/usa-winter-weather-climate-report/6367757/
‘The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during the winter season was 31.3 degrees, one degree below the 20th-century average, marking the 34th coldest winter on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported Thursday’
so who are we to believe. I hope that is close enough to a correction.
@hvw
‘I wanted to understand why you believe it makes (more) sense to ask for people’s opinions about climate change impact only within their national boundaries.’
Different nations have different issues. Different nations will also face different climate change impacts. The priority of climate change is assigned accordingly. Consequently, one suggestion of climate policy might appease one population and anger another. A little bit of insight into national cultures and societal concerns might lead to more acceptable policy suggestions.
‘I selected scientists from places where most of the scientists are, and that is not where most of the global warming impacts are expected’
I actually gave this a lot of consideration but could not devise a way to survey scientists in places where there are no scientists.
…’potential for catastrophe resulting from climate change’ quite different from ‘detrimental effects’
I guess you could say one is mutually exclusive the other is not. But you do not mention the results. I am not sure what this indicates.
‘adaptation vs mitigation’
I am in agreement 100%. Adaptation, in this sense, is a misnomer. Adaptation is retroactive. Preparation is proactive. Mitigation is preventative. As for ‘don’t know where they will happen in the future’ I would like to add ‘don’t know if they will happen in the future’. Ill devised policies and programs based on such can lead to significant misdirection and waste of resources. At a practical level, the what, where and when of impacts is a little open ended at present.
‘… the simple explanation for why this difference in Europe’
In short, history, heritage, culture, society and economy. I made a very brief comment on such in the response above to nobody. These issues, in my opinion, need to be given much more attention than they have been previously assigned. They also need to be investigated by disciplines with an academic understanding of subject matter.
Good Moring Dennis,
thanks for clarifying.
Different nations have different issues ... A little bit of insight into national cultures and societal concerns might lead to more acceptable policy suggestions.
Mostly agree. But I think that the link "expected impacts in a country - climate policy acceptance" is severely limited. For one, I want to believe that people also care about the danger that other people are facing. If not for altruistic reasons then at least because of the realization that severe problems at any other place in the world will likely also impact your little village. Also, the size of nations does not in general correspond to the scale at which predictions are possible. While you can come up with somewhat reasonable impact estimates for Australia or India (I guess), this is not possible for Luxembourg or UK - administrative units, on which the current national UK-adaption strategy is based; a weird idea in my mind.
I actually gave this a lot of consideration but could not devise a way to survey scientists in places where there are no scientists.
Let's leave it at that :).
As for ‘don’t know where they will happen in the future’ I would like to add ‘don’t know if they will happen in the future’.
I'd like to point out that in many cases we know a lot more about whether they will happen than about what exactly happens where exactly when exactly. And the nature of this ignorance seems not to be appreciated enough by people who talk about "adaption". For one, this could inform concrete decision, for example favour the construction of upstream water-reservoirs that serve to ameliorate flooding downstream and at the same time ameliorate drought conditions while also providing wetland habitats, so that there is a benefit in any case. But such an "adaption" measure has its use already in the current climate (which makes it also politically more attractive), and climate change's importance is not what it seems to be depicted in many cases. In other cases adaption (or preparation) is not possible, simply because the relevant information is not available at the scale of interest. This also seems often to be ignored, helped by the false dichotomy of "mitigation vs. adaption".
[difference Europe - US]
... history, heritage, culture, society and economy ... These issues, in my opinion, need to be given much more attention than they have been previously assigned. They also need to be investigated by disciplines with an academic understanding of subject matter.
Thanks. 100% agreed.
correction:
adaptation is reactive, not retroactive
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)