| Science/Technology
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
4531 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 22:49:09
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Consensus of Climate Scientists (NT) |
URL: Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4532] [4536] [4537] [4542] [4546] |
|
4532 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 22:52:18
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Consensus of Climate Scientists 2 (NT) |
URL: Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4536] [4537] [4542] [4546] |
|
4536 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 23:35:47
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Study of Liberal-Conservative Divide |
URL: Conservative Anti-Reflexivity |
|
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In response to our first research question, we find a sizable political divide between
liberals/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans in the American public on the issue
of global warming. Just as elites are politically divided on this issue, so too is the general
public. Liberals and Democrats are more likely to hold beliefs about global warming
consistent with the scientific consensus and to express concern about this environmental
problem than are conservatives and Republicans. Furthermore, this divide has grown
substantially over the past decade.
Current flows of political messages and news concerning global warming are likely
contributing to the growing divide. Americans’ political orientations moderate edu-
cational attainment and self-reported understanding in ways consistent with the pre-
dictions of the elite cues hypothesis and information-processing theory. Given the
bifurcated flow of conflicting information on global warming from elites on both sides
of the political spectrum, ideological, and
partisan camps in the general public likely
Polarization on Global Warming
Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap
178
The Sociological Quarterly
52
(2011) 155–194 © 2011 Midwest Sociological Society
receive very different information on global warming—in ways that reinforce
their existing political differences (Hindman 2009). In fact, in terms of our second
research question, we find that the effects of educational attainment and self-reported
understanding on beliefs about climate science and personal concern about global
warming are
positive
for liberals and Democrats, but are
weaker or negative
for con-
servatives and Republicans. Finding this strong pattern increases the generalizability
of the few other studies that have documented such an effect, typically at single points
in time.
The moderating effect of political orientat
ion challenges the common assumption
of climate change communicators (e.g., scientists and policymakers) that more infor-
mation or education will help convince Americans of the need to deal with climate
change. Particularly for those on the Right, this seems unlikely to prove effective. Our
results, along with those of prior studies, show that education and self-reported
understanding of global warming have little effect on the views of climate change held
by Republicans and conservatives. Reducing climate skepticism among this large
segment of the American populace will require far more than simply providing addi-
tional information.
In recent decades, ideological and party elites in the United States have become
polarized on a wide range of social, econ
omic, and cultural issues—including environ-
mental issues such as climate change. In resp
onse to our third research question, we find
that the American public has also experienced polarization on this vital global environ-
mental problem. Specifically, we find strong
evidence of both ideological and partisan
polarization on global warming beliefs and concern over the past decade. Even if this
polarization trend slows and perhaps reverses slightly in the next few years, the remain-
ing political divide within the American public will still be much larger than it was in
2001—the year that the IPCC’s
Third Assessment Report
clearly established the current
scientific consensus on climate change. Our results thus extend Baldassarri and
Gelman’s (2008) recent analysis of political polarization in the American public, as we
find significant polarization on a science-based e
nvironmental issue—a domain largely
ignored in the existing literature.
Our findings have clear policy implications. To be sure, the existing divide on global
warming between political elites poses a serious impediment to creating and imple-
menting an effective federal climate policy with any potential of significantly reducing
our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. However, given that public opinion can have a
significant impact on policy-making (e.g., Burstein 1998), we expect that the political
divide within the general public may further inhibit the creation of effective climate
policy. For instance, Republican politicians are unlikely to support efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions that party activists and members believe to be unnecessary.
Indeed, the rise of the Tea Party and rightward drift of the Republican party created a
situation in which skepticism toward climate change became a litmus test for party
candidates in the 2010 election (Brownstein 2010; Lehmann 2010),resulting in a 2011 to
2012 House of Representatives expected to be hostile to climate science and steadfastly
opposed to climate policies (Goode and Bravender 2010).
19
Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap
Polarization on Global Warming
The Sociological Quarterly
52
(2011) 155–194 © 2011 Midwest Sociological Society
179
More generally, our results raise questions about theories of reflexive moderniza-
tion that suggest that forces of reflexivity, such as the scientific community and social
movements, impel modern societies to confront the negative consequences of indus-
trial capitalism (e.g., Beck et al. 1994; Mol 1996). McCright and Dunlap (2010) argue
that these theories give insufficient attention to forces of anti-reflexivity, such as the
American conservative movement, that defend the current economic system by chal-
lenging critiques mounted by the scientific community, environmentalists, and liberal
policymakers (also see Lahsen 2005; Jacques 2006; Demeritt 2006; Oreskes and
Conway 2010). Indeed, among elites and organizations within our society, there is an
enduring conflict between forces of reflexivity (those mostly on the Left who identify
problems with our economic system) and forces of anti-reflexivity (those mostly on
the Right who defend the industrial capitalist order of modernity against such cri-
tiques). Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the debate over climate change,
the most challenging global environmental problem and one with the greatest regu-
latory implications.
Our results indicate that this conflict is also diffusing throughout the American
public. Liberals and Democrats are more likely to take the side of the scientific con-
sensus and many environmental movement organizations, proclaiming that global
warming is real, is human-caused, and is a worrisome threat. On the other hand,
conservatives and Republicans are more likely to dispute or deny the scientific con-
sensus and the claims of the environmental community, thereby defending the indus-
trial capitalist system.
This trend poses a challenge for proponents of reflexive modernization, as a growing
percentage of the American public—and not just
self-interested industrial/conservative
elites—denies the scientific evidence documenting anthropogenic climate change and
thus the need for ameliorative action. This diffusion of anti-reflexivity throughout
society results in a declining portion of the
populace willing to acknowledge a major
negative consequence of industrial capitalism. The culture wars have thus taken on a
new dimension, with serious implications for long-term societal resilience.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4537] [4542] [4546] |
|
4537 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 00:03:15
From: deb, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Climate Science Myths (NT) |
URL: Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4542] [4546] |
|
4542 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 08:36:11
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Climate Science Myths (NT) |
|
|
|
Great link, Deb, thanks for posting. Doubt the 4th of Jameses will click on those links, he wouldn't want to read anything that contradicts his anti-consensus dogma, and besides, I'm sure he has replicated all those scientific studies by now, and can prove that all those consensus scientists are idiots, liars, and fakers.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4546] |
|
4546 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 10:51:48
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: it's just the boys from skepticalscience.com(NT) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |