Quantcast
06|01|13 ISSUE
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Home / News
Climate skepticism not rooted in science illiteracy
Cultural values, not knowledge, shape global warming views, a study finds

By Janet Raloff

Web edition: May 29, 2012

A+ A- Text Size

Cultural values, not knowledge, shape global warming views, a study finds

By Janet Raloff

Web edition: May 29, 2012

People who strongly resist data indicating that human-induced climate change could spell catastrophe aren’t ignorant about science or numerical reasoning. Quite the opposite, a new study finds: High science literacy actually boosts the likelihood that certain people will challenge what constitutes credible climate science.

Who will be receptive to climate science, the study found, depends more on cultural factors such as attitudes toward commerce, government regulation and individualism than on scientific literacy.

“Simply improving the clarity of scientific information will not dispel public conflict” over climate, the study’s authors conclude online May 27 in Nature Climate Change.

There has been a prevalent view among scientists that skeptics of climate change and its ramifications would come around if they understood the facts, says Dan Kahan of Yale Law School. But studies by his group and others have shown that cultural factors can strongly influence what people accept as truth about certain technical issues.

For the new study, Kahan and his colleagues surveyed 1,540 American adults on science, capacity to comprehend and use quantitative information, political orientation, attitudes on the roles of government and commercial enterprises in affecting risks to society and risks posed by climate.

The survey characterized cultural outlooks along dimensions of individualism and egalitarianism. People with high degrees of individualism tended to have attitudes that were pro-industry and skeptical of risks. People exhibiting a high degree of egalitarianism “tended to be morally ambivalent towards markets because they think that’s what causes social disparities,” Kahan says.

The data show that on climate change issues, “cultural identity is what is disposing people to find evidence convincing or not,” Kahan says. And “the study shows this divide only gets bigger, for ordinary people, when they become better able to understand science.”

The findings point to the steep uphill challenge for advocates of climate science and policy to broadly communicate risks, says political scientist Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. In fact, some of the most science-literate critics will listen to experts only to generate compelling counterarguments, he says.

In America today, climate change has come to approach abortion in its cultural impact: “It’s immediately polarizing,” observes sociologist Aaron McCright of the Environmental Science and Policy Program at Michigan State University in East Lansing. “Hard-core deniers seem to be no more than 10 percent of the [U.S.] population — which in some ways is good,” he says. “It means we might still reach the other 90 percent.”

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

Citations

D.M. Kahan et al. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1547. [Go to]

A.M. McCright. Political orientation moderates Americans’ beliefs and concern about climate change. Climatic Change, Vol. 104, January 2011. p. 243. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9946-y. [Go to]

A.M. McCright and R.E. Dunlap. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 52, published online April 18, 2011, p. 155. doi: DOI: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x. Abstract: [Go to]

Suggested Reading

J. Raloff. (Political) party animals. Science News Blog. September 22d, 2008. [Go to]

N. Seppa. Science denial in the 21st century. Science News Blog. April 24, 2012. [Go to]

J. Raloff. Depolarizing climate science. Science News blog. May 30, 2012. [Go to]

Comments (24)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • I am an environmentalist that is a skeptic of climate change. I understand that humans have a negative impact on climate and I vote across the board for regulation of emissions and other environmental laws. However environmental science is necessarily a pseudo-science (I don't mean that in a negative way). Our world is our test tube, which means we can only compare results over time and with billions or trillions of variables. Chemistry, for example, is a hard science because a) we conduct experiments with controls using the scientific method, b) those experiments are repeatable in many other contexts and circumstances and c) any failed attempt at the experiment or conflicting data will invalidate the results. None of these are true for environmental science because we live in our test tube, there is just one world and we can't conduct controlled experiments on it. All the data in environmental science is observational, which in the scientific community is inherently untrustworthy, which fuels projections which, since we can find no causal relationships with observational data, is even more questionable. More than that, the models accept decreases and increases in temperature as validation of the model, so there is no way to disprove it.

    I respect the work that these scientists do, it provides helpful information, but just possibilities. Scientists should never ask you to 'believe' that they are right, but politically that is what's happening. Here is a test. If I mix exact amounts under the same two chemicals under the same conditions, I will always get the same response. Contrast that with "What will the weather be like in two weeks?". Now extrapolate that to what will happen to global ecology in decades or centuries and I can rely on that less. This is a political issue that is hurting the reputation of true science. How about this, take a look at the smog in LA and ask if we want every city to look like that, to have pollution staining walls and lungs, to have danger days when the air itself is considered 'unhealthy'.

    That's what will convince people, not doomsday computer models. Global Warming polarizes and distracts people from the tangible effects of pollution.
    Erick Jenkins Erick Jenkins
    May. 30, 2012 at 9:30am
  • Find a scientifically literate person with no financial or political interest in climate change, and chances are they'll be a skeptic.
    RJames RJames
    May. 30, 2012 at 9:30am
  • “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair. Ie: becoming technically and logically proficient in parsing the meaning of data will tend to be derailed, sabotaged in the same otherwise intelligent individual if at the core of his being is a deep, virtually impervious certainty that the social, economic and political/ideological values that have sustained him from children on, are effectively sacred and inerrant.

    I grew up in a family culture that was extremely far left... so did many of my friends. This milieu insisted on the righteousness of the Soviet revolutionary experiment, and the broad correctness of Marxism-Leninism. Also, this fueled and colored the fight against fascism and racism as I understood it. Though even as a child, I occasionally found contradictions in this world view, it was very tough going learning to criticize and understand it from a larger point of view. For to challenge such a deep rich belief system, meant to seem to betray all the 'sacred' 'bloody' martyrs of left wing history who had suffered at the hands of genuine right wing hatred and ignorance. And there were many. It took long, hard work to step back and reanalyze what I thought I had already known about the way the world worked. I can easily see how fairly well educated people committed to a certain rather conservative view of how the world really moves and works, could strongly want to dismiss any purported data and analysis showing that at least in part, they were wrong and that they would now have to step back and re-evaluate whole decades, lives of thought and conclusions.

    To restate: rational, even intentional scientific thought is always embedded somewhat in one's own cultural milieu, no matter how free we think we are of mental constraints and blinders.

    Thanks for this article.
    Gene Partlow Gene Partlow
    May. 30, 2012 at 9:30am
  • It saddens me to hear the notion that scientists should not study a perceived danger (to determine its existence & degree of risk) because that is "hurting the reputation of true science". What control planet did Darwin study? Theories are not invented from whole cloth: they grow from observations.

    35 years ago, I was handing out solar-oven-baked cookies at a street fair. An "older" man (probably younger than I am now) opined that "we have to go with nuclear, it's here now and it works. Solar is just a dream." I responded that he was right, but that nuclear power was just a dream 30 years earlier, until government supported its realization. A much smaller initial investment would boost solar power development into practical levels, and faster. He pondered a few seconds and said "you know what? You're right." He them took some of my solar power pamphlets and spent 20 minutes on the street with us, handing them out.

    That man embodied true science: when the facts didn't support his theory, the theory fell away. This is what orthodoxies prevent, whether it's religious beliefs, or "red diaper babies" or "control-group science or no science" views.
    Tony Vazquez Tony Vazquez
    May. 30, 2012 at 1:12pm
  • Mr. Erick Jenkins hit the nail on the head! Thanks, Mr. Jenkins for distilling the essence of the rationale why most classically trained (hard) scientists will always resist the pseudo-scientific "evidence" of human induced climate change.
    slprince slprince
    May. 30, 2012 at 1:12pm
  • Many, but not all, Americans prefer fiction to fact. The former is easy to digest in accord with one's ideological perspectives. The latter requires investigation and intellectual effort to accommodate. So its not surprising that many people are climate skeptics. To be otherwise would require that one trusts the climate scientists data collections and interpretations. That trust can only be derived from a detailed study of how science is done!
    David Kassoy David Kassoy
    May. 30, 2012 at 1:12pm
  • What exactly is the question? Do I "strongly resist data indicating that human-induced climate change could spell catastrophe"? No, I do not strongly resist. That part seems clear -- our human emissions COULD have a catastrophic impact.

    But if the question asks whether I believe we can accurately predict exactly what will happen and when , my answer is no.

    One related point: I do not think human society as presently constituted is capable of reducing emissions to any significant extent. To do so would, it appears, involve gigantic sacrifices. I don't think humans can currently cooperate to that extent.
    Ralph Dratman Ralph Dratman
    May. 30, 2012 at 1:12pm
  • Kahan condescends, attributing skeptics' views to various unrecognized, non-scientific motivations. We do not see among his conclusions any recognition that rational scientific thinking might potentially, play a role in skeptics' views. The moment I began to see scientists pushing public policy, I became a skeptic -- in the Feynman sense. The scientists weren't working hard to disclose every potentially confounding factor or uncertainty inherent in their results. So I had to do it myself as best I could by starting to read. Now the whole field is infected to the point where every time you read a paper, you wonder. What is one to make of the relevant US agency's recalibration of sea level, from actual level to total volume? This change produces a greater sea level rise than measuring the level as linear change, up or down. Again, you have to wonder. Unless you're a senior scientist with tenure you put your career at risk by expressing non-consensus views. The whole thing is tragic. We need someone like Feynman to straighten this out.
    Robert Boote Robert Boote
    May. 31, 2012 at 11:22am
  • "'Denial' is not a river in Egypt ... ".

    Sadly, one detects echoes of the same cognitive dissonance in the ancient historic slavery/anti-slavery debates that raged in the United States during several decades before the War Between the States. Those whose prosperity or livelihoods depended on the maintenance of the system, the status quo, were most adamant, even extreme, in maintaining and expressing their opinions -- despite acknowledging the basic truth and justice in the counter-parties' arguments.

    The simplest truths will prevail in the end. Not only are there too many of us, our economic activities are too far-reaching and destructive. Both are slowly, but inexorably, destroying the biosphere on which all life depends. And as if that wasn't bad enough we are also poisoning ourselves. The question then becomes: will we, through our malfunctioning political and legal systems, find the inner strength to stop committing the crime of "ecocide" -- an as-of-yet uncodified crime against man and Nature alike -- before we pass an invisible point-of-no-return (if we haven't already) beyond which there is no turning back; causing our species' eventual extinction?
    Steve Singer Steve Singer
    May. 31, 2012 at 11:22am
  • Count me with the skeptics. Part of the problem is the messengers, and part of the problem is the message. An example of both is Al Gore, who on one hand makes wild claims about potential 20ft sea level rises, but on the other hand buys a house on the beach.

    It also did not help that some climate scientists were willing to fudge data to help "convince" skeptics.

    Intelligent people hear things like "the climate on Mars is warming too", and wonder how much of climate change is attributable to man and how much is a natural cycle.

    I tend to shy away from sensational or dire predictions attached to facts. All I hear from the climate change crowd is "The climate is changing and bad things are going to happen". Are there no possible positive outcomes from climate change? Maybe it would be OK to grow wheat in Siberia.
    Jim Cross Jim Cross
    May. 31, 2012 at 11:22am
  • Hmm. My "culture" includes a deep respect for the scientific method, which by itself makes good scientists skeptics. I'm not a scientist (blame it on computers), but I am a skeptic, climate and otherwise. I am not a denialist - the recent warming periods are in part due to CO2, but I think in greater part due to other things. The couple of decades will be interesting.

    I do have trouble with scientists who are not skeptics but embody the warnings in President Eisenhower's prescient farewell speech where he said in part:

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
    Ric Werme Ric Werme
    May. 31, 2012 at 11:22am
  • This study only confirms what has been obvious throughout this dabate. In a nutshell: climate-change deniers are not ignorant or incapable of comprehending the evidence. Instead, they are simply dishonest.
    Steve Palmer Steve Palmer
    May. 31, 2012 at 11:22am
  • This article scores a bullseye. I am indeed skeptical of *some* of the claims (such as the seas will all boil off or that the surface of the earth will become so hot it will melt lead) and I am philosophically libertarian. That's neither left nor right and confuses people that ARE left or right and cannot hold three things in their mind at once.

    SO many things are of greater and more immediate import than the seas rising, or falling, the thickness of a dime each year. Global economic collapse is imminent. The United States DOES NOT HAVE 100 billion dollars to send to Nigeria to stop global warming.

    (Note: for the sake of brevity I have not cited the sources of each of my claims but you can easily google each reference to see for yourself).
    Michael Gordon Michael Gordon
    May. 31, 2012 at 3:07pm
  • It amazes me that a study like this could be framed about the issue of global warming. Global warming is a symptom of human behavior, as most of us realize, and not the problem. To spend billions on a symptom is another major problem we face, especially when that spending is driven by scientists who should know better.
    Frank Harris Frank Harris
    May. 31, 2012 at 3:52pm
  • The vocabulary word missing here is Dharma -- the idea that people can discern and follow a natural order of existence putting them in utter harmony to this world.

    The story goes we had Dharma once and we lost it, leading to millennia of suffering for both humanity and Earth itself. We all have to want Dharma to get it back, and never has the will of Man been united on this question since time immemorial. Doesn't that suck?

    But the story has a happy ending of sorts; a day comes when we all want Dharma again. In the full and deep future that lies before us this is not a permanent state, but we get to be nice to each other and heal the Earth in the years that follow. Isn't that nice?
    John Turner John Turner
    Jun. 1, 2012 at 9:37am
  • One of the most interesting aspects of the global warming controversy is the psychological nature of the discussions. Nearly all comments I saw on this site seem to oppose conclusions about human-influenced global warming with (some) dire consequences.

    Raloff's article gets at the psychological nature of such controversy by including comments and findings by decision scientist Dan Kahan, and I will try to add a few comments.

    First, deniers, apparently including some above, seem to avoid mentioning the false data and arguments spread by Exxon-Mobil. Second, Deniers never mention the name of Sallie Baliunas: Harvard PhD in astronomy, claimed no global warming caused by man, but instead by sunspots, and entered false statements in refereed journals, so they never accept her articles now. Yes, Sallie was funded by Exxon-Mobil.

    What about the simple fact that regardless of how well educated, conservatives seem to be highly susceptible to propaganda, as in the extreme case of 24% of conservative Republicans believing that President Obama is or could be the Anti-Christ. (I believe some moderate conservatives are among the the most friendly, helpful, and generous of all groups, and I know that conservatives seem to reach conventional success much more regularly than do any other groups.)

    Let's face it, trained and experienced climate scientists know what to look for that supports and refutes the conclusion of global warming and its causes and effects. As for the significance of a consensus, evolution wasn't a fact until there was a consensus, just like parrots weren't smart until . . . .

    Don Laird Don Laird
    Jun. 1, 2012 at 9:37am
  • We all dance in a ring and suppose.
    The truth sits in the middle and knows.
    Harold Snellen Harold Snellen
    Jun. 1, 2012 at 3:40pm
  • Scientifically, the isotope fingerprint of CO2 unequivocally points to fossil origins. Faster warming of both higher latitude and nighttime temperatures can only be explained by greenhouse mechanisms. Most of the counterarguments seem to pick one data point that might be questioned and use that to claim the whole issue is null and void. One could do the same thing to Darwin's evolution or the Big Bang Theory, but I don't hear any serious arguments against them by scientifically literate people. To my mind, this article is spot on: Those who are comfortable with and invested in the status quo will not accept the need to change anything, especially when it means significant sacrifice. If this was a purely academic scientific exercise, there would be no discussion, but since serious self interest and huge amounts of money are involved, the resistance is understandably fierce.

    I'm glad someone finally brought up the role of the petroleum industry in this regard. Petroleum is the new Tobacco. Scientific evidence that their bread and butter business is harmful brings out a vast, well funded and well connected counterattack. I would like to know if anyone has a firm idea of how much money Petroleum spends countering Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC)? I doubt this info is readily available. By the time all the Petroleum funded objections are countered by hard science, it will indeed be too late to do much about it.

    I am also extremely pessimistic about international cooperation to take any real action on ACC. I just can't see OPEC, China, India, Brazil, the African nations and the G8 nations agreeing on anything. There is just too much at stake for these disparate economies for any common ground.

    I fear that while we squabble over who gets the best seats, the bus with no brakes that is planet earth is hurtling down the windy mountain road and it is only a matter of time before we go plunging into the abyss.
    Greg Maloney Greg Maloney
    Jun. 4, 2012 at 10:22am
  • Scientists are the illiterate ones. They don't realize the earth is alive and quite capable of taking care of itself. We're not supporting UN Agenda 21 and giving our money to Al Gore.
    David Clore David Clore
    Jun. 4, 2012 at 10:22am
  • Note the subtle bias in this article.

    The article is written from the position that of course we all know that there must be some cultural or psychological reason why anyone would refuse to believe in global warming. The article implies that perhaps skeptics have some psychological or perhaps some cultural hang-up.

    Isn't there a much simpler and better explanation for why many people don't believe in man made global warming? Many intelligent and well educated scientifically trained people have looked at the evidence and simply don't find it persuasive. They find the physical evidence to be weak and of poor quality. They find the integrity of the lead researchers to be questionable. And they find the theory is overly simplistic. And based on the temperature measurements over the last 15 years from both Hadley and NASA over the last 15 years, they find that the theory apparently lacks any predictive power. There is no mystery why many intelligent people would find this theory doubtful.

    One other minor irritant. We are skeptics, not deniers. The word denier is insultingly used to associate us with holocaust deniers. In science skepticism is the default position.
    Marty Marty
    Jun. 4, 2012 at 10:22am
  • To Marty's comment, I have to point out that there are skeptics and there are deniers, and denier is not to associate with the Holocaust (at least for me it isn't), it just accurately reflects the behavior.

    A co-worker, very well educated technically (an EE) is libertarian and I class him as a denier, not as a skeptic.

    Why? When I asked what his opinion was about climate change, it was: "It's a government scam".
    I asked what possible mechanism would prevent a greenhouse effect from a sudden sharp increase of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and he replied that it was all "Al Gore and his type".

    Give a question like that to an engineer and usually there would be rapid mental calculations and some kind of reasoned opinion (with statements of error ranges and all the other usual qualifiers!). But he didn't consider the basic mechanics, he didn't consider the thermal budget or the measurement record, he dismissed the topic out-of-hand, and remained instantly dismissive if it was ever discussed later. He's a thoughtful guy who does not think about this issue - he has his answer without attempting to refute any part of the research or run any numbers. This is not scientific skepticism.

    If Al Gore had never been invented, and we were just at the beginning of realizing the place was warming, I'm convinced that he would have been happy to spend lots of time discussing possible causes and impacts, just for the mental exercise. But either the human responsibility or the need to make possible limiting policy decisions prevent him from doing so. I wonder how this thought experiment would have played out in a larger sample if we had an alternate universe available to do the test with.
    Brian Fagan Brian Fagan
    Jun. 5, 2012 at 11:20am
  • There is a book called "Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives" which describes how people automatically dismiss any information which threatens to upset their world view. People who think vaccines cause autism, creationists and climate-change denialists all have a vested interest in their own mental construct of the universe. They accept any information that confirms their beliefs and reject any information that challenges them. You might as well talk to a brick wall.
    Sunwyn Sunwyn
    Oct. 11, 2012 at 9:28am
  • Count me among the skeptics. I'm all for reducing pollution, improving energy efficiency, and conserving the environment. As a chemical engineer, I've followed the debate over CO2 with a great deal of interest. Short answer after looking at the data and examining the theories and mechanisms: CO2 from fossil fuel consumption is not a problem. The blight and waste (monetary and environmental) from wind turbines and solar systems is, however, simply horrendous.
    Kevin Copple Kevin Copple
    Oct. 23, 2012 at 12:13pm
  • I find that the raw data overwhelmingly points to an increase in average rise of temperature on earth, in both the land and the sea. All data on ocean acidification also points to an increase in CO2, obviously a prevalent greenhouse gas. Based on recent studies by reputable sources ("Oceans' salinity changed over last half-century, SN: 6/2/12, Vol. 181, p. 10; "Modern-day sea level rise skyrocketing," SN: 7/16/11, Vol. 180, P. 13), the temperature is in direct correlation with the amount of CO2, with more CO2 in the air meaning higher temperatures. Whether this is causation or not we do not know, but ALL experiments point to CO2 trapping heat and all experts agree that humanity is outputting an extremely large amount of CO2, more than ever before in humanity's existance, thus leading me to the inevitable conclusion that CO2 emissions by humanity have at least some effect on climate change on earth.

    I apologize for any grammar mistakes, HS English I is NOT my favorite class.
    8thstateofmatter 8thstateofmatter
    Nov. 7, 2012 at 10:30am
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us
features
MORE Features>>
most read