4 ms·

Interesting. My big takeaways were: (1) For most of the country, 40-70% of the folks in sample say they are concerned about global warming (GW); (2) Areas of w

Interesting. My big takeaways were: (1) For most of the country, 40-70% of the folks in sample say they are concerned about global warming (GW); (2) Areas of widespread (70-90%) concern are limited to the west and northeast coasts; (3) Many people believe that scientists doubt GW too; (4) That all notwithstanding, many folks across the land believe that we should reduce CO2 and take other green steps; and (5) Nearly everybody thinks that this issue has been over-talked – that the talk is way ahead of the science. Note to opinion-makers: talk about cleaning up more and GW less. You are turning off your audience and volume won't change that. edit: formatting

s_kilk 10y ago
> Note to opinion-makers: talk about cleaning up more and GW less. You are turning off your audience and volume won't change that. I think some people are also just burnt out on the overemphasised message and wildly off-base predictions from the early days. I don't know about anyone else, but when I was in school in the 90's and 00's we were told half of the landmass would be underwater by 2010. Now I know climate science is more subtle than that but I'd not be surprised if some people came away with the message that Scientists are just foaming at the mouth for no reason.
- earlyriser 10y ago
  "Half of the landmass", wow. Do you know where your teachers found these numbers?
zebrafish 10y ago
I'm curious about who they surveyed and the methods they used to reach the survey takers. I have to think that there is some bias in the surveying methods themselves. I don't think that strongly conservative southern voters would be thumbing through a Nature publication in their free time like a liberal intellectual might. Overall though, I'm with you. Around here its become a foregone conclusion that this is happening but I don't necessarily see many steps taken by the populace to alleviate the symptoms.
- VLM 10y ago
  "I don't think that strongly conservative southern voters would be thumbing through a Nature publication in their free time like a liberal intellectual might." That sort of tribalism is the root of the problem.
bergoid 10y ago
> Note to opinion-makers: talk about cleaning up more and GW less. You are turning off your audience and volume won't change that. I think what turned off a lot of people is the transition made by opinion makers from the straight and falsifiable hypothesis "Global Warming" towards the weaselly worded "Climate Change". Wording matters when it comes to mass communication. Words that were bold and scientific have been replaced by words that are indistinguishable from politics.
NoGravitas 10y ago
The most interesting thing I found was that a strong majority, everywhere, claims to trust climate scientists about global warming. But huge areas of the country disbelieve the fact that most scientists think global warming is happening! I'm not sure whether this reflects widespread cognitive dissonance, or merely demonstrates the effectiveness of propaganda.
- josephorjoe 10y ago
  Effective propaganda creates cognitive dissonance. It seems it is likely easier to convince people scientists don't believe something than it is to convince them scientists are stupid or lying. I guess all you need is one of those "He Said/She Said" TV interviews where you get one of the vast majority of scientists who believe something on one side and one of the minority who disagree on the other side, and then the conclusion is drawn: "Scientists evenly split on the issue! No actionable information is available from Science!"

s_kilk 10y ago

> Note to opinion-makers: talk about cleaning up more and GW less. You are turning off your audience and volume won't change that. I think some people are also just burnt out on the overemphasised message and wildly off-base predictions from the early days. I don't know about anyone else, but when I was in school in the 90's and 00's we were told half of the landmass would be underwater by 2010. Now I know climate science is more subtle than that but I'd not be surprised if some people came away with the message that Scientists are just foaming at the mouth for no reason.

earlyriser 10y ago
"Half of the landmass", wow. Do you know where your teachers found these numbers?

zebrafish 10y ago

I'm curious about who they surveyed and the methods they used to reach the survey takers. I have to think that there is some bias in the surveying methods themselves. I don't think that strongly conservative southern voters would be thumbing through a Nature publication in their free time like a liberal intellectual might. Overall though, I'm with you. Around here its become a foregone conclusion that this is happening but I don't necessarily see many steps taken by the populace to alleviate the symptoms.

VLM 10y ago
"I don't think that strongly conservative southern voters would be thumbing through a Nature publication in their free time like a liberal intellectual might." That sort of tribalism is the root of the problem.

bergoid 10y ago

> Note to opinion-makers: talk about cleaning up more and GW less. You are turning off your audience and volume won't change that. I think what turned off a lot of people is the transition made by opinion makers from the straight and falsifiable hypothesis "Global Warming" towards the weaselly worded "Climate Change". Wording matters when it comes to mass communication. Words that were bold and scientific have been replaced by words that are indistinguishable from politics.

NoGravitas 10y ago

The most interesting thing I found was that a strong majority, everywhere, claims to trust climate scientists about global warming. But huge areas of the country disbelieve the fact that most scientists think global warming is happening! I'm not sure whether this reflects widespread cognitive dissonance, or merely demonstrates the effectiveness of propaganda.

josephorjoe 10y ago
Effective propaganda creates cognitive dissonance. It seems it is likely easier to convince people scientists don't believe something than it is to convince them scientists are stupid or lying. I guess all you need is one of those "He Said/She Said" TV interviews where you get one of the vast majority of scientists who believe something on one side and one of the minority who disagree on the other side, and then the conclusion is drawn: "Scientists evenly split on the issue! No actionable information is available from Science!"