Arguments
Americans Now More Politically Polarized On Climate Change Than Ever Before, Analysis Finds
Posted on 1 September 2016 by Guest Author
This is a re-post from DeSmogBlog by Graham Readfearn
American voters and politicians are now more polarized than ever before across all aspects of climate change — from the cause, to the science and the impacts — a major new analysis has found.
Campaigns funded by vested fossil fuel interests and pushed by a network of ideological think tanks, many linked to the oil billionaire Koch brothers, have helped to widen the gap, pushing Republican politicians, elites and voters away from action on greenhouse gas emissions.
Tracking Gallup opinion poll surveys going back to 2001 and congress voting patterns from 1970 onwards, the analysis authors warn that as the November election approaches, Americans are faced with a stark political choice.
The analysis is published in the respected journal Environment and comes from sociologists Associate Professor Aaron McCright of Michigan State University, Professor Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University, and PhD researcher Jerrod Yarosh also at Oklahoma.
The researchers found the widest gaps between Democrats and Republicans come when they are asked about the causes of climate change and if the media exaggerates the seriousness of the issue.
While virtually all climate scientists and the world's leading scientific academies have long agreed that the burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change, only about half Republicans accept the science.
A Republican controlled Congress, the article says, would be a “huge step backward in our nation’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” and could also undermine international cooperation, especially if Republican nominee Donald Trump won the Presidency.
“Whether, and how, individual Americans vote this November may well be the most consequential climate-related decision most of them will have ever taken,” the authors conclude.
Stark Choices
Dunlap told DeSmog the choice facing US voters was glaring.
“Looking back, Gore versus Bush was stark, although Bush hid his denial for a bit. But now the partisan differences on climate change are out in the open, and the choices from the top down are stark.”
The Koch brothers had led a network of “conservative mega-donors” that had created a “shadow GOP” that had managed to reduce the influence of the Republican National Committee, the analysis argues.
These efforts, the article explains, have blocked legislation, limited international negotiations and made rejection of climate science “normative” among Republican elites and activists.
Widening Gaps
Dunlap, McCright and Yarosh looked at how elected Democrats and Republicans had voted on environment and climate bills in both houses of Congress since 1970, using data from the League of Conservation Voters. The researchers found:
What was once a modest tendency for Congressional Republicans to be less pro-environmental than their Democratic counterparts has become a chasm—with Republicans taking near-unanimous anti-environmental stances on relevant legislation in recent years, especially 2015.
Since 2001 polling company Gallup has been asking US voters for their views on aspects of climate change, such as if they think it’s happening, if it’s caused by humans and if they are concerned about it.
In 2001, 53 percent of Republican voters agreed that global warming was caused by humans, compared with 70 percent of Democrats — a gap of 17 percentage points. But by 2016, this gap had blown out to 41 percentage points, with only 43 percent of Republican voters accepting climate change is human-caused.
These “partisan gaps” had widened across all areas since 2008, except when voters were asked if they thought global warming had already started, where the gap remained at 34 percentage points.
Bridging the Gap?
Alongside the analysis, the authors look at various attempts to bring Republicans closer to accepting the realities of climate change, such as changing communication strategies. The writers claim:
Does any persuasive framing strategy hold special promise for penetrating Republicans’ partisan/ideological identities? The evidence so far gives little basis for optimism.
The sociologists say one major reason why attempts to better communicate the realities of climate change to conservatives have failed is down to “motivated cognition” — described as the tendency for people to only accept information that reinforces their existing political beliefs and their views on the world.
Even when Republicans experience extreme weather events, there was little evidence that this was enough for those voters to change their views. Dunlap told DeSmog:
“I fear polarization will be difficult to overcome because Republican reluctance to accept the reality and seriousness of human-caused climate change is in a self-reinforcing loop.
There are top-down cues from Republican political elites and their supporters from conservative think tanks to conservative media — especially the Murdoch media— that influence voters, as well as bottom-up pressure from party activists such as Tea Party supporters who act as ‘enforcers’ of party principles, especially in primary elections to select Republican candidates.
The result is that global warming has joined God, guns, gays, and abortion as core elements of Republican identity, and this will be hard to change.”
The Republicans seem to be taking a very fixed attitude of climate change denial. American conservatives appear to be retreating into very fixed beliefs, and appear afraid of a world that is changing outside of America.
European conservatives are more flexible and receptive to climate change science, probably because two wars on their continent have led to people seeing the need to compromise and cooperate.
Americans emphasise individuality more, and constitutional freedoms. Peoples are shaped by their past histories and America and Europe differ in many regards.
When you 'save the World', as America arguably did in WWII, your Nationalists tend to think they can walk on water. This is a problem for America that Europe doesn't have. American Nationalists were furious at the Vietnam War protestors because the 'shining city on a hill' doesn't do mistakes. American conservatives have since been given a number of issues upon which to 'circle the wagons' and punish the Anti-War hippies: abortion, guns, the 'War on Drugs' and, to some extent, the 'War on Terror'. But once you build the moat, information doesn't easily penetrate the castle walls: the 'War on Taxes' and the 'War on Global Warming treehuggers' have been inserted into the conservative push-button issues list by deep-pocketed interests that, in many cases, aren't even American.
It seems that despite the 97% consensus scientists with a Democrat as President for the last 8 years, are unable to convince the American Republican voter that AGW is of serious concern. Perhaps instead of saying it is due to advertising from the anti-AGW side, concentratiing on why their advertising is having less effect might be more profitable. No matter how much the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch et al. can spend, it is nowhere near the amount the Americn government can spend if it so desired. Perhaps the swing away from AGW by Republican voters reflects failure in the approach of AGW proponents rather than success of the approach taken by the anti-AGW factions. It is also perhaps relevant that, for example, WUWT and JoNova attract far more respondents than do Skeptical Science and Real Climate. Why is that? Because Watts and Nova are better funded? Better publicists? More in tune with "ordinary" Americans and Australians? Or are Real Climate and Skeptical Science seen as being run by elitists who not receptive to and dismissive of the views of "ordinary" Americans and Australians?
Haze @3, first, and rather trivially, in the US, it is Congress, not the President who controlls the purse strings. Consequently, without the approval of the Republican (and ergo AGW denier) dominated House, and the Republican (and ergo AGW denier) Senate, no major advertising campaign promoting acceptance of the science on climate could have been funded by the President. Indeed, the President does not even controll the education system, which devolves to a state and local level such that it is a running battle to keep young Earth Creationism out of the schools in blue states, let alone pseudosciences not so widely acknowledged as such (such as AGW denial).
Second, the pseudoscientific side of the argument has the advantage that they do not need to be, nor appreciably strive to be correct. As a result they can shape their arguments to be persuasive without worrying to much if they are valid. And there is no question that they do that. They quote out of context, cherry pick, use deceiptful graphs, manufacture data from thin air. Worse, when arguments are refuted, they just wait a bit then recycle them again. While doing this, they are appealing to peoples selfish interest in a fairly direct way. I was a rev head when I was younger. Still would be if it were not for global warming. I would love for WUWTs arguments to be true. So, there is a very direct interest for every American who would rather drive a Hummer than an Accord to not believe in AGW. Likewise there is a very direct interest in any older person who does not want their legacy to be tarnished by the fact that their lifestyle created a very major problem for their children. There is even a direct interest for anybody with political leanings towards not trusting the government in that AGW denial gives a superficial reason for not trusting the government.
In contrast the AGW side has its arguments constrained not by the need to be persuasive, but that they be sound. And to know whether or not an argument in science is sound is often hard work. To truly understand the science you need to put in six years of tertiary education just to get to the start point. That is not elitism, anymore than it is elitism to think you require six or more years of experience to become a decent plumber. I personally believe that virtually anybody can become educated to the required standard, if they are prepared to put in the effort. But AGW denial tells you that not only do you not need that effort, but that you understand the situation better than those who have put in the effort (because, purportedly, you can refute their arguments with trivial points). No effort plus flattery plus justifying what you wanted to do already vs effort expected, plus an expectation that you actually understand, plus an expectation that you modify your behaviour in significant ways for future generations. Why on earth would you think these are both equally easy to sell?
Third, the reporting of science in the MSM is woeful. This is the case even outside of AGW, as shown humorously but correctly by John Oliver:
It becomes worse in the reporting of AGW because of false balance - the lazy, irresponsible approach of the MSM to reporting on all topics where they consider their job consists simply of getting a sound bite from "each side" with no attempt to require the sound bites to be cogent, relevant, or well supported. As a result nearly all MSM reports on climate change are accompanied with a deniers sprouting some irrelevancy that purports to refute the evidence.
On top of that, there is a "man bites dog" effect. When the IPCC gets something wrong, that is in fact a big news story because it happens so rarely. So it gets reported. If a AGW denier is wrong, well they are right less frequently than a stopped clock, so that is not a story at all - and gets no coverage.
With these impediments, even the friendly mainstream media on balance disinforms about AGW.
Finally, here are the rankings of the primary pro-biological science website (the Panda's Thumb) vs the two most popular pseudoscience websites on evolution, the "intelligent design" Discovery Institute, and the Young Earth Creationist Answer's in Genesis:
Panda'sThumb: 105,377
Answers In Genesis: 11,865
Discovery Institute: 64,437
Clearly the popularity of pseudoscience on the web is not confined to AGW. This is for reasons already given (under the second point) above. Now, unless you want to start arguing that clearly the belief that the Universe is only 10,000 years old, and that all species were restricted to just a few breeding pairs (six for clean, and 1 for unclean) just 6,000 years ago, at which time a global flood covered the earth to a depth 9 km is more scientific than standard biological and geological science based on the above data, you are committed to the fact that pseudoscience sells easier than science.
And once again, that is because, not being based on fact, they can be shaped to tell you what you want to hear rather than what is true.
Haze, I am not quite sure what your point is. That people are stupid? Dont want believe unwelcome facts?
" Or are Real Climate and Skeptical Science seen as being run by elitists who not receptive to and dismissive of the views of "ordinary" Americans and Australians?"
If by that you mean that RC and SkS are not into deceptions, unphysical theories, misinformation, ideological claptrap, conspiracy theories, and accusations of fraud, then you are correct. If these are the concerns and views of "ordinary" citizens, then we have serious problems with education that are not going to be fixed overnight.
If you have better ideas about how we could comminicate the facts and counteract the fiction, then we are all ears. I read WUWT comments at times and despair. Somehow, people need to understand that reality is not a consumer choice and the ideological position need to conform to reality and not the other way round. For many, I think that the question "what data would change your mind on climate change" is viewed as essentially the same as "what argument would convince you to vote for the enemy party". Neither is conceivable and so reality is shut out by participation in an echo chamber of reassuring lies.
Tom@4,
Your response to Haze@3 required far more knowledge (e.g. about the workings of US political system, even though you do not live within it) and far more research (e.g. finding Young Earth Creationist example) than the original, essentially random suggestions.
Not to mention the time you had to spend to type your response & structure it into clear bullet points. Thank you.
That comparison further reafirms your point that the pseudoscience, represented by Haze@3, is far less difficult than the science.
I think the same applies to every aspect of life and every skill: it's far easier to promote random but convenient nonsense rather than logical understanding of the facts. Also in political life. A stark axample is current US presidential campain: a random, completely ignorant candidate came in promoting ideas so absurd, contradicting the basics of that political systems and yet, still enjoys enormous popularity of his electorate and beaten all of his reality-obiding, professional opponents.