Matthew Nisbet of Framing Science and his colleague, T. Myers, trawled through two decades of data on public opinion about global warming (sounds fun, huh?). The results will be published in the fall issue of the journal Public Opinion Quarterly.
An abstract:
Over the past 20 years, there have been dozens of news organization, academic, and nonpartisan public opinion surveys on global warming, yet there exists no authoritative summary of their collective findings. In this article, we provide a systematic review of trends in public opinion about global warming. We sifted through hundreds of polling questions culled from more than 70 surveys administered over the past 20 years. In compiling the available trends, we summarize public opinion across several key dimensions including (a) public awareness of the issue of global warming; (b) public understanding of the causes of global warming and the specifics of the policy debate; (c) public perceptions of the certainty of the science and the level of agreement among experts; (d) public concern about the impacts of global warming; (e) public support for policy action in light of potential economic costs; and (f) public support for the Kyoto climate treaty.
Unfortunately, the full text isn't available online, but Nisbet says that if you drop him an email, he'll send you a PDF. I look forward to reading it myself tonight.
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 11:52 am
28 Aug 2007
We have moved from denial that global warming is real, to yeah, its real but humans didn't cause it, to yeah it may be real and we may have caused it but it is a good thing, to blah blah.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
dobermanmacleod Posted 9:06 pm
28 Aug 2007
Furthermore, all eco-systems will rapidly collapse if the temperature rise is above .4 C/decade (according to Leeman and Eickhout 2004). Our current warming (.2 C/decade) is from greenhouse gas put into the air decades before, which we've just about doubled, with ALOT more on the way.
As an analogy, does it matter if you know you have cancer, if the disease has progressed too far to treat?
The following is a quote I've been extensively citing:
"We now have evidence from the Earth's history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds. As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored. We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die." (The Revenge of Gaia)
What I don't include is the sentence that followed:
"Once started, the move to a hot state is irreversible, and even if all the good intentions expressed at the Kyoto and Montreal meetings were executed immediately, they would not alter the outcome."
Rather than alarm people and con them into a too little too late attempt, maybe they should just be allowed to continue partying like it is close to midnight, because it is.
Permalink
cullenhowe Posted 12:32 am
29 Aug 2007
After a summary of the factual and scientific background, the book begins by addressing the international and national frameworks of climate change law, including clean air regulation, civil remedies and the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on many domestic actions. The book then describes emerging regional, state and local actions, and includes a 50-state survey. Next is coverage of issues of concern to corporations, including disclosure, fiduciary duties, insurance, and subsidies. The book ends with an examination of the legal aspects of various efforts to reduce emissions, including voluntary programs, emissions trading programs and carbon sequestration.
More details and ordering information can be found at this site:
http://www.abanet.org/abastore/index.cfm?section=main& ...
Permalink
sindark Posted 12:49 am
29 Aug 2007
Cutting emissions by more than 100% is clearly impossible. Monbiot calls upon us to stabilize global concentrations of GHGs at a level that produces less than 2°C of average warming.
More on his book:
http://www.sindark.com/2007/08/10/heat-how-to-stop-the-pl ...
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 1:43 am
29 Aug 2007
20 years ago even Republicans thought global warming (they called it greenhouse gas) was a real problem: even as recent as daddy Bush who promised to solve the "...greenhouse effect: they haven't heard about the White House effect!"
But after $16 million was spent by ExXON to swing key opinionmakers for Republicans like CATO, The Brookings Institution, The American Enterprise Institute and so on, EXXON and The American Fuels Association developed a partisan divide on the science to the point that Republicans now believe its just Hollywood figures like Al Gore who is conning them.
Don't believe me? Check the change in " % believe its a problem:" history at polling report.com.
You can see the dumbing down of Republicans from the early 80's to now.
Even in the last year Congressional Republicans (more directly funded by oil companies than thinktanks)
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01
have lost their previous knowledge.
Last year 23% of Congressional Republicans believed in global warming. This year its down to 13%.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/warming-13-percent/
Permalink