Global Warming Paradox?

By John Tierney

If only the masses could understand the science of global warming, they’d be alarmed, right? Wrong, according to the surprising results of a survey of Americans published in the journal Risk Analysis by researchers at Texas A&M University.

After asking a national sample of more than 1,000 Americans how much they knew about global warming and how they felt about it, the researchers report that respondents who are better-informed about global warming “both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming.” Another unexpected result: “Respondents who showed a great deal of confidence that scientists understand global warming and climate change showed significantly less concern for the risks of global warming than did those who have lower trust in scientists.”

The researchers offer several possible explanations for this apparent paradox. Paul Kellstedt, the lead author and a professor of political science at Texas A&M, told me that previous researchers found that a campaign to increase public understanding of genetically modified foods didn’t lessen public fears, and that more widespread “scientific understanding” of research on embryos actually diminished support for that research. “What those two studies show, and what ours does, too,” he said, “is that more information given to the mass public does not automatically translate into more support for what are (in the public’s mind) controversial areas of scientific research. In fact, more information, in all three cases, seems to have the opposite effect, creating opposition to the research area in question.”

It’s also possible that the better-informed people were being more realistic when they said didn’t feel personally responsible for global warming. As the researchers note in the paper:

Global warming is an extreme collective action dilemma, with the actions of one person having a negligible effect in the aggregate. Informed persons appear to realize this objective fact. Therefore, informed persons can be highly concerned and reasonably pessimistic about their ability to change climate outcomes.

But why would people who trust scientists not be as concerned when they hear so many scientists warning of the perils of global warming? “Though this effect differs from our expectations,” the researcher write, “it is consistent with the notion that people trust that scientists will be able, somehow, to devise technical solutions to any problems that arise because of global warming and climate change.” Dr. Kellstedt elaborated on this point by telling me:

More broadly, and again quite speculatively, I think that Americans have a great deal of faith in technology and technological solutions to problems. We have seen science do things (like send people into outer space, and to miraculously save them, Apollo-13 style, when things go badly) unimaginable for 99.9% of human history.

He won’t speculate how widespread that optimism is, and neither will I, but I can say that it explains my feelings about global warming. I think it’s a real risk, but I’m also confident that we’ll cope by adapting to climate change and/or finding ways to minimize it. Might there be any readers who disagree? And what do you think is the best explanation of this survey’s results?

UPDATE: My colleague Andy Revkin has some thoughts at DotEarth on the difficulty of communicating the risks of global warming.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Raven February 29, 2008 · 12:47 pm

Think the study missed the obvious:

Educated well informed people who trust the scientific process understand that the predictions of imminent doom by CO2 are simply hogwash and that we can afford to take our time.

Brian February 29, 2008 · 12:52 pm

I don’t see a paradox at all. The people who know the most about global warming aren’t concerned because they know it’s not man made and is part of a natural cycle. The people who trust scientists trust it when they say there is no proof and little evidence supporting the notion that humans are causing global warming on a catastrophic scale. They probably don’t trust the media when they repeat the psuedo-science hype over and over.

The supposed “scientific concensus” does not exist. The climate models supporting AGW are contrived and don’t match observations. Not one global warming proponent predicted the current cold weather, yet it fits well into models where the sun and the ocean cycles are assumed to be the main driver of climate change.

Anthropologic Global Warming is a hoax and the more informed people are about the real science, the more they understand that to be the case.

I would also predict people are getting tired of the obvious nonsense being blamed on global warming day after day. A recent earthquake has even been blamed on global warming. Get real.

William Donelson February 29, 2008 · 12:56 pm

The more informed and intelligent you are, the more trouble you must bear in the world. It’s a division of mental resources that is the effect here, and a limit to how many of those problems you can realistically affect.

A much better approach would be to ask people to do one thing out of a list of five (which will solve whatever problem), and to reliably do that one thing.

JD February 29, 2008 · 1:01 pm

Of course we’ll adapt to whatever change comes along. We may have to relocate people from current coastal areas and island nations that are close to sea level (either due to flooding or storms), we may have to renew focus on fighting tropical diseases that shift into our country, we may need to increase the level of food aid and agriculture subsidies as climate shifts make it impossible to grow current crops in current farming areas, but none of that is impossible, even given the worst case scenarios.

Given the human costs, though, adapting to a bad circumstance that could be prevented is not the best solution. These days, your chances of surviving a car accident are quite good, what with seat belts and air bags and crumple zones. That still doesn’t make it a good idea to fall asleep at the wheel, right?

I’d like to think that better-informed people feel less responsibility for global warming because they have already taken personal action. For example, I switched to compact fluorescent lights years ago, and fuel economy is a major factor I consider when buying a car (to give two examples of how I have changed my own behavior). Certainly I consider myself less responsible for global warming, as compared to other people I consider more responsible. This might be an over-optimistic view of human nature, however.

PJ February 29, 2008 · 1:01 pm

Perhaps in light of the weak science behind the assessment of climate change, and having taken a few years of science in HS and college, those questioned find little reason to think humans really have much of an impact on what is clearly a cyclical phenomenon, repeated over and over again in history. Ask anyone who’s ever looked at core samples of ancient glaciers…..

Adam February 29, 2008 · 1:04 pm

One other possibility is that those who are more informed realize that the scare is blown ridiculously out of proportion by propoganda films such as “An Inconvenient Truth”. They may also understand that the human impact on global warming is negligible at best (the primary greehouse gas is actually water vapor, not man-made carbon dioxicd) and that the bulk of global warming (and the current spate of global cooling that has been happening for over a year now) is primarily the result of the varying intensity of solar activity.

Jamie Kuhl February 29, 2008 · 1:09 pm

My concern is that in the long run the the solution requires a universal understanding of our inter-connectedness, our common and enviornmentally connected humanity, and need for active caring for others –and that there is almost not evidence of our abilty, as humans, to come to this understanding at home, or on a global scale.
Jamie Kuhl

Tom Doran February 29, 2008 · 1:09 pm

This survey seems to say that Americans treat the issue of global warming the same way they treat politics: Individuals don’t make a real difference, so you can vote if you feel like it, but if you don’t, it doesn’t matter. Likewise, if you don’t want to go “green” don’t sweat it.
We didn’t really need a survey to see what’s happening. Affluent, well-educated people tend to be the leaders and/or most vocal advocates in the campaign to combat global warming. But guess which Americans live in spacious homes that consume large amounts of energy for heating, cooling and lighting; drive large cars that guzzle gas; settle in high-end suburban and ex-urban communities that require even greater guzzling of gas for commuting; and disdain such plebian measures as car pooling with their neighbors or co-workers.
Oh yes, and which group is most likely to board fuel-thirsty airplanes to visit exotic getaways thousands of miles away? Do we have to guess? It surely isn’t the blue-collar workers who are often blamed for not being environmentally conscious.
Let’s face it, if Al Gore can live like the King of Consumption when it comes to energy, why should anyone take the problem seriously?

Aaron February 29, 2008 · 1:11 pm

Actually, I go back and forth between being optimistic that I can be part of the solution and pessimistic that I am part of the problem and then that combines wit the fact that there are so many problems in the world like 1) don’t eat beef because methane is bad for global warming but wait 2) don’t eat fish because fish populations are collapsing so 3) eat a vegetarian diet but 4) don’t eat produce from far away and 5) chickens kept for eggs are treated even worse than chickens raised for meat which 6) should i even care about the environment when there is genocide and war and an AIDs epidemic?

It’s just too much to worry about every problem, so I try to do what I can.

Jeff Schult February 29, 2008 · 1:13 pm

People feel detached from both the problem and the solution. Individual action is mostly meaningless, unless you’re a scientist or involved in policymaking (or unless you’re Al Gore!)

“I’m going to be dead before it makes any difference to anyone,” is something I’ve heard several times from people older than I (51.)

Mike Haseler February 29, 2008 · 1:14 pm

The real paradox is how these “climbit” scientists can keep saying the world is warming when it stopped in 1998 and this century temperatures are cooling.

The solution to this paradox is simple: these climbit scientists are consistently overestimating the temperature. I have looked at every forecast by the UK Met Office I can find and every single one was too high.

Here is the actual global temperature and the Met Office “overwhelming scientific consensus” that this temperature would not happen:

Year: Actual
2000: 0.238°C (claimed >80% chance of >0.33°C)
2001: 0.400°C (claimed >75% chance of >0.42°C)
2002: 0.455°C (claimed >50% chance of >0.47°C)
2003: 0.457°C (claimed >75% chance of >0.50°C)
2004: 0.432°C (claimed >75% chance of >0.47°C)
2005: 0.479°C (claimed >75% chance of >0.48°C)
2006: 0.422°C (claimed >50% chance of >0.45°C)
2007: 0.402°C (claimed >75% chance of >0.49°C)

Now if you are claiming 75% chance of something then on average 75% of forecasts should be right! Instead 100% of their forecasts are high!

If this consistent error of 0.06°C per year too high continues, then it means that by 2014, instead of the average temperature rising to 0.73°C as the met office currently predicts it will have cooled to 0.3°C

Lori B. February 29, 2008 · 1:17 pm

I consider myself fairly well-informed on global warming as a lay person but I do not share your optimism on scientists being able to change it. There may very well be brilliant ideas ready for implementation but without a government willing to make those changes I fear we are doomed. I live every day trying to make what changes I can as an individual by recycling, conserving water, etc. but not so much because I feel I will make a difference,it’s just that my guilt would overwhelm me if I felt I was contributing to the problem.

Tzo Nah February 29, 2008 · 1:19 pm

I think global warming is to big for anyone to process. We have had information this is a natural cycle therefore nothing we can do about it. Even if scientists are telling us we have to cut emissions, we don’t have alternatives on the market to move into, more cars are fossil-fuel driven than we have hybrids or otherwise more fuel efficient autos. Our leadership in this country are telling us things are okay, we are not in any problem. Then, there is the addictive society we live in. When you live in an addictive society there is no truth or reality. Most of us are walking zombies, walking dead to our feelings, our senses, overwhelmed–we then turn to our favorite addiction whether that be technology, exercise, drugs, alcohol, you name it! Corporations run this country and they are big and powerful. We citizens are little slaves working under the pressure of their sales and marketing subliminally being programmed to the program…another type of addiction. You cannot reason with a drunk or a madman and that is what we are at this point in time.

Benjamin, from Delaware February 29, 2008 · 1:23 pm

I know quite a few reasonable and fairly well educated people who are not knocking the fact that we have human-induced global warming that is significant enough to damage much of the human race, but who also believe scientists coupled with the ingenuity of the human creature will successfully adapt to this threat. Along similar lines, I know many reasonable folks who believe we have, or will very soon reach, peak oil, and who believe that a significant decline of nonrenewable energy sources will occur in the next decade or two, but who also “feel” that the use of scientific breakthroughs and the workarounds of fellow ingenious people that could be used to mitigate global warming will also result in the expansion of a variety of other non-fossil fuel based energy sources. On a good day, I can believe one, and sometimes both, of these arguments. However, I do admit that the IPCC summaries have gotten my attention — we just might have to act before the snowball of CO2 in the atmosphere collects too much velocity and size for it to be contained without widespread negative effects that ought to make everyone — from business executives to day laborers to the well-off to those who are their brothers’ keeper — very nervous. Our world will start to skid, if you will, and we are then on an unpredictable path not easily steered. These twin risks of managing global warming and the need for renewable energy may pose a far greater risk than the sum of their parts. The risk assessment seems unprecedented.

Consumer February 29, 2008 · 1:25 pm

You write: “After asking a national sample of more than 1,000 Americans how much they knew about global warming and how they felt about it…”.

My question is, did the survey ask them “How much do you know about global warming?” or did it ask them questions about the science and then rank their knowledge based on the answers? There may be a large difference between how knowledgeable people think they are about GW and how much they actually know.

To me, the most concerning part of GW is what we don’t know; i.e. how much the results could vary from the models. The predictions of the models aren’t scary in my opinion, but the scary part is what if they are drastically understating things. It is the variability that could cause the biggest problems.

Craig Barton Upright February 29, 2008 · 1:25 pm

Steven Cotgrove and Andrew Duff explored this phenomenon back in 1980, noting that awareness of environmental issues was not enough to turn in individual into an environmentalist.

Cotgrove, S. and A. Duff. 1980. “Environmentalism, Middle-Class Radicalism and Politics.” The. Sociological Review 2:333-351.

They point out that the underlying values of an individual help determine how such information is interpreted. They suggest that the less materialistic orientation of those employed in professions outside of the productive sectors of the economy (e.g. in the education or tertiary service sectors rather than manufacturing) are more likely to incorporate such information into their social/political views and actions.

John February 29, 2008 · 1:29 pm

No meaningful survey would rely on self-reporting. In fact a number of studies have shown an inverse correlation between how knowledgeable people claim to be and how knowledgeable they actually are. I’m sure a lot of people think Rush, or you, have told them all they need to know.

How about a survey of people who are knowledgeable by some meaningful criteria, like PhDs in climate science? The results would be very, very different.

Jen February 29, 2008 · 1:30 pm

“I think it’s a real risk, but I’m also confident that we’ll cope by adapting to climate change and/or finding ways to minimize it.”

I hope you’re right, but I refer you to the old saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The global climate served humanity pretty well before by-products of our technology started changing it. We’d probably save ourselves a lot of time, energy, money, and risk of doomsday scenarios if instead of relying, on spec, on a technological solution we took the concrete and already known measures available today to minimize our impact on the climate.

What objection can a reasonable person have toward these 3 changes: (1) funding scientific and engineering research on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources; (2) modifying regulatory schemes to require and encourage large organizations to make use of the most energy efficient/renewable energy technologies available; (3) providing easy ways and financial incentives for individuals to do make use of the most energy efficient/renewable energy technologies available.

Done with moderation and wisdom, these are small changes that amount to making the most of what we have, whether global climate change requires us to or not.

Dan February 29, 2008 · 1:33 pm

In noting both that
“the researchers report that respondents who are better-informed about global warming ‘both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming.'”…

and that
“researchers note in the paper:
‘Global warming is an extreme collective action dilemma, with the actions of one person having a negligible effect in the aggregate. Informed persons appear to realize this objective fact. Therefore, informed persons can be highly concerned and reasonably pessimistic about their ability to change climate outcomes.'”…

You seem to set up your own little paradox in which informed people are both “highly concerned” and “less concerned”.

These two seemingly contradictory statements might be explained away by exploiting the unstated variables to which “highly” and “less” refer. Still, they don’t seem to support strongly your initial rhetorical question.

Brett McMillian February 29, 2008 · 1:33 pm

Well, I think you missed a big part of the puzzle. You are forgetting about people who are well informed about anthropogenic global warming and don’t support it. Now that reports are coming out that we are headed into a cooling period due to a very low number of sunspots and decreased solar activity, it’s hard for people to believe the global warming hysteria. Furthermore, a lot of people are unsure about the policies that are supposed to combat global warming. Most policies designed to combat global warming do very little to as far as stopping the increase in pollution, while they simultaneously hurt third world countries by increasing food prices and preventing them from building more non-green power plants. With demand for ethanol increasing, more corn will have to be used for it and drive up the price of corn food products as a result. Also, ethanol produces CO2 when burned, so it’s a bit questionable why people rant and rave about CO2 in the atmosphere and then support ethanol over gasoline. Biofuels have also received some negative publicity lately due to the fact that they take a lot of energy to produce, which by a more comprehensive comparison doesn’t make them much better, if at all, than burning gasoline. So the assumption that all well-informed people support global warming is a fallacy in this study and is most likely the reason the group at Texas A&M found these results.

Ian Gilbert (my real name) February 29, 2008 · 1:38 pm

I think I’m one of the “well-informed” people, and I use fluorescents all over the place, drive as little as possible, and keep my thermostat down in winter and up in summer.

I don’t think my actions will have any effect on global warming. I also don’t think that scientists will find a timely “solution” to global warming because a) the scientists still don’t really know what the causes are, they’re still groping around at the beginning of a huge multivariable problem, and b) politicians in the U.S. and other mass democracies will never mandate politically unpopular solutions, while politicians in China and other authoritarian states will never mandate economically costly solutions.

The current scientific consensus begins and ends with the proposition that greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming. There is no consensus about the costs and benefits of the innumerable possible changes in human behavior that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it seems that almost daily we receive reports that !! surprise !! this-or-that phenomenon is or is not a worrisome source of greenhouse gas emissions after all.

It is not enough to say that greenhouse gas is bad. The scientists have to take us to the place where we can intelligently consider alternative energy sources and changes to our cherished habits. Cars bad, suburbs bad, airplanes bad, coal-fired energy bad — none of that really gets us anywhere. What are the real-world alternatives, how much will they cost, and do they really change the greenhouse gas equation, or just shift it around?

Washington DC (my real home)

Kevin Miner February 29, 2008 · 1:39 pm

With your help, he’s using TierneyLab to check out new research and rethink conventional wisdom about science and society. The Lab’s work is guided by two founding principles:

1. Just because an idea appeals to a lot of people doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
2. But that’s a good working theory.

“. . . the researchers report that respondents who are better-informed about global warming ‘both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming.'”

Your words, not mine, John. You should be embarrassed. Is this whole blog of yours just a riddle? Why don’t you advertise it as “all the BS that’s fit for bandwidth?

Apple February 29, 2008 · 1:42 pm

Does the study account for the, perhaps amoral, view of the possible harms of those who accept the premise of global warming? Global warming is likely to impact our species in a dramatic fashion, likely to have a drastic change on the global ecosystem, and unlikely to impact the on-going existence of the planet. Where the planet has already witnessed massive ecological changes on a relatively frequent (geological) basis, why is this change necessarily “bad?” And, if as a species we make the collective choice to hasten our possible extinction, is it immoral of me as an individual not to object?

tg February 29, 2008 · 1:43 pm

This explanation seems backward. I would think that people who take the time to read information on a topic are probably a little less likely to overreact to something. Therefore if you classify yourself as someone who has a good grasp of global warming then you probably realize we’re not going to all die in a tsunami accident next year. Hysterical people never want to understand what drives their fears. They just go for the headlines.

Matt February 29, 2008 · 1:44 pm

How did the study determine how much people knew about global warming, and how confident they were in their knowledge? What was their metric? Was this “confidence” merely self-reported?

Having spoken to staunch anti-environmentalist types on many occasions, I can say that no one is more confident in their “knowledge” about the issues than they. How did the study seek to eliminate such biases?