On Wednesday, the Gallup polling organization released its annual survey of environmental issues. Among the key findings:
Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.
Gallup noted “the trend in the ‘exaggerated’ response has been somewhat volatile since 2001.” As recently as 2006 and as long ago as 1998, over sixty percent of Americans thought the news media was correctly portraying or underestimating the threat of global warming, while only thirty percent thought otherwise.
“All of the past year’s uptick in cynicism about the seriousness of global warming coverage occurred among Americans 30 and older,” Gallup reported. Republicans are also increasingly and far more likely than Democrats to believe the media’s coverage is exaggerated—a trend that Gallup has been following since 1997—but “this year marks a relatively sharp increase among independents as well,” the report stated.
In addition to the conclusions about coverage, Gallup also found that worries about global warming rank dead last among eight environmental issues. At the top of the list are concerns about the cleanliness of availability of water, followed by air pollution, deforestation, and the extinction of plants and animals.
Six in 10 Americans indicate that they are highly worried about global warming, including 34% who are worried “a great deal” and 26% “a fair amount.” Overall worry is similar to points at the start of the decade, but is down from 66% a year ago and from 65% in 2007.
Ironically, the Gallup poll is being released in the wake of a handful of recent studies, which have found that the impacts of warming will be felt for 1,000 years even if greenhouse-gas emissions are cut; that those emissions have been rising faster than expected; and that sea levels may rise much faster than predicted. So what gives?
New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin and American University professor Matthew Nisbet—both of whom wrote blog posts about the Gallup environment survey—have been arguing for some time that hyperbolic predictions about the catastrophic impacts of climate change are counterproductive and feed accusations of global warming “alarmism.” Ironically, in attempting to make his case, Revkin has come under fire from a number of environmentally minded bloggers who would like to see media coverage be much more adamant about the threat of climate change and the urgent need to find solutions.
Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm, one Revkin’s biggest critics, thinks that the reason for the lingering public apathy is not that the media has exaggerated the consequences of warming, but rather that it has downplayed them. A number of journalists, such as freelancer Keith Kloor, who also had a good analysis of the Gallup environment survey, counter that bloggers like Romm ignore their own role in fostering perceptions of alarmism. Like Nisbet, Kloor thinks that many of the reasons for public intransigence lie outside the media. Indeed, Gallup itself suggested that might be case:
Gallup has documented declines in public concern about the environment at times when other issues, such as a major economic downturn or a national crisis like 9/11, absorbed Americans’ attention. To some extent that may be true today, given the troubling state of the U.S. economy. However, the solitary drop in concern this year about global warming, among the eight specific environmental issues Gallup tested, suggests that something unique may be happening with the issue.
Thank you for a reasonably nuanced, reasonably balanced, reasonably factual criticism of the press. I have been harshly critical elsewhere of the work at this site, which seems to be more about pushing liberal agendas than engaging in serious press criticism, so it's nice to see something that does so in a fairly reasoned way.
While I count myself among those skeptical of global warming alarmism, we would all be foolish not to continue to research, understand and discuss issues that could have global ramifications over the long term.
#1 Posted by Mike, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 11:36 AM
Plain and simple many Americans are plain stupid!
Global Warming has been with us for 100+ years. As a concerned scuentist I follolwed its advance and I can tell you that all the predictions based on data going back to the 19th century are valid. The big difference over the years has been the rate of occurrence. It is unmistakably accelerating since the turn of the 21st century, and ultimately Global Warming will be unstoppable, regardless of human efforts to stop it. These efforts, as usual, are too little, too late.
Americans would benefit from learning about Global Warming and other topics by studying by themselves! The media are just another source of infornation gfreatly abbreviated with lack of depth; they are not intended to form our opinions. Unfortunately, since most Americans are illiterate they can not inform themselves so they rely on the media for their opinions. There is, of course, public radio and TV; sadly the audience for public media is miniscule compared to the dumbing down networks!
To recapitulare Glo0bal Warming is absolutely occurring. All we humans will be able to do is to watch in disbelief the results while they are happening; we are fiddling while Rome is buening!
Thank You!
#2 Posted by george stassinopoulos, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 03:34 PM
perhaps it is time for the experts to instead shape climate policies to fit the realities of public opinion.
Thereyago. Let's shape environmental policy to please Jim Inhoff, Rush, and Beck. That's a GOOD idea.
The REAL problem is that the SCUM (SoCalledUnbiasedMedia) is addicted to this fantasy that 'weather' is the same thing as 'climate.' And, rather than confuse anybody, or piss off any of the powerful deniers (mainly advertizers), they dutifully report the lunatic ravings of those who see heavy winter storms as evidence that there is no warming, instead of reporting the obvious fact that when it gets warmer, over oceans, ets, there's more evaporation, and hence more precipitation which, in winter, takes the form of snow...
Folks like Hunter and Amory Lovins have been taqlking about thsi stuff for 30 years or longer. There's plenty of evidence which should suggest AT THE DEAD BARE MINIMUM, the precautionary principle ought to be applied.
It's to late to stop, but it may still be possible to mitigate it, somewhat.
Guys like "mike" need to start pretty soon trying to evolve gills...or hold on to those you get in utero...
#3 Posted by Woody, CJR on Sat 14 Mar 2009 at 12:01 AM
Of course Americans think this is all exaggerated. It's worse than an exaggeration though. It's all about pushing a liberal social agenda and gaining power.
It'll be interesting to see what the misguided like Woody and others say when the hoax is fully exposed and that won't be long coming.
#4 Posted by CZ, CJR on Sat 14 Mar 2009 at 07:22 AM
The man made aspect of global warming may be at the crux of the debate about global warming. Many believe that man alone is not that powerful nor is the CO2 issue (making up a very small fraction of the atmosphere) alarming.
The relative interest recently in this ruse of man made global warming maybe from the fact that the government uninformed as it is intends to tax people for a natural event. People are now paying attention in greater numbers because global warming was previously small and amusing debate, but it is now more personal and insidious. People are not stupid, ignorant maybe and complacent certainly but generally not stupid. That and they can see that Al Gore is a pompous ass.
#5 Posted by paul, CJR on Sat 14 Mar 2009 at 10:14 AM
Without getting into the 'you bring your scientist and I'll bring mine' aspect of this discussion, I'll give posters two good reasons for public skepticism that don't have anything to do with citizen 'stupidity'.
The first is that 'global warming' comes with a political agenda that happens to fit nicely with what many of its promoters have been urging since long before this issue was raised. Amory Lovins honorably excepted, most 'solution' to climate change mechanically require greater political control of economic consumption and production.
Related to this reason is the second, i.e., the public has heard all this before. The population explosion of the 1960s was a classic of trendy innumeracy - go back and look at the projections vs. the actual outcomes. In the 1970s, the 'limits to growth' computer models confidently predicted that the world was now running out of raw materials, and that we were finally seeing this come to pass. This notion was all over the place in journalism and academia during that time. Again, go back and look at the predictions vs. the actual outcomes.
There have been many other apocalyptic predictions, endorsed by eminently respectable scientists, since then. We were inevitably going to nuclear war because of Reagan's defense plan in the 1980s. AIDS was going to decimate the straight, non-IV drug using, ignorant white American public. (Oprah cited a figure of one in three Americans who would likely contract AIDS.) There have been myths like Love Canal and toxic chemicals, and hysterian mongering like the avian flu and SARS epidemics that didn't happen.
I'm not arguing for complacency. I am suggesting that the advocates of programs to 'stop' global warming - who seem to think, when you get right down to it, that politicians can control the climate by passing laws - have self-interest somewhere in there, too. If I'm a climate scientist, I'm going to promote the importance of my field - maybe the government will build me new labs and keep those grants coming. If I'm Al Gore, I stand to make a lot of money if the regulations I support are enacted, and force a switch to products in which I'm invested. (I won't even go into the cynicism-making impact of the carbon footprints left by wealthy greenies like Gore, vs. you and me.) If I'm in politics or government, global warning is a godsend of a justification for exercising the power of the state.
These environmental crusades vary in the content of the sermons, but they always have the same moral: the sinful masses face punishment on a Biblical scale if they do not end their profligate ways. The target is mass consumption, not that of the very rich - so there is snarkiness about McMansions (tacky, rather than actual mansions (good), and about SUVs rather than limos. Gee, looking at the class basis of the environmental movement, I can't imagine why.
#6 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 16 Mar 2009 at 01:05 PM
Global Warming is exagerated and not human caused, plain and simple. There is too much evidence contradicting Global Warming. Such as that, although the Arctic ice caps are melting, the Antarctic ice caps are growing. It is ignorant to say that humans, who occupy just a small percent of the earth, can contribute enough of a NATURAL GAS to cause Global Warming. However I do believe we need to clean up the environment. My problem, I do not believe in killing our own economy in order to benefit something we do not have solid proof upon. Now that is the Convinient Truth.
#7 Posted by Josh White, CJR on Fri 27 Mar 2009 at 12:46 AM
People actually still believe this hoax??
#8 Posted by hello, CJR on Mon 13 Apr 2009 at 11:47 AM
I sher wish climate change, and the consequent extinctions, dislocations, and climactic chaos depended on whether the fatuous, intellectually lazy, consumerism-besotted People believe in it, kinda like Tinkerbelle...
It would make the next 50 years sooooo much easier...
#9 Posted by Woody, CJR on Mon 13 Apr 2009 at 03:34 PM
A poll that shows the connection between religiosity and doubt in mainstream science could be instructive. The strongest connection might be found between fundamentalism and ideas contrary to peer-reviewed science.
But the media plays an evil role in defining the question. Ask the media and the only question is anthropocentric climate change, yes or no. In so framing the question, the media universally suggests that, if the answer is yes, the solution is already decided. The media, largely trained by the military/academic complex, harp the notion that only stronger international laws can stop global warming. Alternatives, and practical solutions at the community and individual level, are not on the table.
#10 Posted by Naral, CJR on Mon 13 Apr 2009 at 09:06 PM
Couldn't help but notice the irony in this commentator's conflicting claims to know in contrast with the admitted lack of proof.
"Global Warming is exagerated and not human caused, plain and simple."
"My problem, I do not believe in killing our own economy in order to benefit something we do not have solid proof upon."
#11 Posted by Ted Harris, CJR on Mon 13 Apr 2009 at 11:35 PM
It is disappointing to read remarks by people such as Mark Richard, who still appears to believe that environmental concerns
are a luxury of the well-off, gained at the expense of poorer folk.
The IPCC has achieved an unprecedented scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic warming: It is real and it may have
been underestimated by the last consensus document.
It is the economic interventions which remain controversial, and which compel our attention. I am skeptical of the efficacy
of "cap and trade". A system which seems to work well when applied on an national basis to the management of limited primary
resources, eg fish stocks in Iceland, may not scale up to transnational application by energy providers. If it does, then
will it offer a meaningful decrease rate of CO2 emissions, or will it simply become "business as usual" in a new marketplace?
The cap-&-trade picture is complicated by inclusion of both non-renewable and renewable resources, of several types, in the
mix. Solar, wind, geothermal, wave and OTEC systems seem to me to complicate the application of cap-&-trade, and I admit to
a preference for a direct carbon tax, applied on a national basis.
The complexity of the picture is captured in part by the following quote from Science Magazine, 27 March 2009 (p. 1686), in a
report from a forum sponsored by Hitachi Ltd and co-organised by AAAS (publishers of Science) and The Brookings Institute:
"In a keynote speech, U.S. Senator John Kerry (D–MA) warned that despite two decades of global discussion, conditions are
deteriorating. Carbon dioxide emissions from human sources have grown four times faster in the last 8 years than in the
1990s, he said. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up 33% faster, surpassing the worst-case emission scenarios
envisioned by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In that context, coal is “the most intractable problem,” said Science reporter Eli Kintisch, who moderated one panel. While
dozens of coal-fired power plants have recently been cancelled in the United States, speakers noted such plants still account
for 50% of the nation’s power, and 70% in China. In India, coal-related industries employ 26 million people. Coal will
remain a key power source, several speakers said. And until other sources come online, conservation and efficiency are the
best means for reducing demand for electricity — and emissions from coal-fired plants. Kerry cited a recent report by
McKinsey & Company which found that energy efficiency alone could yield almost 40% of needed emission reductions. “Energy
efficiency is the world’s greatest resource,” said Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy. The United
States has “turned to it time and again over the past 30 years to power our economy.”
Outstanding experts like Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, have been working on energy policy for over 30 years,
and have been part of the solution: increased energy efficiency. An economic intervention which directly addresses this
measure would be well worth looking at. Can someone convince me that cap-&-trade is stronogly coupled to efficiency of use,
rather than ease of trade?
#12 Posted by Warmish, CJR on Tue 14 Apr 2009 at 01:28 AM
The media, largely trained by the military/academic complex, harp the notion that only stronger international laws can stop global warming. Alternatives, and practical solutions at the community and individual level, are not on the table.
acai berry
acai berry oprah
#13 Posted by alagausun, CJR on Tue 14 Apr 2009 at 11:09 AM
It is benificial for the media to exagerate global warming in order to stress the importance of the matter. The world is becoming more and more vulnerable due both chemical and natural destruction.
href="http://www.medexsupply.com">Medical Supplies |
#14 Posted by Ritani, CJR on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 02:34 PM
href="http://www.medexsupply.com">Medical Supplies | Engagement Rings
#15 Posted by Medex, CJR on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 02:39 PM
As a concerned scuentist I follolwed its advance and I can tell you that all the predictions based on data going back to the 19th century are valid. The big difference over the years has been the rate of occurrence.
">Deeper Voice Right Away
#16 Posted by David, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 08:22 AM
Elizabeth Kolbert's comment suggests that mainstream journalism is still in denial. In my lifetime, I have seen the following apocalyptic predictions, many promoted by The New Yorker magazine, fail to materialize: overpopulation leading to increased poverty in crowded like India and China; the decline in natural resources ("The Limits to Growth" of the 1970s computer projections - garbage in, garbage out); global cooling; the threat of nuclear power; running out of oil; all-out nuclear war due to Reagan's arms buildup; the threat of AIDS to the presumptively dumb, straight, white population of the United States; pandemics from SARS to Avian flu; electric power lines causing cancer; the threat of genetically-modified foods; the threat of toxic chemicals like at Love Canal . . . all very much exaggerated by the press and other people with political agendas, when not outrightly false. Now it is global warming - shorthand for the theory that politicians passing laws can change the climate whatever the sun does, whatever is done by wetlands, animal methane emissions . . . The public has good reason to be skeptical. Hatred of mass consumption (all those tacky McMansions and SUVs that obsess so many of the mansion-dwellers and limo-rider of our chattering classes) suffuses the environmental movement, and preceded all the above scare campaigns. Of course the people responsible for these scares don't have the guts to admit they were wrong. They just move on to new Bible-influenced scenarios out of a disaster flick - the dire punishments awaiting the stupid, sinful masses if they don't change their profligate ways. Same song, new lyrics.
#17 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 12:25 PM