Pew Research: Little Change in Opinions about Global Warming
Little Change in Opinions about Global Warming
Comments
5 responses to “Little Change in Opinions about Global Warming”
-
Mike,
I am not sure what this shows–that people are willfully ignorant or that there is a large segment of our population that believes science has a “liberal bias”. I suspect that there would be similar numbers if the question were about evolution (maybe not quite as skewed as this, but there are many Republican politicians (some doctors and scientists) who refuse to unequivocally say they accept evolution as a scientific fact lest they offend a large part of their constituency). Part of this is the media’s fault which often puts a supporter of anthropocentric climate change and a opposer of ACC giving the impression that this is really up for grabs–when it isn’t. A good friend of mine who is an earth scientist (PhD level) says that a recent poll of climate scientists show that over 95% of them are certain that the climate change that is happening (doesn’t matter if us unwashed masses think it is or not–I don’t have to “believe” to gravity to make it true), the other small percentage mostly are arguing about degree of human contribution. Imagine if every time there was a media presentation about the basic structure of the earth, they had a scientist who holds that the earth is round and a flat-earther. After a while, people might begin to believe maybe the earth isn’t round.
Dan -
Dan, a fully agree that this says nothing about what is happening with the climate. But what is perceived as real is real in its consequences. So what is the public perception? What is the likely public response? I think the poll shows the reality of perception and little more. That is all I intended to communicate.
-
Mike,
This gets me thinking. You have argued many times (convincingly I might add) that Christians are woefully ignorant of economic theory and practice and Christians on the left and right make grand theological pronouncements about capitalism, or the profit motive, or macroeconomics that certainly appeal to the choir that they regularly preach to, but have little to do with reality or with a vigorous encounter with the “dismal science.” We injure Christian witness by saying (frequently) wrong things that make us feel better. I wonder if we might do the same with science. Lots of church-y views and pronouncements are based on really bad science (including, I would add, on opinions about climate change). The same friend that I referenced in the comment above is extremely worried about scientific illiteracy. So much public policy and private behavior is based on science and if we are ignorant or wrong or won’t even bother to understand the science that underlies our actions, we can never be responsible stewards of creation. I am wondering how the church can help here. Just thinking out loud here.
Dan -
Mike,
This gets me thinking. You have argued many times (convincingly I might add) that Christians are woefully ignorant of economic theory and practice and Christians on the left and right make grand theological pronouncements about capitalism, or the profit motive, or macroeconomics that certainly appeal to the choir that they regularly preach to, but have little to do with reality or with a vigorous encounter with the “dismal science.” We injure Christian witness by saying (frequently) wrong things that make us feel better. I wonder if we might do the same with science. Lots of church-y views and pronouncements are based on really bad science (including, I would add, on opinions about climate change). The same friend that I referenced in the comment above is extremely worried about scientific illiteracy. So much public policy and private behavior is based on science and if we are ignorant or wrong or won’t even bother to understand the science that underlies our actions, we can never be responsible stewards of creation. I am wondering how the church can help here. Just thinking out loud here.
Dan -
“We injure Christian witness by saying (frequently) wrong things that make us feel better. I wonder if we might do the same with science.”
No doubt about it in my mind. The general public can’t have significant scientific knowledge but there should be a minimal understanding of what science is … what does and does not constitute science … and also how to process science in decision-making.
Sociologist Anthony Giddens has a great little book “Runaway World” where he talks about how so many of our post-Industrial Age problems are becoming more complex, which means risk is becoming harder to assess. For instance, if government does not sound a waring or raise an issue quickly enough, it is accused of incompetence or conspiracy for not having done so. However, if it over-hypes a problem that doesn’t emerge or, ironically, it raises the issue and averts a problem, it can have the “cry wolf” effect on the public. We don’t really have good protocols for how to have this kind of public discourse.
But generally, yes, I think economics and science are two issue we address poorly.
Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply