Americans Believe Global Warming is Real, Want Action, But Not as a Priority

To reach the public, the government, organizations, and educators urged to focus locally, with targeted approaches.

(SAN FRANCISCO) - Most Americans believe global warming is real but a moderate and distant risk.

While they strongly support policies like investing in renewable energy, higher fuel economy standards and international treaties, they strongly oppose carbon taxes on energy sources that put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

These results were reported by Anthony Leiserowitz, a courtesy professor of environmental studies at the University of Oregon, in a talk during the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco.

His conclusions, are based on a national survey conducted in 2003 are detailed in a new book, "Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change - Facilitating Social Change."

The study by Leiserowitz, also a scientist at Decision Research, a non-profit research institute in Eugene, Ore., looked at the risk perceptions, policy views and behavior of Americans in regards to global warming.

Although the data demonstrating climate change have grown stronger in recent years, Americans rank global warming as a low priority compared to other national issues such as the Iraq war, the economy, health care and education, and environmental issues such as air and water pollution, Leiserowitz said.

Using affective-image analysis, Leiserowitz also asked Americans what thoughts or images came to mind when thinking about global warming.

Sixty-one percent of their associations fell into just four categories: melting ice in the Arctic; warmer temperatures; impacts on non-human nature; and polar ozone holes.

"These responses help us understand the connotative meaning of global warming - and why Americans react the way they do," Leiserowitz said. "These associations are to geographically or psychologically distant impacts, generic warming trends, or a completely different environmental problem. Thus it's not too surprising that global warming remains a relatively low priority.

"One of the most important things that we found is what we didn't find," he added. "We found no references, no associations, of the impacts of climate change on either human health or extreme weather events. Yet these are, arguably, among the most important potential impacts, because, ultimately, the consequences are going hurt people."

The survey, detailed in Chapter 2 of the book, also identified two particular groups, or "interpretive communities," of Americans at the extremes of global warming beliefs:

* Alarmists, who have apocalyptic visions, envision "death of the planet" or post-nuclear-war-like scenarios. "These visions are well beyond the most extreme scientific scenarios," Leiserowitz said. Alarmists, he found, are slightly more likely to be liberal and to hold strong egalitarian values.

* Naysayers, who deny, discount or disbelieve the reality of climate change. "These people claim that there is no scientific evidence, blame global warming on media hype, or even hold dark conspiracy theories, such as scientists making up data to protect their job security," he said. "Naysayers are much more likely to be white, male, conservative, Republican, very religious, hold strongly individualistic or hierarchist values and to get their news and information from radio talk shows."

The majority of Americans are in between these two extremes, he added, but are more closely aligned with the alarmists than the naysayers.

In his talk, Leiserowitz also described several strategies for communicators as they tell the global warming story: Highlight local impacts; illustrate how climate change is impacting people and places already, such as in Alaska; describe the potential impacts on human health; talk honestly about remaining uncertainties; and tailor both the messages and the messengers so they resonate with the values held by particular audiences.

The book, he said, is the outgrowth of a conference held in 2004 by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in which participants – including cognitive psychologists, experts in risk perception, sociologists, anthropologists, climate scientists and historians – discussed how scientists and others might communicate climate change more effectively.

Leiserowitz will become a research scientist and director of strategic initiatives in the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies as of March 1st.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Slam; March 2, 2007 4:26 am (Pacific time)

is what's happening in Darfur now "scientific genoocide"?, or should we wait for scientific proof when the non-Arab Sudanese dissapear like the Annasasi nation? The oceans are rising and science verifies it's cause as atmospheric retention of hydrocarbons from all scources., and the reflective destruction of the sun away from the earth is adding another "dimming" syndrome to the event, directly from aircraft contrails alone from this last half century of expandining intercontinental air traffic., as well as combined methane from the natural process of decay,add rapid industrial deforestation and the desertification resultant from this one industry alone is already unsustainable., and add large tracts of land recently converted from forest/jungle to pasture for industrial agriculture and resultant methane, and conversion of more land in constant demand, add an expanding global population of whom two thirds have yet to arrive, but are on the move into the age of industry, (as in China opening a ford dealership, B.P.in Vietnam etc, etc.), add diminishing natural resources and science screams somethings got to give! sorry to preach at you. Have a glass of pure water while you can! We need to act together on this and even if it's a natural occuring cycle this is now and there does seem to be a way to stave it off by logical choice, or we may have no choice if it moves faster than anticipated, over.

Anna March 1, 2007 5:37 pm (Pacific time)

In response to Justin's comments: You cannot call Global Warming a scientific fact. The Earth's atmosphere is an open system and so you can't test all of the variables. What I mean is it is impossible to know the amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere for sure. We can make estimations but that is about it. Unless something can be proven with the scientific method, it cannot be called scientific fact. This doesn't mean that Global Warming isn't a possibility, but you certainly can't use scientific facts to back it up.

Justin February 19, 2007 7:39 pm (Pacific time)

Good point mirror, we all lose hindsight while chasing the mighty dollar.

the mirror; February 19, 2007 6:59 pm (Pacific time)

WHAT KIND OF CARS DO WE OWN?, the auto industry makes tens of millions of new models worldwide each year.,and for me, I only need to look in the mirror., we're driving the planet to extinction, (they got a ford dealership in Guam! and Tinian island! and my island of 14 miles in circumference has the new "mini" four wheel montrosities plowing up trails in the jungle with irrepairable results., and every time I hear some economist credit America for creating "wealth thru out the world" by producing 30% or more toxic pollutants in the process, for the world to deal with, I think they are short sighted souless bastards with no intelligence and no desire to aquire one. The destruction is at our doorsteps and panicking not required, thinking is! We got to get out of our own self-inflicted impending disaster by using our minds for the betterment of all this world, not for the god of "Wealth". thanks for letting me on.

S.LaMarche February 19, 2007 6:26 pm (Pacific time)

according to other "junk science", the major cause of global warming is petroleum and inherent pollutants. The internal comustion engine maybe our own undoing.,and Antarctica will be a source of fresh water for the planet till its gone, and year round circumnavigation from the N.W. pasasage to the North pole predicted soon!

Henry Ruark February 19, 2007 6:03 pm (Pacific time)

G-Jello: Amazing what it takes to get some people's attention, right ? Obvious proof of reference to internalization-of-reality, stated here early-on...

Henry Ruark February 19, 2007 5:52 pm (Pacific time)

Marco et al" Issue here is NOT "warming", but semi-concealed political...to which proper answer is, always, "Trust the wit, wisdom and will of the people, when honestly informed."

Henry Ruark February 19, 2007 5:32 pm (Pacific time)

"Warning on Warming" By Bill McKibben This piece appears in the March 15, 2007 issue of The New York Review of Books. McKibben is world authority on the issue. "This piece is an account of a scientific triumph -- the ongoing effort to understand and warn about climate change in a timely fashion -- and also, of course, of a political debacle -- the complete failure of our government over two decades to address the problem in any fashion whatsoever. But it ends with a paragraph about an effort now five weeks old and, so far, entirely confined to the Web. When we launched stepitup07.org in mid-January, we hoped we might be able to find a couple of hundred groups and individuals around the country who would agree to hold rallies on April 14. "That would have represented by far the largest demonstration against global warming in U.S. history. By this point, our wildest imaginings have been long since surpassed -- we're nearing 700 actions scheduled for April 14, and the sheer genius people have brought to designing some of them boggles the mind. There will be underwater demonstrations, rallies on top of mountains, and on and on. All of it makes me think of the example and the words of Rebecca Solnit on Tomdispatch.com in recent years: As far as I can tell, she's absolutely right in her confidence that people around the country and around the world can, joyfully and powerfully, rise to the challenges in front of us. People power is a lovely thing to behold!" Marco, try him for your 1st Antarctica ticket !!

Justin February 19, 2007 5:07 pm (Pacific time)

No Marko, no silence yet. Regardless of your relentless reversion to the same topics over and over, you have still proved nothing to discount the realization of global warming. Your pitiful example of hurricanes is your only crutch. I’m going to take that away now. Fact: Scientists did predict a terrible hurricane year for 2006. In 2006, the NOAA predicted a high likelihood (75% chance) of an above-normal 2006 Atlantic hurricane season and a 20% chance of a near-normal season, according to a consensus of scientists at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center (CPC), National Hurricane Center (NHC), and Hurricane Research Division (HRD). (2006 NOAA Press Release) There was a chance it could happen but it didn’t, so what? And you stated, “…the Atlantic hurricane area temperature cooled by 2 degrees.” I’d sure like to see exactly where you found this. I’m almost positive you made it up. According to the National Weather Services Climate Prediction Center, the reason for a predicted increased storm season in 2006 was due to a continuation of conditions including warmer than average sea surface temperatures or (SSTs), lower vertical wind shear, reduced sea level pressure, and other environmental factors other than warming. My two points are this. One, it is not possible to confidently predict the number or intensity of hurricanes. So your argument on the fact the worst hurricane season did not happen is fruitless in discrediting global warming. Two, there is no direct fact that hurricanes have a direct relationship to global warming in the first place. But the facts are simple. Warmer water increases the likelihood of larger storms. As Earth as a whole continues to warm, the possibility for larger storms will increase. Also, both ice caps on the Earth are melting. This will increase sea levels significantly and increase the chances for flooding and vulnerabilities to tropic storms. The consensus about hurricanes linking to global warming is only one theory and only one possible animosity to the greater problem. Global warming will have disastrous effects on land as well through global climate change and desertification. Again, you fail to see the situation in its entirety.

grenade in the jello; February 19, 2007 5:05 pm (Pacific time)

both ice caps are melting with a freshwater lake now in the center of the North Pole("they" say the first time in three hundred thousand years!) and chunks of the South Pole breaking off in pieces the size of England, Glaciers from the Himilayas to the Rockies melting at unprecedented rates with oceans rising worldwide and accompanying natural catastrophies in the news every day, anyone who says that global warming isn't a Now Occuring radical curve from the last ten thousand years ought to head on down to Crawford and wait for rain., or snow or the ongoing deserticication of the planet.This is man made from the century of industrial "progress" and the "scientists" and anyone who can see have been strongly warning of it since the late 70's, and it may be too late, but I am trying in my personel life to "wage the good fight", no auto and I take what I need only. You?

Anonymous February 19, 2007 3:55 pm (Pacific time)

Boy, I'd hate to be Marco when Chuck Norris comes to his door and delivers a roundhouse kick to his face...

Marco February 19, 2007 3:46 pm (Pacific time)

The earth's tilt also makes the southern hemisphere warmer during our winter. The global warming theory predicted devistating hurricanes in 2006. Fact = they didn't happen. Why not? Silence, as expected.

Justin February 19, 2007 3:23 pm (Pacific time)

Marco, where are your facts? I have yet to find any of your radical ideas in a professional journal or book. Where do you get that the northern hemisphere being warmer disproves global warming? Is it not fact that the suns rays are more intense in the northen hemisphere due to the axis of which the Earth is tilted? Making up your own scientific revelations is the "only argument" for someone without facts.

Bob February 19, 2007 3:13 pm (Pacific time)

Tom: Well Bob this debate is getting pretty hot. Bob: Yes Tom it is. It’s been back and forth all day. Who would you say is winning? Tom: Good question Bob, I’m gonna have to go with Justin and Henry. They are presenting their views with solid scientific evidence and sustainable facts. Tom: Yes I agree. So what is your take on this Marco character? Bob: Well he reminds me of the guy from the 40 year old virgin movie. Tom: Ya, he’s probably never been with a girl before…he probably lives at home with his mom. Bob: He probably isn’t even employed. All this might explain why he seems to have an “against the world” type of attitude. Tom: Really…he seems to have studied his science under Professor Von Dumbass from the University of People Against Rationality. He just won’t accept other people’s views, let alone acknowledge them for their validity. Bob: Right, He just wants to call names and throw around stereotypes while claiming that science is synonymous to religion. Tom: Where is this whole thing going? Bob: I don’t know, I think I’ll go back to watching “Days of our Lives…” They both laugh: HahahahAHAha…

Marco February 19, 2007 3:04 pm (Pacific time)

Justin says, "I responded with scientific fact .." Yet he hasn't responded with any facts. Where were the 2006 hurricanes. The fact is the Atlantic hurricane area temperature cooled by 2 degrees. Whatever fact you don't want to believe, you ignore and impune. Ridicule is the last argument of someone without facts.

OlympiaZ February 19, 2007 2:43 pm (Pacific time)

Whenever I hear someone say, "You know, the American people aren't stupid," I just can't help but wonder. We're no longer in the Dark Ages, though it seems like we're moving in that direction. I haven't seen, in many years, such a politically polarizing issue over something that just isn't political. Why is it that conservatives seem to attach a 'liberal' label to this problem? There's nothing liberal about it. We're already feeling the economic impact of global warming, and the only way the conservatives will finally 'get it' is when it hits them in their pocketbooks. And, believe me, it will. I can't believe that any of you really want to let your kids foot the bill for this, without doing anything about it, except blaming the 'liberal' scientists. The earth isn't flat anymore, guys. So get on board with (most) of the rest of the country and definitely the rest of the world.

Justin February 19, 2007 2:15 pm (Pacific time)

Marco, I feel just fine agreeing with science. All you have proven is nothing. At least I have contributed to this conversation by stating facts rather than backing up my comments with made-up gibberish. I don’t see where this is a religious conversation in the first place. It has nothing to do with religion. My whole point was to share with you where your views are flawed and possibly open your eyes to the real world. Scientists don’t spend their lives making up lies so they can brainwash us. Despite your accusations, I responded with scientific fact and slight ridicule to make my point and over exemplify the ridiculousness and falsity of your claims.

Henry Ruark February 19, 2007 2:05 pm (Pacific time)

So, Marcos --unless you marketing new export tickets to Antractica-- what would you have us do ? Bewail erroneous weather estimates, or add up probabilities and rationally, reasonably confer internationally to see what the hell can be done, by whom, how fast, at what cost --and who MUST take the lead ? I await patiently your simple (!) suggestion for next-step...

Sue February 19, 2007 1:45 pm (Pacific time)

So, if Al Gore and the scientists are wrong and we limit the C02 that we send in the atmosphere, where is the harm? If they are right, and we do nothing.???? Come on, it doesn't hurt to change a little. A little less oil used is a little less $$ in the hands of the greedy oil companies and people like Bin Laden.

Henry Ruark February 19, 2007 1:23 pm (Pacific time)

Marco et al: Would seem that a true scientist would question those few observations falling outside the great probabilities set up by the man. Name-calling not dependent on junk science, per examples right here, right now. Re "fundamentalist" religion, fundamental-itself is assumption. Many find themselves captive of past communications experience and personal ideation -- more persuasion via denial and other psychological quirks than any weather or even-scientific forecast. How we gonna all export selves to Antarctica ? Anyone yet tested the ice-capacity ?

Marco February 19, 2007 1:06 pm (Pacific time)

Actually, the worst hurricane to ever hit this country was the Great Labor Day storm, in 1935. But don't let facts get in the way of junk science. These posts have proven that global warming is just another religion, and you all are the judgmental fundamentalists. Unable to respond with science, the responses are full of ridicule and name calling. The doomsayers predicted 2006 to be the worst hurricane season in history and were wrong. They can't get a 10 day forecast right, must less a one year forecast. These doomsayers even tried to get the director of the National Hurricane Center fired because he disagreed with them. Justin, how does it feel to be on the wrong side of another religious inquisition?

Justin February 19, 2007 12:31 pm (Pacific time)

First of all, a prediction is just that, a prediction. What happens when temperatures onEarth rise, water warms as well. Storms grow more violently in warm water. Take Katrina for example. This was the worst hurricane ever to hit our country. Yet you continue to scoff at the predictions. Nobody saw Katrina coming. But, as the smaller category hurricane reached the warm Gulf of Mexico, the storm grew violently out of control and hit New Orleans before they had time to react. So to defend the predictions, it is scientific fact that warmer waters will produce more and larger storms and hurricanes. Thank you for writing Justin's school for the gullible and under-educated.

Marco February 19, 2007 12:06 pm (Pacific time)

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the predictions for the 2006/worst hurricane season in history didn't happen. Waiting,, waiting....

Polo@Inquirer February 19, 2007 11:34 am (Pacific time)

The real reason for warming in the northern hemisphere is simple. Due to the gravitational pull of Mars, water in the northern hemisphere is forced southward to the southern hemisphere, making the south colder. Warming in the north has nothing to due with the fact the Earth sits on an axis and concurently recieves more intense rays from the sun.

Anonymous February 19, 2007 11:25 am (Pacific time)

I don't know who we should believe? We could believe Marco from the National Inquierer. We could agree with studies conducted by multiple renowned scientists with decades of fact driven research. I'm gonna have to go with Chuck Norris to avoid being roundhouse kicked to the face.

Marco February 19, 2007 11:04 am (Pacific time)

Henry, Where are the flames? Only in the hype. An East Anglia University climate research unit found that global temperatures did not increase between 1998 – 2005 and a recent NASA satellite found that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years. Is mild global warming a Northern phenomenon? Humans can't stop global warming. The best we can do is prepare to migrate to cooler areas.

Justin February 19, 2007 11:01 am (Pacific time)

While the National Inquierer conducts warming experiments on Mars, leading Scientologist on Earth Tom Cruise states the reason for global warming is because Chuck Norris got cold, so he turned up the sun. If you don't believe it, Chuck Norris will find you and give you a roundhouse kick to the face.

Henry Ruark February 19, 2007 10:37 am (Pacific time)

Marco et al: SO ? You may be right we have only partial answer...but that UN-comforting as ground burns under foot, water gone, agriculture dead, sun blazing. Even partial-science can avoid disaster, much cheaper to pay attention than face Earth-lost --even knowing "you were right ! It's only half-in-flames !!"

Marco February 19, 2007 9:07 am (Pacific time)

Justin says science is behind global warming. The crux of science is to understand, predict and control. If the predictions are wrong (ie: worst hurricane season), then the understanding is wrong. The doomsayers are cherry picking their science, ignoring studies showing Mars is also warming, and that the inside of the earth is also warming. True science includes all the facts.

Peter Capen February 18, 2007 1:26 pm (Pacific time)

The problem with the naysayers is that their continued denial of global warming and its human related causes is of little comfort, for instance, to many Pacific islanders for whom it is not troubling concern at some future date, but a looming disaster today. The difference between those who are deeply concerned about global warm and want to address it now and those who continue in their obstinate denial of its reality and causes is that with the former we will have options still open to us; in the latter, our options for meaningfully addressing global warming will only grow narrower with each month and year we wait to make the hard choices coming our way. Continued denial is a dead end.

Justin February 18, 2007 10:51 am (Pacific time)

This is in regards to Marco's comment: GET AN EDUCATION BEFORE MAKING COMMENTS THAT MAKE YOU SOUND LIKE A FOOL! Global Warming is real and it is happening. There is SCIENTIFIC PROOF. Our denial will not help us any. We must educate people and encourage our leaders to stand up for policies that protect our earth.

Marco February 18, 2007 8:17 am (Pacific time)

The article reminds me of 2005, when these prophets of doom said 2006 would bring the worst hurricane season which would even threaten the Northeastern US. Then, the Atlantic cooled by 2 degrees, and 2006 had the fewest hurricanes in a decade. The prophets of doom couldn't explain the Atlantic temperature drop. But, they don't care about the facts. According to this article, they've hired shrinks to convince us of their junk science.

St.Murdok; February 17, 2007 10:57 pm (Pacific time)

while Gore et~ al~ whines about this insignifgant planetary loss,(there are seven or eight more for ford's sake!) GMC and Daimler and Hyundai and Radio Shack and my very own World Opinion Democratic-Capatalistic Inc. SOMA-rag, a.k.a. "shadow press.com> H.Q"., have opened assembly lines in China. Clever! why put anything back into the planet when there is so little left to exploit?, somebody's got to do it! you are all missing a great "end of season firesale" w/time/polar ice caps spinning end over end at least one revolution!,what a bunch of lightweights! Buy another SUV n' go get those pizza's for the kids! Murdok owns the pizza dough consortiated genetic farms in the outback!, and I'll bet all you 60's flower children who knew about the 'beast" didn't expect to see it so soon! welcome to hell on the way, I'll ride a bicycle and wear a darker shade of ray ban's till it's over.

chris February 17, 2007 5:29 pm (Pacific time)

This is crazy, but I agree

[Return to Top]