Okay, so this has nothing to do with business research, but as someone who has spent decades (OK, so I turned 50 last week!) studying information, and how people use and analyze information, this finding by Pew has really got me stumped. I’d love to get some comments by people who have a theory as to why this is so–here it is:
This recent Pew Study, sadly, but not surprisingly, shows that Republicans are much less inclined to view global warming as a serious problem than Democrats.
What is baffling to me, though, (other than the fact that a public safety/scientific data issue like global warming is still seen as a political issue in the U.S.), is that the survey shows that :
“…for Republicans, unlike Democrats, higher education is associated with GREATER [caps added] skepticism that human activity is causing global warming. Only 19% of Republican college graduates say that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming and it is caused by human activity,while 31% of Republicans with less education say the same.”
How to explain this? Speculations, theories?
I find this really confounding….
RSS Feeds
Dear Sad, Stumped, and Baffled: It’s not difficult. Between 1880 and 1940 the temp went up, between 1940 and 1979 it went down, between 1979 and 2006 it went up–now about where it was in 1940. Maybe call it climate cycles!!! I was at a speech last year by Mr Gore–he told the audience not to say global warming, but say climate crisis. I guess he figured it out before you. What goes up, must come down.
Comment by Mike — June 11, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Mike–Thanks for the comment, but I’m not so much baffled about the matter of climate change, which is not framed as a “debate” in other countries, but how is it that the more education a Republican has, the less likely they are to understand the role of human activity…
One possible theory: more highly educated Republicans are more likely to hold higher positions in business or politics, and are therefore more interested in holding the “right” party view of skepticism
Obviously, all this is based on the position that human induced climate change, if you really study the countless credible research and reports, is a near virtual certainty. (And the only reason we need to say “virtual” is that nothing in science–not even the statement that the Sun will rise tomorrow–can be stated with 100% probability, only probabilities)
Comment by Robert Berkman — June 11, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
Yo Robert: Not sure I’m a Repub–but I am a conservative–as in conservation.I live in Los Gatos, small house, no A/C, recycle nearly everything, work at home, and ride a bike or walk when I can–all by choice. And I’m from Texas!!! Yikes–probably too dumb to know better.
Comment by Mike — June 11, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
Robert- could it possbily be because Republicans are exposed to a MUCH WIDER breadth of information, and seek out different views because they know the general media is biased on this and so many other topics, and therefore we hear/read more points of view from ALL spectrums.
Of course, we all hear TV and papers decrying the global warming, while other sources Republicans are exposed to present another side and other stats. Dems are pretty much accepting as it reinforces their preconceived ideas, and they do not question facts, but accept the mantra.
So the Republican view represents broader thinking, insights and perspectives, not just taking what traditional media throws at us.
PS. I remember as a kid in the 50s-60s, living in a home without AC and subjected to the unbeleivably hot weather at times in the Midwest, where I could not get to sleep all night. Was that a result of global warming?
Comment by Bill — July 15, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
My skepticism is rooted in a statement I watched Al Gore say when he was doing the book tour several months ago. Something to the effect of, ~”and even if global warming isn’t caused my mankind’s CO2 emissions, we all know that this is the right thing to do for many other reasons anyway.”
Conservation of non-renewable resources is vital. Understanding mankind’s effect on the environment is vital, and we need to minimize our assault on same. A global tax on fossil fuels is a solution that makes sense, because we’re all in the world together, and it will achieve these goals. But rather than try to sell this on its merits, they’ve invented an urgent crisis. It’s hard not to look at it in this light after having watched Al Gore himself make the statement I’ve quoted above.
Comment by Dan — July 16, 2008 @ 6:09 am
Bill
While I don’t think we’ll settle the facts around global warming here in this blog(!), I have to say that by spending time in a couple other countries, one can see how the issue is not framed as a political polemic there–rather as a kind of accepted non-ideological public safety issue (eg along the lines of say, how to prevent forest fires, how to make buildings safer etc.). The reason, I think, is that there is no vested interest/intensely political counterpoint dedicated to trying desperately to “fight” the facts behind the phenomenon. There may be, and are disagreements about possible *solutions*–eg, how much market, how much government action, etc., based on one’s view of the role of government, political philosophies, and practical concerns but there is NO debate (or let’s say 99.999% none!) on the fact that it is occurring, man-made, and requires action.
Unfortunately, the U.S. is in something of an informational bubble when it comes to climate change. Almost as if we were a country publicizing the views of those who were trying for their own purposes to fight the notion that “cigarette smoking causes cancer” as we continued to make cigarettes, our people got sicker, and the rest of the world was working on prevention.
Comment by Robert Berkman — July 16, 2008 @ 7:17 am