Increased Knowledge about Global Warming Leads to Apathy? (U.S. Case Study)

[Karl]

(Read Full Article: Increased Knowledge About Global Warming Leads To Apathy, Study Shows)

The more you know the less you care - at least that seems to be the case with global warming. A telephone survey of 1,093 Americans by two Texas A&M University political scientists and a former colleague indicates that trend, as explained in their recent article in the peer-reviewed journal Risk Analysis.

The study, entitled "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the USA", indicated that more informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. The study showed high levels of confidence in scientists among Americans that led to a decreased sense of responsibility for global warming. The diminished concern and sense of responsibility flies in the face of awareness campaigns about climate change, such as in the movies “An Inconvenient Truth” and “Ice Age: The Meltdown” and in the mainstream media's escalating emphasis on the trend.

The researchers admit that the findings were a “bit unexpected”. The focus of the study, was not to measure how informed or how uninformed Americans are about global warming, but to understand why some individuals who are more or less informed about it showed more or less concern. Now, for better or worse, scientists have to deal with the public's abundant confidence in them. “But it cannot be comforting to the researchers in the scientific community that the more trust people have in them as scientists, the less concerned they are about their findings” the researchers conclude in their study.

[cbacba]

It represents a serious problem but it's a problem totally related to other factors - both cause and consequences. It's a look to authority mentality. It's rather Eloi-esque. It's most curious that the researchers found it curious.
You'd think the researchers would have started out with a better understanding to begin with. Perhaps too, there is some inherent BS detector at work concerning the specific topic but I'm afraid that's too optimistic.

[cbacba]

I suppose in the microcosm that the study could be somewhat true. I know I am extremely knowledgeable about the basics of GW and that I would be probably considered far more apathetic than the mainstream. But in my particular case, it's because I understand it far better than those researchers who used it as a basis for their project in apathy vs concern. IMHO, the apathy comes naturally as one begins to understand the nature of the overall problem.

Actually too, apathy probably isn't the right word. It should probably be more like concern over the gross stupidity involved in the promotion of the effort and the incredible ignorance arrogance involved in it.

[Karl]

If you follow the link: (Increased Knowledge About Global Warming Leads To Apathy, Study Shows)

Quote:
“The research was conducted by Paul M. Kellstedt, a political science associate professor at Texas A&M; Arnold Vedlitz, Bob Bullock Chair in Government and Public Policy at Texas A&M's George Bush School of Government and Public Service; and Sammy Zahran, formerly of Texas A&M and now an assistant professor of sociology at Colorado State University.”

The survey was actually research in “political science”, so the underlying motivations of the report are uncertain. However, without access to the actual data, or more to the point, specific breakdowns by percentage (and other classifications), it is difficult to determine how reliable this “telephone survey” was, or even who or what the opinions represented. There is reference to the “more informed” respondents being more apathetic, but there is no information on how that could be properly determined from a telephone survey of ~1000 people. Also, there is no mention of exactly how the “apathy” was equated to having “confidence in scientists”.

But overall, there is probably some validity to the general findings, and this type of attitude is by no means restricted only to the U.S.

[sparky]

Perhaps more needs to be done to provide solutions for people? I guess if all you're ever told is that you have to stop doing this and that the world is in big trouble you're bound to feel despondant. If solutions are offered then I'm sure people would be happier to do things, especially if they're marketed as money saving as well.

[Richard]

That's just it though, the more you learn about climate change the more you realise that the "the world is in big trouble" scenarios are often exaggerated, usually representing the extreme predictions of whatever climate model is being talked about. I think it's this that helps make people apathetic, the feeling of being lied to about how bad things are likely to get. The majority of the research, if you read it and locate the bits about "probable" impact, are usually nowhere near as bad as that reported in the mainstream media.

[forfismum]

This ABC News poll shows that global warming scores zilch.................consistantly

Picture+9.png (image)

[Karl]

Originally Posted by forfismum

This ABC News poll shows that global warming scores zilch.................consistantly

Picture+9.png (image)

The general issue of “environment” does not appear to be ranking much higher than “global warming”. What is very interesting is that some other issues closely related to environment, such as “health care” is only half as important as it was 6 months earlier, and “energy” is not even listed.

However, this survey does not necessarily demonstrate a total lack of concern for issues related to “environment” or “global warming” – it suggests that regardless of concern (or lack thereof), environmental issues are not seen as particularly important in deciding choice of presidential candidate. That may have many different causes. It could be part actual unconcern, part apathy, but it could also be part cynicism towards the political messages or the actual changes that any of them would be willing to make. The survey was on the “single most important issue” in choosing a president, so it is possible that at least some of the respondents (regardless of their personal opinion) see no point in selecting environmental concerns as an issue (= apathy?).

[Karl]

Regardless of these political “realities”, there is still a flood of information (from other “researchers”) over the past few years that appears to suggest something quite different from the "presidential choice" survey results, in terms of both global warming and general environment issues:

2008: (Despite Awareness Of Global Warming Americans Concerned More About Local Environment)
2007: (Americans Consider Global Warming An Urgent Threat, According To Poll)
2006: (Climate Change Tops Americans' Environmental Concerns)

[forfismum]

I have been envolved in matters pertaining to the "environment" since I first signed up with the OU in 1972 [? memory chip fading] Looking back I think that apathy set in about 12 maybe 14 years ago and what had been a gentle and gradual acceptance by one and all that we were polluting ourselves towards chaos suddenly turned sour.I blame environmental extremists.