The most interesting information in today’s Newspoll relates to public opinion on climate change.
The general trends indicated in the poll are consistent with those indicated in recent Morgan polls and Neilsen polls, both of which I have commented on here and here. However, whereas the Morgan polls suggested that the measured rise in climate change scepticism was largely a reflection of Coalition supporters responding to changing partisan cues, the Newspoll results suggest that the increase in sceptical or denialist opinion is the same amongst supporters of both parties.
The bottom line – 73 per cent believing that climate change is occurring, of which the overwhelming majority believe that humans are entirely or solely to blame – suggests that climate change denialism is still going to be a millstone around the neck of any party that runs with it in this year’s election, except for perhaps the Nationals or far right parties seeking to make inroads at the expense of the Liberals or the more conservative edges of Labor’s support. But there are some interesting discoveries to be made before we get to the bottom line.
One is that the poll suggests that only 55 per cent of Australians believe in natural climate variability. This is the percentage calculated by adding together the percentages of those who accept that climate change is happening and is either partly due or not due to human activity. Forty per cent, according to the poll, believe either that climate change is not happening at all (22 per cent) or that it is entirely due to human activity (18 per cent). Both beliefs are utterly at odds with elementary climate science and would seem to be driven by political or ideological partisanship rather than any real consideration of the science.
Following on from this, the percentages of support for what can be called “denialist” positions – i.e. either denial that climate change is happening or denial that human activity is a factor – add up to a total of about 25.6 percent, of which 22 per cent believe climate change is not happening and 3.6 per cent that it is not due to human activity.
Now what is striking about this is that the overwhelming balance of denialist and sceptic arguments, talking points and tropes generally do involve some acceptance that climate change is happening, and rely heavily on the claim that natural factors rather than human activity are driving observed climate change. Think about them all: Plimer’s arguments in Heaven and Earth, the “global cooling” trope of the past couple of years, claims that the world was warmer in the Middle Ages than at the present. claims that the sun is the driver of such climate change as we are seeing, arguments about why the “hockey stick” graph was wrong, some of the claims in the Oregon Petition. If the shifts in opinion on climate change were driven by such purported scientific evidence or attempted scientific argument, we would expect to see a significant increase in the percentage of poll respondents agreeing that climate change is happening but is not due to human activity. Instead the most notable increase – albeit from a very low minority to a quite small minority – is in the completely unscientific claim that climate change is not happening.
To end on a reassuring note, 51.1 per cent of the population continue to believe what the credible science has been telling us for two decades – that climate change is occurring and that it is partly due to human activity.
Update [by Mark]: Possum has posted derived tables of the Newspoll climate change questions by partisan affiliation, age and gender.
Paul, I think it’s the term climate change driving those figures around human activity. It has become a co-sign, I would argue, of human-induced change, because when people are talking about climate change, they are talking about the changes that mean bad news for humanity; fast changes.
When you’re talking about changes that are literally orders of magnitude higher than what they would be, sans human intervention, I think you can forgive a few no’s. If someone asked me if climate change is caused wholly by humans, I would say yes, because including some bullshit like Krakatoa or the daily small shifts now or large shifts that occurred 200 000 years ago on a geological time scale is hair-splitting to me.
It’s like asking me if I’m standing still or moving. I say I’m standing still, but technically the earth is still revolving, galaxy spinning, universe expanding etc, so I’m actually moving. But I’m not gonna say that.
I don’t see that question as a particularly valuable one, and I’m not surprised that few people are taking on the finer points of denialist messaging. As you yourself point out, objection to climate change is more politically orientated than anything else, and has ever been irrational, gut-based, sociological reaction than science in any form. Of course people aren’t objecting to it based on science; they never have.
The key questions are:
1. How many of the 51.1% who believe in AGW support climate action?
2. To what extent does this support extend to more challenging targets?
3. How much should the government be spending on climate action?
5. How much of this support depends on other countries acting at the same time?
4. To what extent to those who aren’t convinced in AGW support climate action? Keep in mind that:
a. Some skeptics will support low cost insurance “just in case”.
b. Some climate action will be justified for reasons other than emission reduction. For example, reducing oil consumption and being in a position to take advantage of the growing green business opportunities.
It is worth noting that an important part of the skeptic argument is that climate action “will destroy the economy.” Perhaps supporters of climate action should put less effort into climate science and more effort into looking for aaction that people can understand will not destroy the economy.
Politics and science don’t mix: fact.
Opinion is the primary political driver. However, for a better grasp of opinions with relation to the complex subject that climate change is, I think that you would have to perform a kind of national aptitude study. I would expect there to be a significant correlation between peoples aptitude/perception and the degree of connection/interest/belief with climate matters.
“To end on a reassuring note, 51.1 per cent of the population continue to believe what the credible science has been telling us for two decades – that climate change is occurring and that it is partly due to human activity.”
That’s a relief. I was hoping this country was getting as “dumbed down” as the Americans.
“Most Americans believe that angels and demons are active in the world, and nearly 80 percent think miracles occur, according to a poll released yesterday that takes an in-depth look at Americans’ religious beliefs.”
(Most Americans Believe in Higher Power, Poll Finds, By Jacqueline L. Salmon, Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 24, 2008)
The Age of EnLIGHTenment did happen right? Or was it just a dream?
I imagine if we get Local School Boards under Abbott teaching ‘Intelligent Design’ the “Climate Change is Crap” topic will get heaps of funding.
Altho…perhaps he’ll flip-flop again once leader…in the name of nuclear power being rolled out like a Dalek storm?
N’
N’
Make that “isn’t getting as “dumbed down”…”.
Phew.
N’
The Piping Shrike has an interesting observation on the rise of climate change scepticism in his blog today here.
Hmmm … if one were to claim that all climate change that has ever happened was due to human activity, you’d be right. Ultimately though, while the decadal data remains “noisy” in part due to factors that aren’t clearly attributable to human activity, and one can only with strong caveats draw causal connections between regional climate and human activity the global climate change (mainly observable in rises in the 30-year average, extended summers, milder winters, changes in diurnal temperature spreads) we have seen since the late 1970s is directly or indirectly due to human activity. It will probably prove to be the case that at least some regional climate impacts such as drought, anomalous rain patterns, localised heatwaves and other extreme weather events are alos attributable one way or another to human activity whether that is from emissions or other terraforming activity.
.
I disagree with you there Paul. I think only the former is at odds with elementary climate science. If you believe that climate variation exists, but that at the moment the climate would naturally be at an equilibrium, or would be moving against the direction of anthropogenic effects, then it is fair to say that current climate change is entirely due to human activity.
Given the current cooling phase of the sun its not unreasonable to think that the Earth would be cooling slightly without our efforts, in which case the current warming can be said to be entirely due to human activity.
Agree with patrickg@1, Fran@8 and feral@9 – I would have also answered yes to the question that are we entirely responsible.
The alternate answers, “No, but..” or “Not really” I would expect, as a cynic, to be misrepresented in a poll.
And yes there are many natural effects on climate other than us, but at the moment, we’re doing all the warming – the Milankovitch cycles making us slightly cooler if anything and the sun also slightly cooling – it seems as if the only warming possible is our CO2, our particulates, our crap. By every measurements possible we’re warming, thus it could be something else? – or it could just be all us – there seems to be no other candidates.
And I would never say ‘no, but’ to a tele-worker, the poor bugger isn’t getting paid to hear me dribble on, so I would give the person an answer, and it’s not that far off anyway.
Update [by Mark]: Possum has posted derived tables of the Newspoll questions by partisan affiliation, age and gender.