Researchers have found that between 2002 and 2010 the images and emotions that the American public associates with global warming shifted significantly.
Four consecutive nationwide surveys found both increasing skepticism and growing alarm among respondents. The researchers assessed Americans’ “cognitive risk representations” including the words, thoughts, and images, and the positive or negative feelings the public associates with global warming. The study also measured the underlying values of egalitarianism and individualism, as well as a variety of political, social and demographic characteristics.
Drs. Nicholas Smith and Anthony Leiserowitz of the Yale University School of Forestry & Environmental Studies conducted the study, “The Rise of Global Warming Skepticism: Exploring Affective Image Associations in the United States Over Time,” with funding from the 11th Hour Project, the Pacific Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, the Jesse and Betsy Fink Foundation, and the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. The article appears in the June 2012 issue of the journal Risk Analysis, published by the Society for Risk Analysis.
The researchers identified several significant shifts in the associations Americans have with the phrase “global warming” over time. Most notably, they found an increase in the proportion of “naysayer” images, such as “hoax.” In 2002, the proportion of naysayer images was less than 10 percent, but rose to over 20 percent of total responses in 2010. In 2002, 20 percent of Americans associated global warming with melting ice, the most salient category, but in 2010 this accounted for just over 10 percent of associations. Meanwhile, “alarmist” images of disaster (e.g., “end of everything”) increased from 2002 to 2008, then decreased slightly in 2010.
Four nationally representative surveys formed the basis of the study and were completed in 2003, 2007, 2008, and 2010. Using a form of free association, respondents were asked to provide the first thought or image that came to mind when they heard the term “global warming” (e.g., “polar bears”) and an affective rating (e.g., +3 = a very good thing and -3 = a very bad thing). The associations were then analyzed to identify the nine most common themes: ice melt, heat, nature, ozone, alarmist, flood/sea level, climate change, weather and naysayers.
The authors also found that many Americans perceive climate change as distant and abstract and “outside of most people’s direct experience.” The authors conclude that analyzing affective imagery “provides a powerful tool to measure, track, and explain shifting public perceptions of risk over time.”
Takeaways: 1 – We’ve been fed a steady diet of apocalypse. 2 – We have a wide variety of apocalyptic sources to choose from so we don’t get too excited about the specifics – just the general idea. 3 – It would be wrong tocome off looking like we approve of apocalypse. 4 – There’s enough doubt to CAGW to not have to look like we approve of apocalypse.
And I would like to go on the record by stating that apocalypse is a very bad thing and should be avoided once we determine that it’s coming and from where.