Belief In Climate Change Hinges On Worldview

[Kernos]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =124008307

It is so difficult to be objective.

[DJ Droood]

yea, very true...I noticed this awhile back..."climate change" is part of a package of opinions, and they can usually be grouped, and somehow associated...for instance, support for the various wars in the Middle East, anti-gun control, anti-abortion, small government/no taxes (although I don't see how that works with Big War, but I digress), creationism, anti-gay marriage, anti-environmentalism, and pro-bad country music seem to be nuances of the same ideological stance, not seperate issues. They are like pillars on which a worldview rests, as if you kick one over, the whole deal might collapse.

[Merlyn]

FIRST: before anyone misreads my post here YES GLOBAL WARMING IS A DANGER.
This post is by a person who spent 15 years fighting pollution on the front lines of the automobile market as an emissions compliance officer..

I can agree with the article to a point, then I have to point out what is left unsaid (as usual)
Here is why.
Politicians are involved, and have tried to say they care;
Where is the problem?
We the people have been protesting pollution for 40 years. We have been taxed in the name of cap and trade for 20 years. We have been out-sourced and lost our jobs to help clean the air, but find out the pollution just gets worse and we get ripped off. We find out our jobs are being done in sweatshops, as slave labor and worse! And the pollution is not only worse, the shipping of goods makes an entire new industry out of polluting the ocean, air and land.

Here is the real truth;
The public is very skeptical. And we have every good reason to be.

I do not believe this article. Because I find most people agree that the entire earth is being ruined by pollution, and everyone believes that global warming is real in one way or another.
What people do not believe is governments which have for decades used us, lied to us and betrayed us to such an extent we can no longer afford our homes. We can no longer feed our families. We have been forced off our farms, and we have been cheated out of our money we paid for decades to get this problem fixed! We have had our retirement stolen, we have seen our savings devalued, we have lost our very homes! and they ask us to trust them!

Now they want us all to believe them. They want to tax us even more and we have no jobs, no money and they spend trillions to ensure government jobs only OUT OF OUR POCKETS.
That is a tall order, it is NOT the fault of the general public.

Put the blame where it belongs I say.
Before this global warming issue will get off the ground the governments of all countries have some crow to eat.
If they take responsibility, they will stop keeping us from our jobs, stop out-sourcing and stop killing every eco-friendly way to clean our earth.
They will stop using right vs left as excuse to do nothing, they will stop making simple solutions impossible for our capitalist system to put into place and get this global warming under control, and they will stop funding large oil, nuclear and gas that literally strangles every effort we have all made to abate global suicide.

If they do this, they will find we believe them again.
until they do this and until they free up our economy which is poised, experienced, ready and willing to attack pollution from every source, nothing will get done.

Ask anyone.
This is my opinion, but I bet you will find it is the root cause of distrust in global warming.
Why is this very real problem omitted from every single thing?
Because it is the real problem with climate-gate, the trust is long gone from every angle and now they cry wolf!

Merlyn

[Dendrias]

Hey. First, thank You.

Alas, I think I can't fully understand what is said (perhaps because my belief is threatened and I'm closed-minded because of that).

The grouping and labelling of the people seems to be described very roughly.

"These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe some of the potential benefits and harms," Braman says.
The individualists tended to like nanotechnology. The communitarians generally viewed it as dangerous. Both groups made their decisions based on the same information.
"It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.

It seems, that negative and positive sides of nanotechnology was shown to the two groups equally. Did these people really simply "reject" the information contrary to their belief, or isn't it quite natural, that you judge/value "benefits and harms" differently? A colleague of mine wouldn't want to travel by airplane, because "it might crash". I know that "it might crash", but I wouldn't bother. (that doesn't mean that I travel by airplane a lot!) Another colleague has been witness to a carcrash ... and doesn't want to drive since then. I wouldn't bother that much. (Same as above!) It might be the same with bananas or Worchester Sauce.
Do they all really just reject information, or don't they naturally value differently? Or is it the same?

"Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values,"

What is meant? Could nanotechnology threaten your view on e.g. authority? Why does it say "close-minded" here? Are people "close-minded" as soon as they see harms in a thing? If I reject rifle-carrying pupil-patrols, am I close-minded?

"If the implication, the outcome, can affirm your values, you think about it in a much more open-minded way," he says.

Same as above.

Is there a basic misunderstanding on my side?

[Hennie]

The writer of the article seems to have the stance :"Nothing is known for sure, so anything is possible; and depending on their worldviews individuals make a choice what to believe of what will happen"; but there is the itch : there are lot of things that are actually happening. Some people see this, and regret what is happening : the communiards (?); and other people see this too, panic and deny it: the individuals (who also happen to have a lot in common as D.J. pointed out). Bottom line : we shall all go together when we go; and we will.

[Merlyn]

"If the implication, the outcome, can affirm your values, you think about it in a much more open-minded way," he says.

We don't trust government, and we have found we cannot trust the messenger... the media.
We watch as on one hand the governments fight wars over oil, and on the other hand wants to tax us for it.

Yet, thousands of solutions have been strangled and stopped that could easily solve the problems.

The public is understandably skeptical. The scientist is left most likely feeling helpless.

How do we bridge the gap?

Merlyn

[Kernos]

Well, this is an article by a journalist. It includes the concept of "cultural cognition" which is new to me.. I would have to explore their literature to understand how they are defining things and designing studies to understand this in more depth.

A starting point would be to explore The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School.

The Cultural Cognition Project is a group of scholars interested in studying how cultural values shape public risk perceptions and related policy beliefs. Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control makes society more safe or less) to values that define their cultural identities. Project members are using the methods of various disciplines -- including social psychology, anthropology, communications, and political science -- to chart the impact of this phenomenon and to identify the mechanisms through which it operates. The Project also has an explicit normative objective: to identify processes of democratic decisionmaking by which society can resolve culturally grounded differences in belief in a manner that is both congenial to persons of diverse cultural outlooks and consistent with sound public policymaking.

See also their publications: http://www.culturalcognition.net/papers-topical/

[Merlyn]

Thanks Kernos, I'll read them both, after work (yes I work all day & night)
I'll post the "new world order" in the climate gate thread.
I point to this because it hinges on this thread.

How people react to anything is personal, as this thread suggests. It is a gut reaction most often.
And if people feel that they will lose control, perhaps they react in a predictable way.

[DJ Droood]

I think conservatives get a bad rap....they aren't "mean" at all...I think they are really big ol' emotional softies.....they aren't so much anti-environment as nostalgic for a time when they cruised the open roads with dad in that big Buick, going to Santa's Village in Vermont...not pro-war, just that the national anthem and John Wayne movies make them choke up....not anti-gay, but just like a simpler time when homosexuals were flamboyant showman who entertained us, like Liberace and Paul Lynde.

Liberals are the hard-nosed, humouless ones who have smaller hearts, but reason things out...they know that they will have to raise taxes to support infrastructure that keeps us from collapsing into choas....screw the romantic cars...pack everyone into public transport....rather than attack foreign countries, selfishly turn them into tourist destinations.....

I think conservatives should give liberals a big hug...they need it. and vise versa.

[Merlyn]

That wing thing didn't seem to matter, Bush like Obama both walked away from the global climate summit.
From fuzzy math to not in the budget, the thinking was the same.

Trouble with the UN is the money just seems to disappear, no records or accounting can find it. (kina' liberal spendin')
Before a new world order can be "hugged" we all have some words like "accountability to all" that need sayin'

This and the track record of the high and mighty do seem to make it hard to push the apocalypse as real.
We all know pollutin' is just wrong.
But no matter what the governments say now, we won't believe 'em. Sad state of affairs it is.

A critical cog in the machinery that drives the theory of global warming is a small white box not too far from where you live. Inside the box sits a thermometer that tracks the local temperature, which in turn becomes part of a data trail for the monitoring of climate change on Earth.

But there's a problem: Nearly every single weather station the U.S. government uses to measure the country's surface temperature may be compromised. Sensors that are supposed to be in empty clearings are instead exposed to crackling electronics and other unlikely sources of heat, from exhaust pipes and trash-burning barrels to chimneys and human graves.

The National Climate Data Center (NCDC) uses this massive network of sensors to determine daily highs and lows at the 1,219 weather stations in its Historical Climatology Network (HCN). The network has existed since 1892, but only in the last decade has it come under intense scrutiny to determine whether the figures it measures can be trusted.

For the past three years, a group of zealous laymen has visited and photographed nearly every one of the weather stations to determine whether they have been placed properly. And what they found is a stunning disregard for the government's own rules: 90 percent of the sensors are too close to potential sources of heat to pass muster, including some very odd sources indeed:

• A sensor in Redding, Calif., is housed in a box that also contains a halogen light bulb, which could emit warmth directly onto the gauge.

• A sensor in Hanksville, Utah, sits directly atop a gravestone, which is not only macabre but also soaks up the sun's heat and radiates it back to the thermometer at night.

• A sensor in Marysville, Calif., sits in a parking lot at a fire station right next to an air conditioner exhaust, a cell phone tower and a barbecue grill.

• A sensor in Tahoe City, Calif., sits near a paved tennis court and is right next to a "burn barrel" that incinerates garbage.

• A sensor in Hopkinsville, Ky., is sheltered from the wind by an adjoining house and sits above an asphalt driveway.

• Dozens of sensors are located at airports and sewage treatment plants, which produce "heat islands" from their sprawling seas of asphalt and heavy emissions.

"So far we've surveyed 1,062 of them," said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who began the tracking effort in 2007. "We found that 90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."

Watts, who has posted pictures of the sensors on his Web site, SurfaceStations.org, says he believes that the location of the sensors renders their recorded temperatures inaccurate, which in turn brings some of the data behind global warming theory into question.

"It's asinine to think that this wouldn't have some kind of an effect," Watts told FoxNews.com.

But climate scientists who analyze the data say that they are able to account and adjust for the faulty locations by comparing warming trends they spot at bad sites to trends they see at good ones.

"If you use only the sites that currently have good siting versus those that have not-so-good siting, when you look at the adjusted data basically you get the same trend," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch at NCDC.

Lawrimore admitted that Watts' volunteers had discovered real problems with sensor siting, but he said that even when those sites' heat readings were adjusted down, they still showed a steady overall rise in temperatures.

"The ultimate conclusion, the bottom line is that there really isn't evidence that the trends have a bias based on the current siting," he said.

And surface station data is only a small subset of information confirming the warming of the climate, Lawrimore said.

Changes in air temperature, water temperature, glacier melt, plant flowering, tree growth and species migration, among many others, show the same worldwide trend -- a 0.7 degree Celsius jump (1.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in the past century.

"There's a certain amount of uncertainty in the calculation of trends, but not to the extent that we don't know the climate is warming," he said.

Watts readily agrees that temperatures are on the rise worldwide, but he believes the magnitude of the increase is in question, and he says his research puts the 1.2-degree global figure in doubt.

But a team of three climatologists has completed a study of Watts' data on HCN siting and found the warming trend to be confirmed.

In fact, the three NCDC scientists, Matthew Menne, Claude Williams and Michael Palecki, say they found that instrument updates in the 1980s have created a cooling bias, and that adjusted and cleaned up data from even the bad sites is "extremely well aligned" with measurements from instruments that meet the "highest standards for climate monitoring."

"We find no evidence that the [contiguous U.S.] temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting," reads the study, which is set to be published in a forthcoming volume of the "Journal of Geophysics Research -- Atmospheres."

"It's all objective analysis based on statistics," said Matthew Menne, the lead author of the study.

But Menne's study was conducted using information on only 43 percent of the weather stations. Watts, who has now compiled information on 80 percent of the stations and cleaned up his old information, contends that a more complete data set would furnish different results, and he plans to conduct a study of his own under the aegis of Roger Pielke Sr., a research scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

A better test of the network's data is on the horizon. In the past eight years, the NOAA has established a hi-tech system that sends information via satellite and abides by all of its own rules for siting. Each sensor is ideally placed in open areas far from other structures, a fact that pleases both government scientists and longstanding critics like Watts.

"I'm convinced that the new system, the Climate Reference Network, will provide a reasonably accurate set of readings," Watts said.

But data has only begun to be collected from CRN, a regional network of just 114 climate sensors that went fully online in 2008. It will take at least a decade, and as many as 30 years, until the information it collects becomes statistically significant.

In the meantime, and for many years past, the challenged data from NCDC has been providing information for a number of top climate research centers, including the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the Hadley Climate Research Unit, headed until recently by Phil Jones, who resigned in the wake of the climate-gate scandal.

With mounting pressure on climate research facilities, scientists at the NCDC hope that their data won't be discounted because of the troubling images Watts has compiled.

"These photos show a current snapshot of these stations," said Menne. "We wouldn't want to dismiss 100 years of climate records based on a photograph from the year 2009."

Merly'

[Corwen]

Several studies and meta-studies have shown that people who are more anxious and less tolerant of complexity and ambiguity tend to be more right wing than less anxious people.

http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf

This makes the right wing's constant fear mongering over terrorism, law and order and social and moral issues a little more comprehensible, by making us more anxious they hope to make us more conservative.

[Merlyn]

We could make a case for right wing vs left in age more accurately.
The "Live and let die" types will tend to lean right.

I do not see this in the real day to day people. I do see it greatly exaggerated in the media however.
Having worked directly with the Department of Environmental Quality as an emissions compliance officer, the disappointment for me was extreme. This of course puts my own personal view very jaded to what is being done, or more accurately, not done.

I see you all pick up on my experience as way to label me as "right wing", but that is simply because you do not understand, and I get that.
It is most difficult to be really concerned and care, and be in the system of government discussed ad nauseum here.

When I went to the large hall meetings of the DEQ and stood up, speaking directly to the issues of global suicide, I was most often the only one in a crowd of several hundred.
Though it might seem that to be brave enough to actually step into the "system" as a part of it, might imply I do not see global warming as an issue, truth is I saw this decades ago.
Now I am just very skeptical of the things I see, as I have seen them all before.

What hope everyone is holding by belief that governments will somehow intervene should be very skeptically looked at. I know this system, and I know the games they play, and as you see and watch the political divide become ever more polarized, to the extent of calling each other "Hitler" and such, be aware this is their game.

We who might be democrat or republican, suffer the fall out of the extremists, though may well be on the same side. We all see the pollution issue as very critical, if you ask people directly. This illusion of separation is only the media grand standing and fear mongering. No one you speak to will say they do not believe pollution is killing the earth.
Remember why you have been dis-informed by the government, this is their way to divide and conquer.
Right? left?

Neither, sorry 'bout that. Keep your labels to yourself.
Merlyn

[DJ Droood]

Keep your labels to yourself.

You are right Merlyn...the left/right label is just a way to describe a person's political rhetoric..it doesn't have much to do with the quality of their character. we have all met loving and generous "conservatives" and mean little dillwad lefties.

[Merlyn]

Drui are more often wiser than to be member to any political party.
I don't trust the government... Does that make me "left"?
I don't trust dis-information made by the far left... does that make me "right"?

I don't trust either party, does that make me "centralist"?
I don't trust them either...
Nope.
It makes me druid.
Simply put, then answer is in the trees

Merlyn

[Merlyn]

http://spoken-gems.com/2009/10/12/al-go ... te-crisis/

Now, after some time, we might see a more pointed approach in how to change the world view on climate change, pollution, the economy of green energy.
This Video is a year old, but illustrates how Al Gore has changed his view. Not so much on climate change, but the way it must happen.
Taking on his own part was a first step for him. He went geothermal, solar, and in doing this and more his view is more real now.

The world view is skeptical, and rightly so. So much so that it will need a more comprehensive presentation of how everyone will be affected.
The tax on carbon fuels he mentions is one of the failing points of this new change in how it affects belief as I have brought up several times.
People get a gut feeling that this will be the only effort, just to collect tax, and then steal it away for pet projects, other goals and so forth.

I see the world view as changeable if, the governments simply get out of the way of the solutions, and allow them to happen.
One point Al Gore also makes is a simply better way than tax. Stop the wars, and put that kind of energy into green progress. This however may well cause competition in other ways. The carbon tax is about the only thing in this presentation I think could be figured out better. One example of how, is to give tax breaks, support and a government hand in enabling loans for green energy changes to business, homes, people, transportation and development of green technology. This would be a right first step rather than backwards thinking of carbon tax. Why is this important? Simply to get the confidence going to see government positively making change rather then negative reinforcement which has historically failed us and caused the lack of trust. Over-all our needs to change the minds of the world in urgency, requires a very different "governing" mindset.

Rather than, as example, cherry picking as we have just seen our president Obama do, and give help to a select few.
There needs to be a very wide open aggressive peace initiative, one which broadly changes our goals.
Not just in our country, but to every country America and Europe is involved in. The 'trust' must be there, and without partisan bickering.

Anyone who has ever worked directly with people, in a job, as a manager or in any other capacity will agree, that the attitude begins from the top down.
If a leader walks in with poor or frustrated views, the day most likely will be poor as a result. If he walks in with ambitious and optimistic confidence, the day will be amazing.

And of each of us.
I cannot tell you how many employees have stood and given me a list of "all the things they will not do" and I compare this to the rare few who would rather give me an unlimited "I will work to learn what I need to know" attitude.

And perhaps Al Gore has been working to learn, and that climate change is a much bigger world, has a lot more involved, and could then be one who will admit he can.

And I hope for all of our sakes we make a list of what we can do, and not what we won't do.

If we do, the world view will change. I am confident of it.
And in doing so, reasons for war, in a large amount will end.
That I think would change the world view in leadership and we in America should take this on both democratic levels, personally and in our leaderships.
To this point Al Gore is spot on.

Merlyn

[Aelfarh]

FIRST: before anyone misreads my post here YES GLOBAL WARMING IS A DANGER.
This post is by a person who spent 15 years fighting pollution on the front lines of the automobile market as an emissions compliance officer..

I can agree with the article to a point, then I have to point out what is left unsaid (as usual)
Here is why.
Politicians are involved, and have tried to say they care;
Where is the problem?
We the people have been protesting pollution for 40 years. We have been taxed in the name of cap and trade for 20 years. We have been out-sourced and lost our jobs to help clean the air, but find out the pollution just gets worse and we get ripped off. We find out our jobs are being done in sweatshops, as slave labor and worse! And the pollution is not only worse, the shipping of goods makes an entire new industry out of polluting the ocean, air and land.

Here is the real truth;
The public is very skeptical. And we have every good reason to be.

I do not believe this article. Because I find most people agree that the entire earth is being ruined by pollution, and everyone believes that global warming is real in one way or another.
What people do not believe is governments which have for decades used us, lied to us and betrayed us to such an extent we can no longer afford our homes. We can no longer feed our families. We have been forced off our farms, and we have been cheated out of our money we paid for decades to get this problem fixed! We have had our retirement stolen, we have seen our savings devalued, we have lost our very homes! and they ask us to trust them!

Now they want us all to believe them. They want to tax us even more and we have no jobs, no money and they spend trillions to ensure government jobs only OUT OF OUR POCKETS.
That is a tall order, it is NOT the fault of the general public.

Put the blame where it belongs I say.
Before this global warming issue will get off the ground the governments of all countries have some crow to eat.
If they take responsibility, they will stop keeping us from our jobs, stop out-sourcing and stop killing every eco-friendly way to clean our earth.
They will stop using right vs left as excuse to do nothing, they will stop making simple solutions impossible for our capitalist system to put into place and get this global warming under control, and they will stop funding large oil, nuclear and gas that literally strangles every effort we have all made to abate global suicide.

If they do this, they will find we believe them again.
until they do this and until they free up our economy which is poised, experienced, ready and willing to attack pollution from every source, nothing will get done.

Ask anyone.
This is my opinion, but I bet you will find it is the root cause of distrust in global warming.
Why is this very real problem omitted from every single thing?
Because it is the real problem with climate-gate, the trust is long gone from every angle and now they cry wolf!

Merlyn

I just want to say that this is one of your few post on which I agree with each single word... Is not something that happens everyday, so I want to celebrate it

[Merlyn]

Thanks Aelfarh,
Considering it was more a rant, I know from your posts that you see what goes on and how we are diverted from getting our jobs done. I gave up, sadly.
It seemed a great idea to be an emissions compliance officer. What better way to help keep the environment clean. However my eyes were opened and I learned my part would only be used to pinpoint the burden on those who could least afford to deal with it. I stood up during the meetings of the department of environmental quality and asked the hard questions. The answers were always frustrating.

How can they expect a person to believe cap and trade, or anything, when they pay thousands to keep their own car running in compliance and then choke on the black soot spewing from trucks as soon as they drive away from the shop? During the time I worked as a mechanic, it was in an area I could see the yellow haze of sulphur, and my sinuses burned from it all day, every day. Thousands of diesel trucks going through Virginia, to and from the fuel yards, industrial complexes, storage lots and business. They pumped black smoke, yet the average automobile driver was required to buy and maintain complex emission systems in their car and pass inspections every year.

Of the many issues I have addressed in the last month or so here, this is but only one.
Before the governments can expect people to believe them, they will have decades of abuse to explain.
We paid the money, millions and millions, through tax, and the only ones who have been made to comply are the tax payers.

It could be global warming, or any number of other issues caused by pollution. We all see it, know it is happening, that we believe.
But believing government is ever going to put it's big boy pants on and do the job they have already been paid to do is in fact an entirely different matter.

And to this end, the good work by those who like myself and you, and scientists, is being abated, disbelief, and suspicious skeptical views are only to be expected.
Also the governing methods of grant systems, government run investment groups or political action groups will not be trusted.

Now I work on a different level, one I can control.
This however is no easy task.

Merlyn

[Kernos]

The public is understandably skeptical. The scientist is left most likely feeling helpless.

How do we bridge the gap?

Merlyn

I dont think scientists feel helpless, they feel the 'public' are the ignorant masses, especially concerning science. The gap is of course education, which in the US is much less important than who can hit a ball of some sort the farthest.

we have all met loving and generous "conservatives" and mean little dillwad lefties.

And, vice versa.

I do not believe this article.

I dont consider it a matter of belief, faith or any of that BS. The data stands on its own. If I do this with these people this is what happened.(period) You may disagree with their conclusions or point out flaws in their experiment design, etc. But to say, "I do not believe this article." only demonstrates ignorance or an attempt at political manipulation.

Because I find most people agree that the entire earth is being ruined by pollution, and everyone believes that global warming is real in one way or another.

What do you mean by 'most'? In the US a significant number of people do not 'believe' in anthropogenic global warming. Since the snow storms of this winter, this number has increased. And I would postulate that 'most' of the people in the US are not willing to make the life style changes necessary to halt and reverse the greenhouse effect (if it is not too late). Thus the politicians act as they do so they can get reëlected.

This is my opinion, but I bet you will find it [mistrust in government] is the root cause of distrust in global warming.

I agree that is a cause. But I also think one's world-view is also important. Some distrust all authority (politics, science, religion, scholarship), some depend on authority to feel secure. And the masses are too lazy or lack the tools necessary to have an informed opinion on an issue.

But, then, this is human nature. We have to deal with it.

[Kernos]

The public is understandably skeptical. The scientist is left most likely feeling helpless.

How do we bridge the gap?

Merlyn

I dont think scientists feel helpless, they feel the 'public' are the ignorant masses, especially concerning science. The gap is of course education, which in the US is much less important than who can hit a ball of some sort the farthest.

we have all met loving and generous "conservatives" and mean little dillwad lefties.

And, vice versa.

I do not believe this article.

I dont consider it a matter of belief, faith or any of that BS. The data stands on its own. If I do this with these people this is what happened.(period) You may disagree with their conclusions or point out flaws in their experiment design, etc. But to say, "I do not believe this article." only demonstrates ignorance or an attempt at political manipulation.

Because I find most people agree that the entire earth is being ruined by pollution, and everyone believes that global warming is real in one way or another.

What do you mean by 'most'? In the US a significant number of people do not 'believe' in anthropogenic global warming. Since the snow storms of this winter, this number has increased. And I would postulate that 'most' of the people in the US are not willing to make the life style changes necessary to halt and reverse the greenhouse effect (if it is not too late). Thus the politicians act as they do so they can get reëlected.

This is my opinion, but I bet you will find it [mistrust in government] is the root cause of distrust in global warming.

I agree that is a cause. But I also think one's world-view is also important. Some distrust all authority (politics, science, religion, scholarship), some depend on authority to feel secure. And the masses are too lazy or lack the tools necessary to have an informed opinion on an issue.

But, then, this is human nature. We have to deal with it.

[Aylyn]

What do you mean by 'most'? In the US a significant number of people do not 'believe' in anthropogenic global warming. Since the snow storms of this winter, this number has increased. And I would postulate that 'most' of the people in the US are not willing to make the life style changes necessary to halt and reverse the greenhouse effect (if it is not too late). Thus the politicians act as they do so they can get reëlected.

Funny, it was the snowstorms this winter that made my mom believe in climate change . And pointing out that it was a hard, but not unusual winter did nothing to dispel the notion. But I guess this is the crux of the matter: We hear all about global warming, and then we end up with a freezing cold winter. Small wonder that people feel it is not real. Getting all the data and interpreting them is hard even for someone who is interested in the matter, as there are so many contradictory statements, and the scandals do not help. For the general population, it is next to impossible to do. What they see is an increase in costs: For gas, for petrol, to insulate your house, for greener energy. In an already strained economic climate, it gets to the point where any notion of climate change gets rejected, just to keep the status quo. And as Kernos says so nicely: Politicians will do what the majority of people wants, so they get re-elected. Unpopular measures, even if they are justified, will see them leave the office at the end of term, unless it can be demosntrated that it was for the greater good. Which will be next to impossible with climate change, as the next 4-8 years will probably not change so drastically as to justify a political decision either way.

As such, I can see the value in this study. People always judge and interpret facts by what they know and believe in. Just looking at the Y2K panic should have shown that: There was an apocalyptic premontion that caused widespread alarm and activisim, and for nothing. Just because computers and programs are so far out of the experience of the normal people that they could believe everything. And the belief in the wrong things is very hard to dispel...