1

The Evolution of Climate Change Perceptions in the United States

Garrett Lewis Climate Change: GR 8633 Summer 2013 Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi

Abstract The science of anthropogenic climate change is relatively new as it relates to the study of atmospheric science. Emerging evidence of human induced climate change has been met with increasing skepticism. Historically, there is a strong positive relationship between increasing Carbon Dioxide levels and surface temperature. In the last 50 years, scientists have documented a rise in Carbon Dioxide levels taken from air and ice core samples yet countries, such as the United States, have been slow to institute widespread policy changes. With the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, the United States is in the minority in the global effort to reduce carbon emissions in an effort to minimize future anthropogenic future affects from warming. But why are some people so eager to make changes while others remain skeptical or attribute the entire debate to political rhetoric? The purpose of this paper will be to study how views about climate change have evolved since evidence began pointing to human induced warming. Risk perception & cultural theory has been shown to play a key factor in the decision making process. This paper seeks to evaluate and quantify the perception of climate change in the United States; showing a timeline of how attitudes and perceptions have changed over time and why those beliefs are held. The perception of climate change is crucial to mitigating future impacts caused by anthropogenic global warming. On the simplest level, if people do no perceive a threat; no action will be taken. This paper examines the science of anthropogenic climate change from its earliest discovery, to the current scientific consensus, to the future possible effects of global climate if no action is taken. This paper also determines what factors are needed to change before beliefs and perceptions change within the United States.

1.

Introduction
One-hundred years ago, in the year 1913, most people had never heard of carbon

emissions even though many were unknowingly contributing one of the largest man made contributors of the Greenhouse Gas into the atmosphere: Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide, or CO2, is a gas released from the chemical reaction caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon is found naturally in the environment and cycles through plants, soil, atmosphere, organisms and the ocean over the course of several hundred years. The natural carbon cycle is being altered, if not accelerated, through the consumption of fossil fuels and deforestation of land. As the Industrial Revolution gained momentum, a positive feedback loop began to emerge. Manufacturing plants began to thrive, more vehicles were produced, more mileage was driven, and along each step of economic growth, more fossil fuel was burned. It wasnt until the year 1958 when a man named Charles Keeling started taking measurements atop Hawaiis Mauna Loa Volcano that the increase in carbon became known to the scientific community (Kump et al. 2010). Keeling found carbon dioxide levels around 315ppm, at the time of this writing levels have increased to 398ppm (CO2 Now 2013). It would take many more years for this message to pass from the scientific community to the global community which brings us to today. The increase in CO2 emissions into the atmosphere from the year 1990 to 2011 corresponds to economic growth, an increasing population, and energy demands (EPA 2011). The chief greenhouse gas emissions (Fig 1) are from anthropogenic causes; yet humans have been hesitant to change their thinking and behavior to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere.

(Figure 1: EPA 2011. Top anthropogenic greenhouse gases by volume.) Global policy decisions have been implemented to reduce the impact of carbon dioxide. Some countries have quickly adopted these policies of reducing carbon while others remain skeptical; still others, such as Canada, have withdrawn completely from the global effort. The social complexities, politics, & communication of the message all play a central role in the general publics understanding of global climate change.

2.

Initial Reports
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereafter IPCC) is composed of

scientists from across the globe analyzing how climate will change as greenhouse gases within the atmosphere are altered. Climate change reporting in the media and society began in earnest in the year 1990 when the first report was released by the IPCC. Their analysis proposed several different outcomes of climate change based on a best case or worst case scenario. In that year, the reduction necessary to stabilize the effect of carbon climate was 60% (Houghton 1990). While other greenhouse gases can contribute to global warming such as methane, CFCs, Nitrous Oxide etc. carbon emissions are the highest by volume. The IPCC report indicated a number of global changes within the next century if no action was taken including: an increase in future surface

5
temperature, sea level, precipitation and other climatic effects. The Earth and the carbon budget is viewed not as a cause and effect but rather a system in which one variable can alter others; as such, it is impossible to know all of the feedback loops. This uncertainty, rather, how this uncertainty is perceived, could be a primary reason some people are quick to take action and others are apathetic. The basic science is well understood, no serious academic body, institution, or national government doubts that increasing carbon will also increase temperatures (Somers 2009). If the science is so well understood? Why is the message so difficult to grasp? a. Media Coverage Interestingly, as the science becomes more understood the skepticism has been actually increasing in recent years. A study of U.S. residents in 2010 showed that only 57% believed in global warming down from 71% in 2008 (Leiserowitz et al. 2010). Information alone doesnt change the thoughts of people but how that information is delivered and processed plays a key role in the perception of risk and of climate change. Many people use the media, as their window into the outside world. The media in the United States is unique because of the journalistic norms used to communicate information. The norms can be broken up into first and second order norms (Boykoff 2005). First order norms include: personalization, dramatization, & novelty. News organizations tend to focus on human interest and the personal struggle by personalizing news stories, dramatization takes basic news stories and places emphasis on the most extreme angle available and novelty makes every effort to advance the story in a new way. A common phrase heard in newsrooms across the country is if it bleeds it leads; a story about a shooting that happened an hour ago about a man with 3 children will most certainly be placed higher in the news cycle than a new report on something broad and non-personal such as a report indicating the thermal expansion of the ocean due to climate change. Boykoff and Boykoff (2005) bring to light the intricate dance that news

6
organizations orchestrate in their effort to achieve objectivity and balance which unknowingly can lead to informational bias (Fig 2).

(Figure 2: Boykoff 2005. The process of information to news output) Boykoff and Boykoff (2005) also identified second order journalistic norms of authorityorder and balance. A system as complex as climate change is beyond the scope of typical journalists education so most rely on an official to present them with information. Because of the journalistic norm of balance, typical climate change coverage consists of two personalized officials presenting a dramatized debate; even when within the international scientific community: no debate exists. The many different news outlets provide more insight into the confusion regarding the science of climate change. Additional informational bias is possible in how or how often the news media reports on climate change in their presentation. For example, Fox News viewers are more skeptical and dismissive of global warming whereas CNN and MSNBC viewers tend to accept climate change and host guests, or experts, who affirm this point of view (Feldman 2011). Surprisingly, Fox News brings up climate change more than the other two stations but also schedules the most skeptical scientists and has the most dismissive tone (Fig 3). The bias can partly be placed on political factors and the notion that more conservative republicans watch Fox News while more liberal democrats watch CNN or MSNBC. The very way the media presents the information through the different outlets available affects how the message is received.

(Figure: 3. Feldman 2011. Tone of climate change by cable news outlet) b. Perception The mental model most people are probably familiar with is daily weather forecasting since as much as 77% of people receive a weather forecast at least once per day (Lazo 2009). Thus, some people may indeed misinterpret weather as climate and vice versa. Uncertainty in forecasting day-to-day weather is something the general public seems to grasp knowing. For example, most know that the extended forecast is low confidence at the end of a seven day forecast (Morss 2008). Some may be skeptical of climate change because they remember the times that rain was forecast and did not occur. Since weather is associated with climate its possible that people are applying their existing mental map of weather to climate by discounting long-term forecasts & computer models or dismissing global warming altogether based on a personal experience such as an unusually cool summer. Often people will substitute a difficult question with one thats easier to answer. This process of attribute substitution could be contributing to the skewed perspective many hold regarding the science (Kahneman and Frederick 2002) (Newell 2010).

8
Another problem with both climate change and CO2 emissions is both are seemingly undetectable on short term time scales. Carbon Dioxide, for example, is colorless and odorless and nearly 100 years passed before its increased levels were first even detected. Affective imagery deals with how people feel about things they encounter. It is very difficult to identify climate change from personal perspective, most falsely attribute unique events to climate change while at the same time failing to detect changes in climate (Gould 2013). This affective imagery also works in reverse, if people experience more extreme weather they may attribute it to climate change such as the recent landfall of Hurricane Sandy, tornadoes in the plains, and record heat waves. In fact, a more recent study conducted in 2012 indicated that 2 out of 3 Americans now believe their weather is getting worse and 58% now say that global warming is affecting weather in the United States (Leserowitz 2013). These results are also in line with recent Pew Research data surveying 39 counties about the top threats their nations face. Overall, global warming was the biggest threat followed by financial instability (Pew 2013). The American view on climate change appears to shift as weather affects them. Still, according to Pew, Americans are least concerned about climate change; the most concerned are (perhaps coincidentally) countries recently affected by extreme weather such as Latin America & Asia/Pacific regions; possibly a sign that affective imagery plays a large role in the perception of climate change. How the data is framed during the communication process also effects how the message is received. The statement: Rare carbon dioxide only compromises 0.0384% of the atmosphere is a true statement (Newell 2010). The amount seems small, almost inconsequential; after all, its only a fraction of the total atmosphere. But consider a similar statement about that same small amount of carbon dioxide in terms of radiative forcing (the ability of CO2 to reradiate heat and energy back to Earth); anthropogenic effects are responsible for a combined increase in 2.6 W/m-2 which is equivalent to 8,322,502,000 J/m-2 per year (Newell 2010). Certainly how the data is framed affects how the person receives and interprets the data. While both statements are true they cannot be taken individually without misinterpretation.

9
c. Uncertainty After the IPCC report was issued in 1990, the United Nations led an effort to reduce carbon emissions. In the year 1997, the goal was to reduce carbon emissions back down to 1990 levels. Although originally signed by President Bill Clinton, it was not ratified by President George W. Bush who opposed the treaty because developing countries were not held to the same standard of carbon emission reduction. President Bush also argued that any efforts to reduce carbon in the United States would cause widespread economic impacts. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol and later stated We will continue efforts to improve our understanding of climate change [and] to seek hard data (Andrews 2009). His statements echo the views of many Americans and also reflect the acceptance of the journalistic norms previously mentioned. Bush, however, introduces a new element into the discussion on climate change: Uncertainty. The IPCC has been dealing with uncertainty in their assessments by identifying two primary types of uncertainty: value uncertainty and structural uncertainty (IPCC 2013) (Fig 4). Value uncertainty deals with data or numbers which may be missing or inaccurate. Structural uncertainty relates more with the processes and theories involved that are not completely

(Figure 4. IPCC 2013. Communicating Uncertainty of Climate Change)

10
understood. The data is conveyed through probabilistic confidence (i.e. 1 in 5 chances) or with language such as Very likely which is used to convey >90% probability of occurrence. Ironically, the introduction of uncertainty into the climate change discussion may actually convince more people of its scientific authenticity and is more in line with the way people perceive daily weather forecasts; something they know and can relate to. Previous research has shown there is a strong preference to uncertainty in weather forecasts which most people in the United States are accustom to receiving (Morss 2008). Many other approaches have been developed in the recent years to communicate uncertainty more effectively. The uncertainty monster is the name given to a concept develop ed by Van der Sluijs (2005) that deals with ways to bridge the gap between the scientific community and policy makers. The monster was modified for climate scientists by Curry & Webster (2011) to communicate climate change more effectively. The 5 different monsters abbreviated briefly consist of: Monster hiding: Unethically hiding information Monster exorcism: Waiting for more research Monster simplification: Simplifying uncertainty Monster detection: Not enough transparency or accountability Monster assimilation: Living with the uncertainty & managing the risk. Spiegelhalter (2011) spoke at a recent workshop on Handling Uncertainty in Science which addressed these monsters and provided a strategy to deal with them. When uncertainty arises it needs to be quantified wherever possible, using clear language, communicate deeper uncertainties with humility and without fear, and for the public to have confidence trust is more important than certainty (Spiegelhalter 2011). Indeed there may be a tendency to withhold some of the facts or data for fear that the public may not understand; however, transparency and uncertainty quantification are paramount when discussing climate change.

11

3.

Cultural Theory
One approach to understanding climate change and the way people think is cultural

theory. Cultural theory focuses on the intersection of shared values, beliefs, cultural bias, and interpersonal relationships that are all interwoven to construct world views. There are four primary views that act as backdrops on which people draw conclusions: Fatalism, Hierarchy, Individualism, & Egalitarianism (Fig 5) (Thompson et al. 1990) (Bellamy 2011). World views are important for understanding climate change because it explains how some people are highly unlikely to accept the message. For example, a fatalist approaches life from a why bother perspective whereas a hierarchism belief would believe that experts and government should fix the problem. A person with egalitarianism belief would think that climate change is something we need to work together to solve.

(Figure 5 Bellamy 2011 modified from Thompson et al. 1990 which shows the 4 principle cultural theories and their thoughts towards climate change)

12
In a quantitative assessment of 287 respondents researchers identified people who fall within the different corners of cultural theory and then used qualitative focus groups to gather additional information. Most participants were concerned with abrupt climate change and perceived the risk as catastrophic but not to themselves, but distant, developing counties (Bellamy 2011). During the course of focus groups within this particular research project, several fatalists emerged that had not been previously identified in the quantitative questionnaire. When climate change was discussed and framed within the context of fear, many showed fatalistic tendencies. In light of the journalistic norm of dramatization, its not surprising that the alarmist point of view could be contributing to an increase in fatalism or apathy towards action of climate change. Much like Spiegelhalter (2011) indicated: fear is not a good motivator for changing thoughts or behavior.

4.

Conclusion
The discussion of climate change is just as problematic as climate itself. They are both

systems where all variables and outcomes cannot be known. Moving forward, scientists will need to continue to integrate social science and psychology into the scientific message. Language must be colloquial or easy to understand instead of entirely scientific. Data and figures must be simple and uncertainty must be quantified if possible. Personal experience, both culturally and individually, must be taken into account before the research within the scientific literature can be understood by lay people. The discussion must involve politics because policies on a governmental level are ultimately what will lead to change but policies go hand in hand with perception. You cannot change the policies without first changing perception and perception shifts begin when the message is communicated properly.

13

References: Andrews, W., 1990. Environment, Global Warming, Bush. CBS Evening News. 5 February. Bellamy, R. M. Hulme, 2001: Beyond the Tipping Point: Understanding Perceptions of Abrupt Climate Change and Their Implications. Wea. Climate Soc. 3, 48-60 Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38, 6, 1190-1204. CO2 Now: Current Carbon Dioxide Levels. Retrieved July 30, 2013. [Available online http://www.co2now.org] Curry, J.A., P.J. Webster, 2011: Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 92, 1667-1682 Donner, S.D., 2011: Making the Climate a Part of the Human World. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 92, 1297-1302 EPA 2012: Climate Change: Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Retrieved July 24, 2013 [Available online http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html] Feldman, L. E., W. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, A. Leiserowitz, 2011: Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. International Journal of Press/Politics. Originally Published online November 2011. [Available online http://hij.sagepub.com/content/17/1/3] Georgetown 2013: Polling Demonstrates Strong Support for State and Federal Government Action on Climate and Energy Policies. Georgetown Public Policy Institute. Retrieved July 13, 2013. [Available online http://www.georgetownclimate.org/sites/default/files/GCC-Polling-Memo-Final.pdf] Gould, P.R., 2013: We Have Seen It with Our Own Eyes: Why We Disagree about Climate Change Visibility. Wea. Climate Soc. 5, 120-132 Hamilton, L.C., M.D. Stampone, 2013: Blowin in the Wind: Short-Term Weather and

14
Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change. Wea. Climate Soc. 5, 112-119 Houghton, J.T., G.J. Jenkins, J.J. Ephraums, 1990: Report prepared for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by Working Group I. Cambridge University Press. IPCC 2013: 1.6 The IPCC Assessments of Climate Change and Uncertainties. Retrieved July 24, 2013 [Available online http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s16.html] Kahneman, D. and S. Frederick, 2002: Representativeness Revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics and Biases. T.D. Gilovich, D.W. Griffin, and D. Kahneman, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 49-81 Kump, L.R., J.F. Kasting, R.G. Crane 2010: The Earth System, 3rd Edition. Upper Saddle River, N.Y., Prentice Hall Pearson Education, Inc. 4-5 Lazo, J.K., R.E. Morss, J.L. Demuth 2009: 300 Billion Served. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 785-798 Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Smith, N., 2010: Climate change in the American Mind: Americans global warming beliefs and attitudes in June 2010. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Howe, P., 2013: Extreme Weather and Climate Change in the American Mind: April 2013. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change communication. Retrieved July 30, 2013 [Available online http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateBeliefsJune2010.pdf] Morss, R.E., 2008: Communicating Uncertainty in Weather Forecasts: A Survey of the U.S. Public. Wea. Forecasting. 23, 974-991 Newell, B.R., A.J. Pitman, 2010: The Psychology of Global Warming: Improving the Fit between the Science and the Message. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91, 1003-1014

15
Pew 2013: Climate Change and Financial Instability Seen as Top Global Threats. Retrieved July 15, 2013 [Available online http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/24/climatechange-and-financial-instability-seen-as-top-global-threats/] Somers, J., 2009: AAAS joins leading scientific organizations in letter to senators reaffirming scientific consensus on climate change. American Association for the Advancement of Science News Release. [Available online at www.aaas.org/] Spiegelhalter, D., cited 2011: Quantifying uncertainty. [Available online http://downloads.royalsociety.org/audio/DM2010_03/Speigelhalter.mp3] Thompson, M., Ellis, R. & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural Theory. Boulder: Westview Press. Van der Slujis, J. P., 2005: Uncertainty as a monster in the science-policy interface: Four coping strategies. Water Sci. Technol., 52, 87-92