Global warming survey--Part 2, portrait of a global warming skeptic

November 4, 9:42 AMSF Environmental Policy ExaminerThomas Fuller

Previous Next

56 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the SF Environmental Policy Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Update: I have moved the key finding up to the top, as I think it's actually quite important (and it was the principal objective of the survey in the first place.)

Key Finding

Skeptics are not monolithic, and they are not diametrically opposed to various strategies put forward by Barack Obama and environmentalists to addressing environmental and energy issues.

The survey asked respondents to identify initiatives that they would be willing to fund with an additional annual tax payment of $150.

47% of skeptics in this survey would pay $150 extra in taxes to fund 'improving the efficiency of homes and offices with better insulation and lighting/heating alternatives'
35% would fund 'Making public transportation a more attractive option for more people'
17% would fund higher automotive mileage standards
24% would fund 'subsidizing research into green energy sources, including wind, solar, biomass and nuclear
An astonishing 64% would fund with their tax dollars 'Making the electricity grid more efficient and responsive'
However, less than one percent (0.2%) would fund cap and trade, and only 1% would fund a straightforward tax on CO2 emissions
Only 1% would fund building dykes and protected areas at the water's edge, and only 2% would fund 'geo-engineering' to remediate carbon emissions
But 15% would fund "Helping the world--especially the poorest part of the world--prepare for the consequences of climate change through economic development, and letting them use their own intelligence and resources to solve the local problems it brings"
So skeptics are not monolithic, not against conservation, not against some of Obama's planks for the energy and environmental future of this country. If a program was atomized instead of agglomerated, individual initiatives could, if properly presented, receive significant support from climate skeptics. Leading with Cap and Trade may have been a serious policy misjudgment, and putting all of Obama's energy policies into one grab-bag just insured that skeptics would oppose the entire package because of one or two elements within it. Mr. President--think about this...

 

In a survey where most of the respondents fit one category, it makes sense to at least examine that category. As far as I know, there has been little work done trying to understand global warming skeptics. Perhaps we can contribute something to that understanding.

We asked 3,300 people to pick a statement that matched their opinion on global warming. The question was designed to allow those who do not agree with the consensus on climate change to express varying nuances of opinion. I felt that those who broadly agreed with the consensus view have been studied a bit more, and I didn't want to clutter the question with too many choices. Remember, one of my goals for the study is to find out if skeptics are a monolithic block--and it turns out they are not.

Three thousand, one hundred and ninety eight (3,198) respondents answered the question. But this is where political surveys sometimes start playing games with their readers.

A total of 1,737 people picked the skeptic response: "I don't believe global warming is true. I think natural forces account for the changes in climate and there's no need to look at human contributions--which in any event have not been proven." That's a lot of skeptics. But pay attention here--we can express that number as several different percentages. It is 52% of all who took the survey. It is 54% of all those who answered the question. It really doesn't matter which one you use, as long as you are consistent throughout the analysis. I will use the total number of survey takers, which in this case means 52%.

We're going to talk about that 52% for the rest of this article.

About skeptics who took this survey:

• 85% of those who said they were skeptics came to the survey from Watts Up With That. Eight percent (8%) came from Roger Pielke Jr. Many others came from Junk Science, Lucia's Blackboard and Climate Progress--they must have been checking out the opposition.
• 92% of skeptics in the survey were male.
• 50% are aged 55 or older
• However, only 23% are retired. 49% are employed full time, and 18% are self-employed
• Only 2% of skeptics in this survey are Democrats. However, only 20% are Republicans. More (26%) are Independents and the largest group is actually composed of skeptics from outside the United States who traveled across the waters to participate. (Next year, we'll take more advantage of that).
• The last statistic is what makes me break out my calculator. I want to know what the party percentages are if you take out the non-Americans. The skeptic total falls from 1,734 to 1,204, and the percentages of political parties rise--to 38% Independent, 3% Democrat, 29% Republican, 25% Libertarian and 0.4% Green.
• 49% of the skeptics in this survey voted for John McCain in the last election. 5% voted for Barack Obama and 39% voted for 'neither.' 7% preferred not to say.
• 35% of skeptics in this survey have a bachelor's degree, and actually 88% have a bachelor's degree or higher, with 22% having a Master's and 16% a post-doc completed.

This tells us a bit about the population we're discussing. Let's look at what they think and what they are willing to do.

The survey asked respondents to characterise informally the state of the environment by picking a statement chosen to give skeptics more options to express nuance of opinion. They did.

• 38% of skeptics in the survey chose "I think this is a very big planet and that claims of environmental damage are exaggerated and there's usually a political agenda behind it"
• 35% chose "I think that we've done a pretty good job of fixing the damage done by earlier generations, and that overall the environment is in good shape"
• However, 15% chose "I think the environment has been badly damaged by human action and that we need to take better care of it."
• 12% chose to write in their own replies (Yes, but later)
• The rest either chose 'don't know' or preferred not to reply.

We then asked respondents to rate some environmental and energy policy concerns on a scale from 1 to 10, depending on how important those policy concerns were to them. (This will be more fun when we start comparing skeptics with non-skeptics, but it's interesting with the skeptics alone. Well, interesting to me...)

In market research, when you're dealing with Likert scales (which we are) and you've made the momentous decision on whether or not to use an odd or even number (odd numbers give respondents a chance to pick the middle number and hence be 'neutral'), you then must decide whether to report primarily on those who picked the most extreme response (1 or 10 here) or whether to combine 9 and 10 and report the 'top two boxes) and 1 and 2. Here I propose to do a bit of both.

• 25% of skeptics in this survey think "Moving away from our country's dependence on foreign oil" is vitally important (giving it a 10). But looking at options 9 and 10, the percentage rises to 35% (and including those who responded 8, 9 or 10 brings it to 50%, but using a Top Three Box feels like cheating...). Only 9% rated this a '1' or '2'.
•  The Top Two Box (picking 9 or 10) for "Reducing air and water pollution" was 19%. The Bottom Two Box for this was 6%.
• (Roger Pielke Jr., this one's for you) When it comes to "Improving the efficiency with which the economy uses energy," the Top Two Box was 23% (and the top 3 box was 55%--more than concerns about foreign oil!)
• (Another one for Roger): "Diversifying energy supply to include a wider range of surces of supply" got a Top Two Box score of 19% (Top 3 of 34%)
• Most important to skeptics in this survey was insuring adequate supplies of food and water. Insuring adequate supplies of water got a Top Two Box score of 48% (and a Top Three Box of 66%)
• Insuring adequate food supply received a Top Two Box Score of 53% (and a Top Three of 72%)
• "Making sure our parks and the natural state of our environment are preserved" was not as important to skeptics in this survey. The Top Two Box Score was 17%
• "Leaving this country to our children cleaner than we found it" got a Top Two Box Score of 20%

Seventy one percent (71%) of skeptics in this survey rated the U.S. economic situation as a '9' or '10' when asked to rate current policy issues on the same Likert scale used earlier. (This actually isn't drastically different from what non-skeptics said.)

Tellingly, only 17% of skeptics in this survey rated healthcare as a '9' or '10'

Twenty percent (20%) of skeptics rated the war in Afghanistan as a '9' or '10'

Eleven percent (11%) of skeptics rated poverty a '9' or '10'

Eight percent (8%) of skeptics rated the environment a '9' or '10'

An important issue to skeptics in this survey was education, with 38% rating it a '9' or '10'

Another important issue to skeptics in this survey was illegal immigration, with 35% rating it a '9' or '10'

Social security was rated a '9' or 10' by 19% of skeptics in this survey

Unemployment was rated a '9' or '10' by 20% of skeptics in this survey

Foreign affairs and diplomacy was rated a '9' or '10' by 20% of skeptics in this survey

And in an important finding, over half (52%) of skeptics in this survey rated science and technological progress a '9' or 10'

Sixty-one percent (61%) of skeptics in this survey think Barack Obama should spend 60% of his time and energy resolving the current U.S. economic situation. This is not at all different from other survey respondents. Kind of obvious this is the number one issue. It's so dominant that it's not really valid to look for number two and three, although I'll touch on them later. When number 1 gets 61% and number two gets 7%, you get the picture.

Over 500 respondents wrote in their own ideas. We'll talk more about skeptics tomorrow, and the implications of these findings for policy makers.

Many commenters from the skeptic side lamented my emphasis on government led solutions to the world's problems. Noted. I hope to use comments and a bit of common sense in my analysis to overcome this oversight. You'll be the judge, of course, at the end of the day.