Today, John Tierney writes about ‘The Global Warming Paradox‘, an account of a surprising research study from three researchers at Texas A&M University. Here is what they found, after interviewing a representative sample of 1,000 adults:
Directly, the more information a person has about global warming, the less responsible he or she feel for it; and indirectly, the more information a person has about global warming, the less concerned he or she is for it.
Results of the whole study appear in the February issue of Risk Analysis. John Tierney joins the chorus of people in the research: ‘I think it’s (global warming) a real risk, but I’m also confident that we’ll cope by adapting to climate change and/or finding ways to minimize it.
I disagree with John Tierney, and unlike him, am not so sure that ‘we’ll cope‘. It is going to take more than technology and science to come even close to a happy resolution. Leadership at the top, business solutions, technology and science yes, financial incentives, individual behavioral changes, community initiatives, a new code of ethics, international diplomacy, population control measures, lots of goodwill at all levels, . . . the problem needs to be attacked from all possible angles. It is monumental in proportions and requires solutions of the same magnitude.
Back to the study itself, it is important to frame the results within the larger context of the research methodology:
It should be noted that the information effects reported in this article are limited to self-reported information. Objective measures of informedness about global warming and climate change might produce different effects. And indeed there is some scholarly evidence to suggest that this might be the case. In their models of mass assessments of the risks of genetically modified foods, Durant and Legge found that self-reported informedness and objective measures of informedness were almost entirely uncorrelated, and that their effects worked in opposite directions.
La Marguerite 
Oh my gosh. What a mess! I agree with your doubt and skepticism, Marguerite. This feels, to me, like one of those market research projects where one of two things is probably happening: Either the results are being reported (in the report or by the media) incorrectly, or the methodology and/or data don’t really justify or support the claimed results. These days, on this issue, I do not believe research claims unless I understand the methodology and (perhaps) even see the data.
Your post also raises the question: Does John Tierney have an actual science background, and/or does he have substantial experience in market research?
The whole notion of “information” or “being informed” is highly ambiguous. I’m quite sure there are lots of ways of having loads of information, or feeling “highly informed”, that lead a person to not feel responsible for the issue or to feel that we’ll just “adapt” to the problem. And, I’m also quite sure there are lots of ways of having loads of (more valid) information that support a feeling of responsibility, concern, and action. The notion that more information leads to lower feelings of responsibility, or to lower levels of concern, begs the question: What “information” are we talking about?
All I can say is, oh my gosh.
I guess I should request a complete copy of the study?
Bizarre.
I know a bit about global warming, I do feel responsible for it, and I am somewhat worried about it – but not on a daily basis, where I prefer to just live, rather than worry.
The bit about self-reported levels of knowledge reminds me of that study showing that in terms of humour, literacy, numeracy and so on, incompetent people thought they were pretty good. Part of competence is knowing your level of competence; part of ignorance is not knowing it.
Whether someone says “we’ll cope” or “we won’t cope”, my response is the same: “How? Give me details.” I’m interested in rational assessments, “I got a good/bad feeling about this” I don’t need to hear, I can manage that by myself.
Brilliant post! Your statement, which I have copied below, reflects my opinions entirely! Great to find it so eloquently expressed!
“It is going to take more than technology and science to come even close to a happy resolution. Leadership at the top, business solutions, technology and science yes, financial incentives, individual behavioral changes, community initiatives, a new code of ethics, international diplomacy, population control measures, lots of goodwill at all levels, . . . the problem needs to be attacked from all possible angles. It is monumental in proportions and requires solutions of the same magnitude.”
[…] Marguerite, an environmental psychology blog, writes a great post today which identifies the real challenges that we face from climate change. I’ve borrowed from it […]
Thanks all, for your thorough comments . . . Personally, I think it is good to be aware of these kinds of studies, and to keep going without worrying to much about the ifs and buts, staying as practical as possible, and committed to the search for solutions.
The real paradox of global warming is its dual complexity and simplicity. It is simple in the sense of ‘gotta to tame our consumption and we know exactly how that can be done with the means already at our disposal’. It is complex because of the human factor and the incredible challenge of ‘how to persuade millions of people to change a whole bunch of daily behaviors’.
la M
read Lovelock’s new interview in Guardian today and blog about it. important must read. NSFW
Marguerite – Nathan Cummings funded research to find out what the top voter issues were last fall. They compared the views of Independents, Democrats and Republicans. In all three parties, climate change came in 18-20th in importance to other issues. That’s why you didn’t hear the candidates discussing Climate Change very much.
The most interesting finding, however, was that when they cut the group in half and gave one half extensive climate change information and the other half, nothing they had the same results across the board again.
The conclusion was that people had set ideas on climate change and the environment that had nothing to do with education, nor politics.
Thanks Danny, thanks Ecolutionaryselling. I will check both research articles!
Hi.
If someone could provide me with a link or more complete info (exact title, date, etc.) regarding the Nathan Cummings research that was mentioned in a previous post, that would be very helpful. I’d like to understand it better in terms of conclusions, methodology, and so forth. Thanks.
Cheers.
Actually Jeff, I will be blogging about it tomorrow.
[…] 4, 2008 by lamarguerite Yesterday, in response to my article on ‘Taking the Global Warming Paradox With a Grain of Salt‘, Mary, one of the readers of this blog suggested that I take a look at a 2007 joint survey […]
[…] 27, 2008 by lamarguerite I don’t always agree with John Tierney, but I have to thank him for pointing me in the direction of ‘Nudge‘, a new book by […]