In the United States today, there is a powerful debate about the existence of climate change, specifically regarding human-driven global warming. Although most climate scientists claim that there is strong evidence to suggest that the current warming of Earth’s climate is driven by anthropogenic influences, many people in the U.S. still have doubts about whether human action is leading to increased temperatures. With such strong scientific evidence backing up this global phenomenon, what is causing people to question its existence?
One common answer to this question is that people are simply ignorant about the science proving global warming. One study, conducted at George Washington University Law School by Donald Braman, Dan M. Kahan, Ellen Peters, Maggie Wittlin, Paul Slovic, Lisa Larrimore Oullette, and Gregory N. Mandel, claims that the divisions in beliefs about the existence of global warming stem not from a lack of scientific knowledge, but from people’s desire to interpret the science they read in a way that aligns with the popular ideas in groups that they associate with. The scientists argue that with as scientific literacy increases, people are actually less likely to believe in the risks that accompany a warming climate. Their findings are shown in Figure I, below.
Figure I: The first graph demonstrates what the results of the question “how much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety or prosperity?” would be if science literacy and perceived risk were correlated. The second graph demonstrates the actual relationship between science literacy and perceived risk according to the study, with z-scores of perceived risk on the x-axis.
The study had a large sample of 1,540 participants. The authors of the study claim that the study was representative, and the large sample size is one indicator of a representative sample. However, the individuals included in the sample were members of an online testing group called Knowledge Networks. This group has a selection pool of 50,000 adults who are recruited to participate in various research. Voluntary online surveys can be problematic because they introduce non-response bias into the scientific conclusions of studies. Because some people may not respond to surveys that they are asked to participate in, the sample may not truly be representative of the entire U.S. population. The people that are willing to respond to a survey about global warming may be more passionate about the existence (or lack thereof) of the climate crisis, and may skew the results of the study.
Participants of the study were first asked about how big of a risk global warming poses to human health, safety or prosperity (on a scale of 1-10). They were then tested for scientific literacy, which is another questionable aspect of this study. Participant’s scientific literacy was determined by their answers to eight true-or-false questions, including “lasers work by focusing sound waves” and “antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria.” Although these questions may do a satisfactory job at testing participant’s general knowledge of science, they are not an accurate predictor of people’s knowledge of the science of global warming. Because human-driven climate change is a hugely politicized and popular issue, the science about climate change is much more accessible and talked-about than science about lasers or antibiotics; published science about climate change is consistently at the top of the lists on popular news sources. Because the science is frequently discussed, people likely have a much higher exposure to academic science about global warming than other areas of science. People’s knowledge of random scientific facts about lasers and antibiotics is not an accurate predictor of their knowledge about global warming.
Overall, the scientists at George Washington University Law School use their findings to argue that more published studies proving the existence of climate change are not the answer to solving the climate crisis. They claim that, in order to convince the general public that action needs to be taken to prevent further warming, literature published about climate change needs to be less focused on precise scientific findings and more focused on communicating the science in a way that doesn’t threaten the values of diverse groups. Although it is never a bad idea to broaden the audience of climate change discussions, scientists must be careful to avoid framing their findings in a way that represents a skewed version of the truth simply to accommodate the biases of broad social groups. This is especially true if the findings of the this study (that scientific literacy and perceived risk of climate change are not positively correlated) are not accurate.
Referenced:Braman, Donald, et al. “The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks.” GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works, GW Law, 2012, scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=faculty_publications
Data/Society/Decision-making Spring 2019 