Where Is the North Pole? An Election-Year Survey on Global Change

To explore public knowledge and perceptions about climate change, University of New Hampshire researchers conducted the first Polar, Environment, and Science (POLES) survey in August 2016. A random sample of U.S. adults were asked for their views regarding science, climate change, sources of information, current problems, and possible solutions. In addition, the survey tested basic geographical knowledge related to polar regions, such as whether the United States has a significant population living in the Arctic, and what respondents know about the location of the North Pole. In this brief, author Lawrence Hamilton reports that fewer than one in five Americans knows that their country includes territory with thousands of people living in the Arctic. Fewer than half understand the locations of the North or South Poles. A majority recognizes that Arctic sea ice is declining and CO2 levels are rising, but knowledge of these scientific facts varies depending on political preference. More than 60 percent agree that human activities are changing Earth’s climate. Public acceptance of the scientific consensus on climate change has been gradually rising in recent years. The gaps between Trump and Clinton supporters are wide on scientific and policy questions alike, including whether scientists can be trusted for information, and whether climate change, from any source, is causing problems now. Supporters of Donald Trump are less likely to trust scientists for information about climate change, to think that climate change is causing important problems, or to support actions to reduce its risks. But despite sharp political divisions, there is broad and rising public recognition of climate-change problems and of the need to shift our energy use in response

Did the arctic ice recover? Demographics of true and false climate facts

Abstract Beliefs about climate change divide the U.S. public along party lines more distinctly than hot social issues. Research finds that better-educated orinformed respondents are more likelytoalign with their partiesonclimate change. This information-elite polarization resembles a process of biased assimilation first described in psychological experiments. In nonexperimental settings, college graduates could be prone to biased assimilation if they more effectively acquire information that supports their beliefs. Recent national and statewide survey data show response patterns consistent with biased assimilation (and biased guessing) contributing to the correlation observed between climate beliefs and knowledge. The survey knowledge questions involve key, uncontroversial observations such as whether the area of late-summer Arctic sea ice has declined, increased, or declined and then recovered to what it was 30 years ago. Correct answers are predicted by education, and some wrong answers (e.g., more ice) have predictors that suggest lack of knowledge. Other wrong answers (e.g., ice recovered) are predicted by political and belief factors instead. Response patterns suggest causality in both directions: science information affecting climate beliefs, but also beliefs affecting the assimilation of science information

On Renewable Energy and Climate, Trump Voters Stand Apart

In this brief, author Larry Hamilton discusses the results of pre- and post-election Polar, Environment, and Science surveys carried out by Carsey School researchers in August and November–December 2016, asking people about their general views on climate change and renewable energy. Almost three-fourths of Americans surveyed said that renewable energy should be a higher national priority than more drilling for oil. About two-thirds agree with the scientific consensus that humans are changing Earth’s climate. Priority for renewable energy development and recognition of human-caused climate change are majority opinions within every voter group except Trump supporters. On renewable energy, the reality of climate change, and doing something about it, Trump voters stand apart not only from Clinton voters but also from voters for third-party candidates and from nonvoters

Trump and Sanders Supporters Differ Sharply on Key Scientific Fact

In this fact sheet, author Lawrence C. Hamilton reports the results of a recent WMUR/CNN poll by the UNH Survey Center asking more than 700 New Hampshire residents whether they would vote for Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders if the 2016 presidential election was being held on that day, and how candidate preferences matched up with people\u27s beliefs about a basic scientific fact -- the rising con­centration of CO2 or carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere

Who cares about polar regions? Results from a survey of U.S. public opinion

Abstract What do members of the general public know about polar regions, and how much do they care? Who knows or cares? This paper explores data from the General Social Survey (GSS), which in 2006 questioned a representative sample of more than 1800 U.S. adults about their knowledge and opinions concerning polar regions. The polar survey items were modeled on long-running GSS assessments of general science knowledge and opinions, recently summarized in the U.S. National Science Board\u27s report Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. Polar knowledge proves to be limited but certainly not absent among survey respondents. Polar knowledge, general science knowledge, and education - together with individual background characteristics (age, sex, income) - predict policy-relevant opinions. Political orientation filters the impacts of education, and also shows consistent, significant effects across all the polar opinion questions. These 2006 GSS polar results will provide a baseline for comparison when the questions are repeated on a 2010 survey, after the International Polar Year concludes

Do You Trust Scientists About the Environment?

In this brief, author Lawrence Hamilton examines the results of a Granite State Poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center in late January–early February 2014. The poll asked about public trust in scientists, along with other questions on science, political, and social issues that help to place the science-trust results in perspective. Almost two-thirds of New Hampshire residents surveyed say that they trust scientists to provide accurate information about environmental issues. Only 12 percent do not trust scientists to provide this information. Wide disparities occur along party lines, however, regarding this and other questions about science. The 53 percent gap between Democrats and Republicans on climate change is one of the largest for any issue. Trust in scientists shows a somewhat narrower Democrat–Republican gap (37 percent), which is larger than those for historically divisive social issues such as abortion or the death penalty. Answers to these survey questions also relate to respondents’ news media sources, even after statistical adjustments for political party, age, gender and education. People who often listen to New Hampshire Public Radio are more likely to say they trust scientists, and respond differently from other New Hampshire residents on several other science-related questions. People who often watch local television news or read newspapers, on the other hand, respond differently on questions about the death penalty or gun control

Education, politics and opinions about climate change: Evidence for interaction effects

U.S. public opinion regarding climate change has become increasingly polarized in recent years, as partisan think tanks and others worked to recast an originally scientific topic into a political wedge issue. Nominally “scientific” arguments against taking anthropogenic climate change seriously have been publicized to reach informed but ideologically receptive audiences. Reflecting the success of such arguments, polls have noted that concern about climate change increased with education among Democrats, but decreased with education among Republicans. These observations lead to the hypothesis that there exist interaction (non-additive) effects between education or knowledge and political orientation, net of other background factors, in predicting public concern about climate change. Two regional telephone surveys, conducted in New Hampshire (n = 541) and Michigan (n = 1, 008) in 2008, included identical climate-change questions that provide opportunities to test this hypothesis. Multivariate analysis of both surveys finds significant interactions. These empirical results fit with theoretical interpretations and several other recent studies. They suggest that the classically identified social bases of concern about the environment in general, and climate in particular, have shifted in recent years. Narrowcast media, including the many Web sites devoted to discrediting climate-change concerns, provide ideal conduits for channeling contrarian arguments to an audience predisposed to believe and electronically spread them further. Active-response Web sites by climate scientists could prove critical to counterbalancing contrarian arguments

Climate change: partisanship, understanding, and public opinion

In 2010, Carsey Institute researchers began including three new questions about climate change on a series of regional surveys. They asked how much people understand about the issue of global warming or climate change; whether they think that most scientists agree that climate change is happening now as a result of human activities; and what they believe personally about the topic. Survey results show that while large majorities agree that climate change is happening now, they split on whether this is attributed mainly to human or natural causes. Brief author Lawrence Hamilton concludes that most people gather information about climate change not directly from scientists but indirectly—through news media, political activists, acquaintances, and other non-science sources. Their understanding reflects not simply scientific knowledge, but rather the adoption of views promoted by political or opinion leaders they follow. While public beliefs about physical reality remain strikingly politicized, leading science organizations agree that human activities are now changing the Earth’s climate. Interestingly, the strong scientific agreement on this point contrasts with the partisan disagreement seen on all of the Carsey surveys

Conservative and Liberal Views of Science, Does Trust Depend on Topic?

Conservative distrust of scientists regarding climate change and evolution has been widely expressed in public pronouncements and surveys, contributing to impressions that conservatives are less likely to trust scientists in general. But what about other topics, where some liberals have expressed misgivings too? Nuclear power safety, vaccinations, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are three widely mentioned examples. For this report, five similarly worded survey questions were designed to test the hypothesis that, depending on the issue, liberals are just as likely to reject science as conservatives. The five questions were included along with many unrelated items in telephone surveys of over 1,000 New Hampshire residents. Author Larry Hamilton reports that, as expected, liberals were most likely and conservatives least likely to say that they trust scientists for information about climate change or evolution. Contrary to the topic-bias hypothesis, however, liberals also were most likely and conservatives least likely to trust scientists for information about vaccines, nuclear power safety, and GMOs

Public awareness of the scientific consensus on climate

Questions about climate change elicit some of the widest political divisions of any items on recent U.S. surveys. Severe polarization affects even basic questions about the reality of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), or whether most scientists agree that humans are changing the Earth’s climate. Statements about scientific consensus have been contentious among social scientists, with some arguing for consensus awareness as a “gateway cognition” that leads to greater public acceptance of ACC, but others characterizing consensus messaging (deliberate communication about the level of scientific agreement) as a counterproductive tactic that exacerbates polarization. A series of statewide surveys, with nationwide benchmarks, repeated questions about the reality of ACC and scientific consensus many times over 2010 to 2016. These data permit tests for change in beliefs and polarization. ACC and consensus beliefs have similar trends and individual background predictors. Both rose gradually by about 10 points over 2010 to 2016, showing no abrupt shifts that might correspond to events such as scientific reports, leadership statements, or weather. Growing awareness of the scientific consensus, whether from deliberate messaging or the cumulative impact of many studies and publicly engaged scientists, provides the most plausible explanation for this rise in both series. In state-level data, the gap between liberal and conservative views on the reality of ACC did not widen over this period, whereas the liberal–conservative gap regarding existence of a scientific consensus narrowed