Is global warming dangerous?
Experts explore the disconnect between values and behavior on global warming.
Scientists hosted a public briefing this week in Washington D.C., in which they presented scientific findings about Americans’ perceptions of global warming.
At the briefing, they said that the majority of Americans believe that climate change poses a moderate threat, but that it’s more of a problem for the environment and for people living outside of the U.S.
That’s according to research conducted by Anthony Leiserowitz, principal investigator at the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions at Columbia University. Leiserowitz studied how Americans perceive risks associated with climate change. Using a mail–in questionnaire, people were asked to describe their first thought or image that comes to mind with the words, “global warming.” It would be interesting for the reader to share their answer to this question in the space below.
People surveyed also answered questions that gauged the degree of concern they have about global warming. One of the things that Leiserowitz found was that people clustered into what he calls “interpretive communities,” birds of a feather so to speak. These groups include what he called the “alarmists,” who view global warming in apocalyptic terms, and the “naysayers,” who deny that it’s happening or who think that it’s unimportant.
This year’s media coverage of global warming reached a high water mark with the release of the movie, An Inconvenient Truth. But recent surveys rank global warming 12th among 13 environmental problems, right below urban sprawl.
One reason why more people aren’t responding to what the media is reporting is that global warming hasn’t been framed as an issue of personal relevance, asserts Matthew Nisbet, a social scientist at American University. Much of the public, in his view, relies on “cognitive short–cuts” such as partisanship or ideology to decide what’s important to them.
We can do our own informal survey here. What’s YOUR first thought or image that comes to mind, when you think of the words “global warming?”
When I think of global warming, I always remember this old Twilight Zone episode, where earth was spiraling closer and closer to the sun, and everything was getting hotter and hotter. It featured a heroine running around in her slip, up and down fire escapes. Turned out she was only dreaming – in a fever – and, according to the Twilight Zone reality, earth was really spiralling farther and farther AWAY from the sun and everything was getting colder!
So I guess when I think of global warming, I feel a little scared. I mean it seems like science fiction.
Imagine just for a moment that Earth is a huge living organism. You are a clinician. Our planetary home is heating up in the same way a human being becomes sick from fever. Everything depends upon how high the fever gets and how long the fever lasts. Life or not-life on Earth is determined by the maintenance of some sort of balance, by not letting the Earth’s body temperature get too high. Of course, the same ‘clinical’ concerns would be raised if the body temperature of Earth becomes too low.
Is Global Warming Dangerous? Yes! We have proven to be highly adaptive in our relatively short existence as a speices, so I don’t subscribe to the apocalyptic view. However, we are facing some severe consequences to our health and well being. Even if the greatest climate change induced tragedies were to occur outside of this country, we do not exist in vacuum. All of us will be, perhaps are being, impacted – socially, economically, physically, morally. Gloabl climate change is real and immediate and I believe we must start responding accordingly as a people, beginning with our leaders.
Global warming is such a big problem, and scientists insist that it’s happening, even right now, so I think, what difference can I really make? Sure, I can recycle and drive a hybrid, but let’s face it, that’s less that a drop in the bucket. So if I’m going to really believe the potential danger of global warming, I think, why have children? Why not get drunk every day? Better maybe to not worry about it at all…
Always one with a unique perspective on things, Kurt Wise thinks that Global Warming is real, and while it could make for some massively inconvenient disruptions, it could ultimately be a good thing:
http://blog.mtopgroup.com/2006/04/kurt-wise-on-global-warming.shtml
Tim
10,769 days
To be honest the image of polar bears scrambling on shrinking patches of ice is hard to shake. And then there’s Hurricane Katrina …
Hi Jorge,
It appears we have real, natural world challenges before us; however, there are no military forces prepared to protect the Dead Sea from dying, polar bears and other species from vanishing, scarce resources from dissipating, air from being polluted, the climate from warming and the Earth from becoming irreversibly degraded. That the leaders of the global political economy find every imaginable reason for deploying military forces to protect their ‘vital’ economic and national interests, and simultaneously choose to ignore recognizable needs for humankind to be responsibly active by aggressively preserving the integrity of the Earth and its environs, seems somehow not reality-oriented, prohibitively unbalanced and, perhaps, pernicious. What evidence gives any of us in the human community reason to believe that the evolutionary success of the human species is any more assured than the continuing evolution of currently endangered large mammals? Who knows, Homo sapiens sapiens could be one of the species that vanishes.
Steve
The words that come to mind depend on who says them. From government I must say socialist method of frightening people into accepting a command economy, i.e. socialism or communism. From the U. N., I think of a method of frightening folks in the west into accepting parity with the third world countries. From true blue believers here in the developed world I hear guilt. Guilt at living in the greatest economy and lifestyle ever. This guilt is lived out in self flagellation and a half hearted desire to be “fair”. From the rank and file citizen a reaction to the unending drum beat that the United States in particular and capitalism in general are responsible for all evils on earth.
In reality, there is no compelling evidence that humans have had any effect on global climate at all. There is no compelling evidence that there is a dicernible trend of warming, and what is more: there is no evidence that global warming is a bad thing at all.
The global warming scare is a religious phenomenon: Belief or faith in a thing even though it cannot be proven.
What is sure is that if we as a species succumb to the centralist government on a global basis, we will recreate the dark ages of ignorance and squalor. It will be thousands of years, in all likelyhood, before humandkind once more emerges thinking and allowing the individual to strike out on his own and build something grand and noble.
In a few words: Our global warming scare of today is very much analagous to the flat earth dogma of the Catholic Church in the 1300’s and 1400’s. Sea farers and explorers knew better but the church insisted on the dogma to control its followers.
You must look at who is to gain by the global warming scare. It sure ain’t the developed world or the semi-capitalist countries of the west. Russia, China and the rest of the socialist countries wish us to bind ourselves to ridiculus economic destruction so they can forge forward. Please know, that no matter what treaties these folks sign, they will not abide by them. We quit burning fossil fuels. We destroy our way of life. They keep burning fossil fuels and subjugate us. THe world keeps turning and the climate does what it will. Mankind is remanded to slave status. What have we gained?
Think about it.
Dear Jorge,
As you know, my field is psychology. In my untutored view, it looks as if humankind has to bear certain responsibilities for the distinctly human predicament looming before humanity. Our pre-eminent species could be simultaneously responsible, not blameworthy or prepared for unexpected and formidable circumstances over which we clearly have control.
But without expertise, and I do not have it with regard to population science or “the environment,” what do I know? Perhaps very little. Perhaps things are not as they appear to me. I may have lost my mind and, even worse, lost touch with science itself. At my advanced age, with diminishing vision and waning faculties, the possibility cannot be ruled out.
Having said that, I believe human beings are an astonishingly intelligent species, with many other wondrous adaptive attributes; however, we are not thinking and behaving as some would anticipate. It looks as if we have adopted a “head in the sand” posture toward certain global problems. A great species like Homo sapiens sapiens may not be able to assume this unbecoming position much longer because it prevents us from seeing and responding ably to growing challenges, already visible on the far horizon.
A splendid, large brain species like ours can do better than mimic the behavior of that species with a very small brain, the ostrich …...........and I trust we will.
Steve
The two comments just above this one are interesting in contrast to each other.
Steve says he believes in a “predicament looming before humanity” and Ben says he believes that the “global warming scare is a religious phenomenon: belief or faith in a thing even though it cannot be proven.”
This reminds me of a question Earth & Sky has been asking to scientists … how do each of you decide what’s true?
It’s clear you both believe different sources of information.
How do you decide what to believe?
Just curious,
Deborah
Hi Deborah,
What a wonderful opportunity to communicate about real issues. Thank you for it.
The question you have asked seems like an easy one to which a response could be formulated. Personally, I very much liked and subscribe to almost every word Dr. Joel Cohen said to Earth & Sky on this subject; nevertheless, there is one distinct diffence woth noting. Joel and I are very evidently looking at different data. If one untutored and tentative perspective is helpful here, I would be glad to comment on what look like fundamental flaws in the widely accepted, but evidently preternatural view of the dynamics of human populaton numbers that are routinely presented by demographers in Demographic Transition Theory. In return, I would like to make a single request of Dr. Cohen and several other of our most respected, top rank colleagues: Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford, Dr. Wolfgang Lutz of IIASA, Dr. David Coleman of Oxford, Dr. John Cleland of IUSSP, Dr. Jack Caldwell of Australia and a recent winner of the UN Population Prize, Dr. Paul Demeny of the Population Council, Dr. Dr. Carl Haub of Population Reference Bureau, Dr. John Bongaarts of the Population Council, Dr. Robert Engleman of Population Action International. Please, esteemed colleagues all, accept this invitation to comment on scientific evidence presented by Russell P. Hopfenberg, Ph.D. and David I. Pimentel, Ph.D. regarding human population dynamics and the human overpopulation of Earth. This research appears to directly contradict Demographic Transition Theory and could be the best science available to us. If these data were to somehow be a slight extension of what is already known about the way the world in which we live works, then the evidence deserves immediate, careful, skillful and rigorous scrutiny by many of our most able colleagues because the potential implications of this unwelcome science look profound.
Thanks for your question,
Steve
Deborah quoted Ben as saying the “global warming scare is a religious phenomenon: belief or faith in a thing even though it cannot be proven.”
I wish to address Ben’s comment:
Parallels can be drawn between the global warming debate of our time with the great controversy known as the Copernican revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries. Did Copernicus (1473-1543) have proof that the Earth rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun? Absolutely not! Did he have good reason for believing that the Earth and the planets revolved around the sun. Most certainly. It was a big first step toward solving the great riddle that befuddled astronomers for millinea: why the retrograde motion of the planets?
Did Galileo (1564-1642) prove Copernicus right? No! But telescopic observations of the planets by Galileo and others strongly suggested the possibility that Copernicus was on the right track. When astronomers saw Jupiter’s moons revolving around Jupiter, and Mercury’s and Venus’ changing phases, the Copernican idea looked all the more credible.
Were the Prussian Planetary Tables, based on the work of Copernicus, infalliable? Hardly! But their shortcomings prompted Tyco Brahe (1546-1601) to meticulously observe the planets, in a quest to construct more accurate planetary tables. Then, the great Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) used Tyco Brahe’s data to derive the three laws of planetary motion, finally solving (to a great extent) the riddle of the planets. No doubt, the elliptical orbital paths of the planets took everyone by surprise!
But was Johannes Kepler able to prove that the Earth revolved around the sun? No! What you might call the first real good proof of Earthly motion had to wait till nearly a century after Kepler’s death. James Bradley (1693-1762) inadvertently found this proof, when he discovered the ‘aberration of starlight’ in 1728, though he was really searching for stellar parallax.
In short, our understanding of things become refined through exploration and discovery. But to disregard the warnings of scientists, because they don’t know everything there is to know about global warming, is hardly a reasonable course of action for our species to take.
Dear Benjamin Napier,
Thanks so much for your participation here and now.
As I understand your position you have a legitimate concern, discussed in your following statements from above:
“In a few words: Our global warming scare of today is very much analagous to the flat earth dogma of the Catholic Church in the 1300’s and 1400’s. Sea farers and explorers knew better but the church insisted on the dogma to control its followers.
You must look at who is to gain by the global warming scare. It sure ain’t the developed world or the semi-capitalist countries of the west. Russia, China and the rest of the socialist countries wish us to bind ourselves to ridiculus economic destruction so they can forge forward. Please know, that no matter what treaties these folks sign, they will not abide by them. We quit burning fossil fuels. We destroy our way of life. They keep burning fossil fuels and subjugate us. THe world keeps turning and the climate does what it will. Mankind is remanded to slave status. What have we gained?”
Please, here and now, consider my concerns, which follow:
If global warming is real, if Earth is finite and not a cornucopia, if continuous and increasing per human consumption cannot be maintained, if the world’s political economy is unpatentable and bound to eventually collapse because it is organized as a pyramid scheme, if the continuous increase of absolute global human population numbers cannot be indefinitely sustained, IF ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE TURNS OUT TO BE REAL, then the fortunate human beings on the planet like you and me will not have to worry about being relegated to slave status; we will not have to worry about how the economy will support our children in old age. As our great colleague, Dr. E. O. Wilson has put it so well for all of us: The problems soon to be faced by human community because of the human overpopulation of Earth will “dwarf” the concerns you have legitimately raised.
Thank you.
Just being able to read your many bright intelligent remarks concerning Global Warming gives hope that it may not be to late to help aid our planet. Yes there are to many of us, but unfortunately that’s the way it is. Let’s use the power of “US” to put into work some of the things we can do now to help with our biggest mistake made by “US” We can do it,we must do it with what we have.Otherwise we are going to find ourselfs, at least the younger generations, in deep trouble, as though we’re not already. Perhaps were not there just yet, it’s up to you knowledgeable creative concerned citizens of this wonderful planet to make it work, and work it’s going to be. I’ve been to Greenland and it is melting F A S T.
i read alot of history, both geological and anthropology, and i find that both ice ages and drought occur thru history. i also know that 90% of all the creatures that have ever roamed the earth are extinct. without human intervintion. i belive that like a virus or an asteroid strike human impact could just be part of the process of evolution. i find it hard to get worked up about this, while there are so very many other things happening in every aspect of our lives. the more i attempt to learn about a topic the more i understand how much we do not know.
whatever happened to my comment on global warming viewing it as a fiancial hoax and laying out a basis for ascertaining the truth of an opinion?
Julian,
We never received a comment like the one you describe. Your views are always welcome, though, if you’d like to try again.
All the best,
Deborah
I have no children of my own, but my husband does. His kids don’t seem to believe, or don’t care, about global warming yet!
Since I’m already past 65 this will probably not affect me or my husband during our lifetime. But, I do believe that it is coming and will, in time, cause a disaster!
We are doing everything wrong in America! We have had a President that appears to think that the boogyman of global warming will go away if he just sticks his head in a sack and refuses to acknowledge it.
We should:
1. Stop shipping merchandise across the ocean, as this burns fossil fuel.
2. We should cease having pre-emptive wars, as this uses fossil fuels.
3. We should be spending some of our funds researching alternate fuels.
4. We should be working on wind power and sun power where feasible.
5. We should stop trying to run the entire world, and concentrate on global warming.
I want to second Bruce McClure’s response to Ben Napier – well put.
To his other point about russia and china benefiting from global warming concers, that is completely wrong. russias main industry is oil and natural gas production. if the world stops consuming oil – that directly hurts russias economy. chinas fast growing economy demands a lot of energy in the form of oil and coal. if they use less fossil fuels, they wont be able to continue to develop on their current path. they have no interest in stopping fossil fuel consumption. nor does anyone have an interest in the US economy hurting – that would have a negative impact on the world economy. trying to get off oil doesnt help anyone (the middle east will be screwed). i dont think anyone suggests the US just stop burning fossil fuels now. since we are the most technologically advanced country with the biggest economy, the US is best able to find a solution – which is alternative sources. if we develop cheap and efficient solar energy, for example, we can supply all our own energy needs, not emit co2, not have to import oil and wage war in the middle east, be a energy exporter rather than importer…. this is what we should be doing. investing heavily in alternative energy technology. win win win
as far as sams comment above, that is like saying global nuclear war is just a part of evolution. we cant do anything about an asteroid strike. if we could – shouldn’t we? we certainly try to fight virus’. we can do something about global warming and we should.
global Warming, as presently construed, is a secular religion. It is a story of sin and redemption without using deities. The projections behind GW, unlike other scientific models like evolution, do not explain the past and in fact fail when past climate is tested by it. the cult-like behavior of those who promote and believe is far more interesting, and likely to be more destructive, than any climate change. That so many people are now believing in something so non-falisifiable as GW would be entertaining if it was not rapidly starting to displace efforts to actually mitigate real pollution.
Listen to the believers. The excitement they have in their voices when they boast about buying a higher mileage car or screwing in a fluorescent replacement bulb. Listen to how earlier this year we were promised an apocalyptic hurricane season because of GW, and how now we find out there was a mild season because of GW. If the summer is cool, it is GW. If it is hot, it is GW. If the winter is cold, it is GW. If it is a mild winter, it is GW.
These are the same articles of faith religious people use to explain God. But that is not how people who are studying science explain what they see.
GW is not science, it is social experience like the many past apocalyptic scares.
with overpopulation i think we should put our worries in preventing another plague.
It is becoming more and more evident that global warming is real. In a visit to Alaska I saw how glaciers are melting rapidly in comparison with years past and how the permafrost is melting causing buildings to sink. In the Great Lakes region where I live, summers have become much hotter.
Barbara Spring, author
The Dynamic Great Lakes