Abstract
U.S. general public adults are very positive about science. For example, 79% of Pew’s 2014 telephone survey of American adults believed that science has made life easier for most people (Funk, Rainie, & Page, 2015). Seventy-two percent in the 2012 General Social Survey (GSS; Smith, Marsden, & Hout, 2015) felt the benefits of science outweighed any harmful effects (Besley, 2014). 1 American adults express interest in science, access science news on the Internet, and visit local science museums. Their confidence in scientists is second only to the military (Funk et al., 2015). They hold U.S. science achievements in high regard and believe that science improves the human condition (Besley, 2014; Funk et al., 2015).
At the same time, and in contrast to a 2014 Pew online sample of scientists (Funk & Rainie, 2015), U.S. adults are more cautious about evolution, vaccine safety, and genetically modified foods. Directly relevant to our subsequent Powell article, in 2014, 37 percentile points separated adults from U.S. scientists on human activity contributions to climate change (Funk & Rainie, 2015). And, again contrasting with scientists, Americans more often than residents of many other industrialized countries believe that “natural factors” rather than man-made activities contribute to climate change. Citing 2012 Pew Research Center data, Besley (2014) reported that:
Within the subset of Americans who believe the earth is getting warmer (i.e., 67% of Americans), about two-thirds (42% of all respondents) said it was likely because of “human activity such as burning fossil fuels,” whereas the remaining third (19% of all respondents) attributed the change to “natural patterns in the earth’s environment.” The percentage attributing perceived change to human activity reached a high of 50% in July 2006 but declined to as low as 36% in October 2009. (p. 7-40)
Furthermore, summarizing the research literature, Besley (2014) reported that:
Both Pew Research and Gallup have also asked questions about the degree to which Americans believe there is a scientific consensus around climate change. Gallup reported that, in 2013, 62% of Americans said that “most scientists believe that global warming is occurring.” Gallup’s research also shows that the percentage saying a consensus exists rose from 48% in 1998 to a high of 65% in 2008 before falling again. . . . Several other surveys report similar findings. (p. 7-40)
In the 2006 GSS, two thirds of a national sample of several hundred general public adults felt that environmental scientists understood global warning essentially “well” or “very well.” Sixty-four percent responded similarly in 2010. These figures were considerably higher than the 13% that American adults attributed to “elected officials” understanding in 2006 and the 16% in 2010. Nearly 90% in 2006 and again in 2010 felt that environmental scientists should have a “great deal” or a “fair” amount of influence on global warning policy (Smith et al., 2015). In 2006, 82% asserted that scientific conclusions should be based on “solid evidence.”
Yet in 2012, only 37% of GSS respondents felt they had a good (27%) or excellent (10%) knowledge of what it is that scientists actually do. In 2006, only 44% said environmental scientists had most or near complete agreement on global warming (16% perceived little or no agreement). And, in 2010, even fewer—38%—said that environmental scientists had most or near complete agreement on global warming and an increased 23% perceived little or no agreement.
These responses among the U.S. general public stand in stark relief against James Powell’s analysis of near unanimous global warming assertions among scientists’ professional publications. Even the famous Barack Obama’s 97% citation of agreement among scientists on climate change is apparently unperceived among regular U.S. citizens. Awareness of scientist agreement dropped rather than rose among American samples between 2006 and 2010.
These data tell us that somehow we have communicated badly with American adults, that the message is not getting through, or that the message is not trusted at least among some political factions (Funk et al., 2015), although we know from the data cited above that scientists—the messengers—are highly respected and garner considerable public confidence. Perhaps the attempts at “balance” among the media (one global warming endorser vs. one global warming denier per program) or the arguments from different industrial and political sectors to “teach the controversy” have combined to create the false perception that most environmental scientists either fail to agree on climate change, or on the consequences that human activity contributes to global warming. Given American concerns about rising sea levels (Smith et al., 2015; e.g., streets in several Florida cities regularly flood with very high tides), the increases in extreme weather, and threats to global ecology, misperceptions among the American general public can be dangerous. At the least in the future, we can hope for far more accurate perceptions about what American scientists actually have to say.