
People reject info on existence of a prob if they object to possible solutions - shawndumas
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/politics-self-confidence-trump-education-for-climate-change.ars
======
xbryanx
Yale's Six America's study is a great companion read to this article.

<http://environment.yale.edu/climate/>

It demonstrates six different types of attitudes towards Global Warming and
helps to explain the social dynamics associated with each opinion with a bit
more nuance than the Republican/Democrat divide in the decidedly fascinating
polling research in the arstechnica link.

~~~
shawndumas
link to the report pdf:
[http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Knowledge_Across_S...](http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Knowledge_Across_Six_Americas.pdf)

------
hugh3
Alternatively, people are more likely to believe information on the existence
of a problem if they like the possible solutions?

e.g. "You have a severe dietary deficiency. It can only be resolved by eating
more chocolate"

------
iterationx
I'll bet it would have gained a lot more traction if Al Gore hadn't
popularized it. You lose 50% of the country right there.

~~~
hugh3
I don't think it's really fair to say that Al Gore popularized it. People were
certainly widely talking about global warming (though usually under the name
"the greenhouse effect") as long ago as I can remember, which is about 1990.
Gore didn't hitch onto the bandwagon until sixteen years later.

The real reason for the left-right divide is that the most widely proposed
solutions always seem to involve more taxes and more government intervention.
They are also, in my opinion, _not_ the most effective way to spend that money
on CO2 emissions reduction.

Ultimately it's a technological problem and demands technological solutions --
we need to find ways to cheaply and efficiently produce the same amount of
energy without burning fossil fuels. The solution is therefore throwing more
money at R&D, not attempting to coerce people into using less energy.

The "cash for clunkers" program, for instance, cost $3 billion. The budget of
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, which is doing
some really good work, is about $130 million a year.

~~~
kenjackson
While there is a right-left divide, I think it is actually a different divide
than what you suggest, because even R&D solutions propopsed by the left are
shunned by the right.

The issue that doesn't come up nearly as much, but you'll hear if you talk to
hardcore social conservatives is that this planet is for humans to do as we
please. And I've been in discussions where they will quote specific bible
verses. Their view is that the secular left doesn't believe in God and
therefore thinks they need to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

------
stretchwithme
I think that's true of many people (responding to the headline).

Many people also accept existence of a problem more easily if they relish the
possible solutions.

For example, our currently developing budget disaster. I find it easy to talk
about because it finally means some finite end to dumb government spending.
But we don't exactly know how far the dumbness could continue or if sanity
will kick in soon or if the die is cast.

And, on the other side, there are people who love government spending who
claim its not a problem at all.

~~~
orangecat
_Many people also accept existence of a problem more easily if they relish the
possible solutions._

Indeed. Testable prediction: as solar and wind power become more economically
viable, harder-core environmentalists will discover many reasons why they're
unacceptable.

~~~
cydonian_monk
You can test that prediction now. There are rumblings about the damage wind
power does to local wildlife, and deeper questions about how large arrays of
wind turbines change weather patterns by drawing too much energy / increasing
airflow resistance.

Some (random, via quick Google search) sources:

[http://www.livescience.com/7626-wind-farms-change-
weather.ht...](http://www.livescience.com/7626-wind-farms-change-weather.html)

[http://www.gardenridge.net/wind-turbines-changing-
weather.ht...](http://www.gardenridge.net/wind-turbines-changing-weather.htm)

~~~
kenjackson
They note climate change, but to quote:

""The message here is climate change, but that doesn't equal global warming,"
Keith said. "It's possible this would have benefits," by working against the
atmospheric effects of fossil fuel consumption on global climate, he said. "

------
zem
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no
need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. -- John Kenneth
Galbraith

