Skip to main content

Attitudes on climate change, environmental science and clean energy

Dan Farber, professor of law | December 17, 2012


  • Overall, 78% said they believe temperatures are rising.












Comments to “Attitudes on climate change, environmental science and clean energy

  1. Great write up though i feel the issue of climate change should be addressed in a broader perspective….after all America is not the only country having issues…look to the East for sure…



  3. Dan:

    I’m a physicist actively involved with environmental matters for some 30 years.

    With all due respect, your article (and the surveys) have one profound flaw in them: they both assume the terms “Science” and “Scientists” are essentially synonymous. That is false.

    The public may well (rightly so) distrust more scientists but that has nothing to do with distrusting Science.

    Science is a proven, very effective Process. What’s to distrust about that?

    The problem is when individual scientists abort, abridge, circumvent, distort, etc the Process.

    When people use the term “bad science” that is a contradiction in terms. What they should be saying is “bad scientists.”

    Bad scientists are those who make unproven connections between things like “renewable energy” and “climate change.” Note that neither of these are scientific terms, but rather marketing phrases.

    Your examples (and Yales’) are in the realm of political science, not traditional real science.

    • Right on, Dan!!

      It’s about time that people stopped this confusion. I’m a chemist actively involved in science education these days. My company makes online hands-on science labs with the express purpose of showing people what science is really all about.

      As you say, it’s a process. It’s not a collection of arcane language, formulas, and procedures. Those are tools. You might as well say that carpentry is hammers. Also, it’s the carpenters who are bad, not carpentry. Is that so hard for so many to understand?

  4. The main reason the American public doesn’t have higher opinions of science is because they don’t understand the way scientists report their findings. The media likes to report strongly worded, definitive conclusions (i.e. “Earth will be 4° warmer by the 22nd century. Thus saith the Lord…”) where as scientists almost always qualify their answers based upon varied outcomes (i.e. “The chances that the Earth will be 4° warmer by the 22nd century is 78% whereas there’s a 12% chance that it will only be 2° warmer and a 10% chance it will only be 1° warmer…”).

    The reason for this has nothing to do with a supposed deemphasis on science in public education but more with how the media reports scientific studies and conclusions.

  5. Nicely done piece that ties together a slew of recent public opinion polling and parsing on climate change and political orientation. Your observation about the trap of shifting climate attitudes being tied to the vagaries of weather is right on the mark.

    That said, however, climate action advocates’ public narratives should not shun current events such as Texas and mid-west heat and droughts and Superstorm Sandy and their aftermaths on daily life. They’re big, they’re vivid and they provide a taste of what’s to come if we don’t accomplish the collective action we need.

Leave a Reply
