Climate change opinion on Newnight

Newsnight had a great bit on public opinion on climate change last night. It involved an American pollster discussing the topic with about 30 members of the UK public. I recommend watching it here.

Couple of comments:

Unsurprisingly, the group did not trust or respect the climate change commitments by Brown and Cameron. Most felt that climate change was just being used to support their political careers. Similar to campaigns by celebrities. On the other hand, the audience trusted comments by Prince Charles - a long time conservationist campaigner. This surprised me, actually. I suspect a lot of 'ivory tower' academics do not take seriously (or pay attention to) Prince Charles' environmental comments. This, appears, is unwise.

While there was a range of opinions about climate change, and concerns about the uncertainties in the science, only ONE guy brought up the solar theory. And even then, he just commented it was a possibility. No finger pointing, no denialism, no arguing. He took part in the discussion on other issues as normal. So evidently Durkin didn't get to these people with TGGWS.

Most of the group felt that action was required, but there was little evidence that they were willing to pay for it. The questions on willingness to pay were somewhat imprecise, and there was a bit of a disconnect in the audience between their belief of needing to reduce emissions and the need to pay for them. But the sense in general was that there was an unwillingness to accept taxes on energy use. What would they think about a tax-rebate scheme, or a personal carbon credit scheme? Who knows. Evidently economists have to do much to educate the public.

Comments

[Angus]

Nathan, first let me thank you for your initial CC blog on the C4 documentary, that was a true public service and exhibited real dedication.
No thanks for the link to the Newsnight, waching that infuriating polster present a whole lot of ill informed rhetoric from his audience without any genuine debate was even more infuriating the second time.
Why is it acceptable to present this and then round up at the end in such a misleading way. Surely it is his responsibility to provide input to the procedings based on the more informed position that I am sure he has and point out the paucity of understanding that prevailed even in just a questioning way. In concluding, is it not also up to him to draw attention to just how poor the understanding of the public is on the matter, when all the infromation is readily available to anyone who really cares to research it. This is also neccessary to reveal just how often opinion is based more on political predelictions (as a recent blog discussed) than a genuine understanding of a convoluted and complex issue.
Quite how it is worthy of Newsnight to explore and summarise the views of the public based on their incomplete understanding of the issue, then present this almost as fact and not in some way point this out is beyond me.
A prime example from my own area is the chap who was accused of using Africa as an 'emotive issue' when he pointed out that it was one of the areas most vulnerable to the effects of CC. The briefest investigation into the abundance of work done on this will reveal that this is a unanimous consensus by all studies and a real tragedy in the making.
In summary, I suppose I am just disappointed that all the hard work done by scientists and practitioners in this area that is raising its own pressing areas of debate on how best to procede in areas of mitigation and adaptation is still largely ignored by mainstream media who would rather rehash pointless discussion based on mis-informationand plain lazy lack of application to the subject matter that is devoid of any intellectual rigour. A good example of this is that no-one present even disputed in any real way the science behind the reason for a belief in the anthropogenic causes of CC, despite the abundance of attention given to the matter recently.
Come on NN, you can do better than this. I am not asking for discussion to be guided but some realities need to be pointed out to those shooting the shit on air when it becomes clear the lack of real comprehension has rendered continuation pointless.

[Nathan Rive]

Hi Angus - I wholly agree that much of the discussion was ill-informed. Which is why I titled the blog entry "climate change opinion" and not "climate change facts". Yet I think such bits as this do have value, particularly to academics who often ignore the public communication side of their work.

My understanding is that the job of the pollster was to just find out what people believed. Straight up. He wasn't there to tell them about the science, and then ask the audience for their opinion.

The result, which as you say, suggested a lack of comprehension and misguided opinion. As I pointed out, there was a real disconnect between the audience's understanding between the need to do something, but an unwillingness to "pay for it". It's like they think that if there's a tax, they'll have to pay, but if it's carbon credits, they won't. This is obviously a lack of understanding of economics.

But the opinion about Prince Charles' view vs. politicians came as a surprise to me. They were actually very positive about him - which should not be taken lightly. (Of course, I would like to see this poll done with more people.)

The discussion on Newsnight provides a good feedback as to how people have absorbed and thought about the information they have received. I don't think this is pointless. It does mean, as you say, that the mainstream media have not done their job; but I also think that certain concepts of environmental economics and science need to be communicated better.

[Miles]

I seem to remember hearing somewhere that Frank Luntz invented the term climate change. Is that true?

[Nathan Rive]

Miles - ha, it seems you're right. The pollster was an advisor for the Republicans and the Canadian Conservatives: http://www.desmogblog.com/bushs-chief-climate-spinmaster-tells-harper-how-its-done

[Angus]

Nathan, good bit of detctive work!
Told you he was infuriating.....and what did I say about him rounding up peoples opinioins when he concluded to as if they were almost fact. The whole thing was subtly guided, and in the wrong direction. I cant' believe NN chose this guy to do the programme, I reiterate, come on NN, you can do better than this.......

[Miles Perry]

So we've had Bush's economic advisor and a globetrotting conservative spindoctor. What next? Henry Kissinger's home composting tips?

[Nathan Rive]

Wait, are you calling me the globetrotting conservative spindoctor

[Miles Perry]

Well no, that'd be Frank Luntz - Mankiw being Bush's economic advisor. But there obviously is right wing infiltration of this blog. I blame Veli. I think he's a double agent.

[Nathan Rive]

Miles - Well, what with media and academia teeming with liberal eco-terrorists, the Internet is really the last bastion for the conservatives. I just hope that Typepad's blurb on us when we get featured on the front page doesn't make us out to be a bunch of pale green corporate types.

Joking aside, I do agree that we have seen a right-wing tilt in the dicussion of late. To be fair, whatever Mankiw's leaning may be, calling him conservative based on his call for a carbon tax in the US is a bit much given the way the discussion has been going so far over there.

And anyway, in my experience, Veli is a good answer to pretty much anything... Right Veli?

[Miles]

Nathan,

From scanning Mankiw's blog page, his opinions don't seem particularly barmy - which makes me wonder why he worked for the Repubicans, what his advice was and whether they listened to any of it.

But also joking aside, I think the blog is just fine, even if it has taken a right wing tilt. I would have thought the last thing we should be doing is injecting some artificial sense of 'balance'.