Econ METEOROLOGISTS VIEWSABOUT

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

In a survey of AMS members, perceived scientific consensus was the strongest predictor

of views on global warming, followed by political ideology, climate science expertise, and

perceived organizational conflict.

METEOROLOGISTS’ VIEWS

ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

A Survey of American Meteorological Society

Professional Members

by Neil SteNhouSe, edward Maibach, Sara cobb, ray baN, aNdrea bleiSteiN, Paul croft,

eugeNe bierly, Keith Seitter, gary raSMuSSeN, aNd aNthoNy leiSerowitz

AFFILIATIONS: SteNhouSe, Maibach, cobb, aNd bierly—

George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia; baN—The Weather

Channel, Atlanta, Georgia; bleiSteiN—NOAA/Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Observation and

Prediction, Washington, D.C.; croft—Department of Geology

and Meteorology, Kean University, Union, New Jersey; Seitter

aNd raSMuSSeN —American Meteorological Society, Boston,

Massachusetts; leiSerowitz—Yale University, New Haven,

Connecticut

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Neil Stenhouse, George Mason

University, 4400 University Drive MSN 6A8, Fairfax, VA 22030

E-mail: nstenhou@gmu.edu

The abstract for this article can be found in this issue, following the

table of contents.

DOI:10.1175/BAMS–D-13–00091.1

A supplement to this article is available online (10.1175/BAMS-D–13-00091.2)

In final form 19 September 2013

M ounting an effective societal response to climate

change will require the involvement of the

government, business, and nongovernmental

organization sectors, as well as a myriad of profes–

sional groups and members of the public at large.

Meteorologists and other experts in atmospheric and

related sciences are one group of professionals whose

involvement is particularly important. As experts

on weather and weather prediction, they will play a

variety of important roles in helping other stakeholder

groups make informed decisions based on changing

expectations about climate and weather. Their techni–

cal expertise is complemented by the fact that mem–

bers of the public see climate scientists and broadcast

meteorologists as trustworthy sources of information

on climate change (Leiserowitz et al. 2012).

Research conducted to date with meteorologists

and other atmospheric scientists has shown that

they are not unanimous in their views of climate

change. In a survey of Earth scientists, Doran and

Zimmerman (2009) found that, while a majority

of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans

have contributed to global warming (GW; 64%), this

was a substantially smaller majority than that found

among all Earth scientists (82%). Another survey,

by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83%

of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-

induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller

majority than among experts in related areas, such as

ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).

1029

JULY 2014AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY |

There has been tension in recent years among

American Meteorological Society (AMS) mem–

bers who hold different views on climate change

(Schweizer et al. 2011). Some members have expressed

that their views, which question the view that human-

caused global warming was occurring, are treated

with hostility within the AMS (Schweizer et al. 2011).

In response to this conflict, the AMS created the

Committee to Improve Climate Change Communica–

tion (CICCC) (AMS Committee to Improve Climate

Change Communication 2011). The CICCC’s mission

is to bring all constituencies of opinion to the discus–

sion table and to provide venues and modes of inter-

action that help facilitate respectful and constructive

dialogue on climate change. The CICCC’s mission

does not explicitly include addressing specific areas

of climate science or try to influence the outcomes

of discussions.

To better understand members’ views about cli–

mate change and their perception of any remaining

conflicts about climate change within AMS

membership, the CICCC commissioned George

Mason University researchers to survey AMS mem-

bers; the top-line findings of that survey have been

reported elsewhere (Maibach et al. 2012). In this

paper, we report the results of two additional sets

of analysis. First, to update previous research on

the extent to which meteorologists are convinced

of human-caused global warming, we conducted a

modified replication of Doran and Zimmerman’s

(2009) study. Next, we tested four specific hypotheses

about factors believed to influence meteorologists’

views about climate change, specifically their level

of certainty that climate change is occurring, their

views on whether it is mostly human caused, and

their views on how harmful or beneficial its results

might be. The four hypothesized influencing factors

are climate science expertise, political orientation,

perceived scientific consensus, and perceived conflict

about climate change within AMS; the specific hy–

potheses are presented and explained in detail below.

Last, we analyzed open-ended responses from survey

participants about the nature of the conflict about

climate change within AMS; these findings will be

reported in a subsequent paper.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES.

Climate science expertise. Previous research using

survey data (Doran and Zimmerman 2009) and

citation analysis (Anderegg et al. 2010) has suggested

that greater expertise in climate science, measured in

terms of academic background and publishing record,

is associated with higher conviction that human-

caused global warming is occurring. For example,

in Doran and Zimmerman’s survey study, while only

82% of the total sample indicated they are convinced

that humans have contributed to global warming,

89% of active publishers in the peer-reviewed scien-

tific literature and 97% of climate experts who publish

primarily on climate change in the peer-reviewed

scientific literature indicated they were convinced

(Doran and Zimmerman 2009; Kendall Zimmerman

2008). As a result, our first hypothesis is as follows:

H1: As compared with professionals with less

expertise in climate change, professionals with more

expertise will have higher levels of personal certainty

that global warming is happening, will be more likely

to view it is as mostly human caused, and will be more

likely to view it as harmful rather than beneficial.

Political ideology. Decision making about how to mount

an effective societal response to climate change in

the United States has been complicated by increasing

polarization over the issue, which has occurred

largely along political lines. In the late 1990s, similar

proportions of liberals and conservatives saw global

warming as real; by 2008 (Dunlap and McCright

2008)—and continuing to the present (Leiserowitz

et al. 2012)—large differences had emerged such

that liberals were more likely to see it as real, and

conservatives had become increasingly skeptical.

This growing polarization appears not to be caused by

differences in scientific understanding—indeed, most

Americans know very little about the science of global

warming (Leiserowitz et al. 2010)—but rather by dif-

ferences in political ideology and deeper underlying

values (Kahan et al. 2011). Many conservatives see

the solutions proposed to mitigate global warming as

being more harmful than global warming itself due

to their effect on the economy (McCright and Dunlap

2011). Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to

accept the dominant scientific view, as they see the

proposed responses to global warming as strengthen–

ing activities they value—namely, protection of the

environment and regulation of industrial harm.

One might expect scientists’ norms of objectivity

to prevent their political ideology from influencing

their evaluation of scientific findings. Indeed, in one

study scientists’ opinions on global warming policy

responses varied by political ideology, but their views

on the basic science did not (Rosenberg et al. 2010).

However, other studies suggest scientists’ views on

science can be influenced by ideology. A survey

of members of the American Association for the

Advancement of Science showed that conservatives

1030 JULY 2014

differed dramatically from liberals with regard to

their views about the science of global warming

(Nisbet 2011): 44% of conservatives saw global

warming as mostly due to human activities, com–

pared to about 94% of liberals. We therefore hypoth-

esized the following:

H2: As compared with professionals with a more

conservative political orientation, professionals with

a more liberal political orientation will have higher

levels of personal certainty that global warming is

happening, will be more likely to be view it is as

mostly human caused, and will be more likely to view

it as harmful rather than beneficial.

Perceived scientific consensus. Public opinion research

has shown that only a minority of the public (44%)

agree that “most scientists think global warming

is happening” (Leiserowitz et al. 2012, p. 18). Also,

preliminary analyses of the data from the present

survey found that only 59% of AMS members agree

that 81%–100% of climate scientists think that

global warming is happening (Maibach et al. 2012).

Members of the public who perceive agreement about

global warming among scientific experts are more

likely to view global warming as real, human caused,

and harmful than people who do not perceive agree–

ment in the scientific community (Ding et al. 2011;

Dunlap and McCright 2008; Krosnick et al. 2006).

We therefore hypothesized the following:

H3: As compared with professionals who perceive less

scientific consensus about global warming, profes–

sionals who perceive more scientific consensus will

have higher levels of personal certainty that global

warming is happening, will be more likely to be view

it as mostly human caused, and will be more likely to

view it as harmful rather than beneficial.

Perceived conflict. Schweizer et al. (2011) found that

broadcast meteorologists who perceived conflict

about global warming among their peers had

disengaged from the issue, and they reported hav–

ing done so because of the pressure they felt from

committed partisans in the conflict to “choose

sides.” This finding parallels an argument that has

been advanced in the political science literature that

increasing levels of polarization in American politics

has caused the moderate majority to disengage from

political participation (Fiorina and Abrams 2008).

One proposed reason for this political disengagement

is that moderate voters feel no incentive to participate

when they see the debate as primarily being driven by

ideological positioning rather than a wish for problem

solving (Fiorina and Abrams 2008). Schweizer et al.

(2011) found similar sentiments expressed by broad–

cast meteorologists in relation to conflict about

climate change within AMS. We believe that, when

members of a professional group (including but not

limited to meteorologists) perceive conflict within

their peer group, they will withdraw from the conflict

by moderating their views on the issue that is causing

the conflict.

This moderation of views would entail AMS mem–

bers on both ends of the spectrum of views shifting

closer toward the center. However, because we

expected a larger number of members to have begun

with views favoring human-caused global warming

(prior to perceiving conflict at the AMS), we also ex–

pected any moderating influence to result in members

revising their views of global warming downward

more often than upward. For this reason, when

averaged across the whole population of members,

we would expect greater perception of conflict to

be associated with a reduced level of conviction that

human-caused global warming was occurring. We

therefore hypothesized the following:

H4: As compared with professionals who perceive less

conflict about global warming within the member-

ship base of their professional society, professionals

who perceive more conflict will report lower levels of

personal certainty that global warming is happening,

will be less likely to be view it is as mostly human

caused, and will be less likely to view it as harmful

rather than beneficial.

METHOD. On 29 December 2011, we e-mailed

all 7,197 AMS members for whom AMS had an

e-mail address, excluding associate members and

student members. The e-mail—signed by the CICCC

chairs—requested participation in our survey

and provided a link to the web-based survey form

(including the consent form). On 6 January 2012,

and again on 11 January 2012, participants who had

not yet responded received reminders by e-mail. On

27 March 2012, 375 participants who had given one

specific answer (to a question on global warming

causation) were e-mailed a request to answer one

additional question (designed to clarify their view on

causation). This question is described further below.

Of the 7,197 people invited to participate, 135 peo–

ple were ineligible due to invalid addresses. Therefore,

the valid denominator of our sample was 7,062. Of

these, 1,854 people completed at least some portion

of the survey beyond the consent form, yielding a

1031

JULY 2014AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY |

minimum response rate of 26.3% (which assumes

that all nonrespondents were eligible to participate);

this is slightly lower than the average rate for web

surveys (Shih and Fan 2008). Of the 375 people who

were sent the follow-up question, 271 responded. One

of these respondents refused to answer the question,

for a response rate to the follow-up question of 270

out of 375, or 72%.

Independent variables. exPertiSe. To assess climate

science expertise, we examined three measures:

whether respondents indicated climate science as

their area of expertise, their highest degree obtained,

and their peer-reviewed publishing record on climate

change over the last five years. Using principal axis

factor analysis, we found these measures formed a

single factor; loadings for all variables were within

the acceptable range (Gorsuch 1983). We therefore

decided to sum all three variables into an index

of climate science expertise. For area of expertise,

participants who indicated climate science as their

area of expertise were scored 1; all others were scored

0. For highest degree obtained, participants who

answered “PhD (or other doctoral degree)” and “MS

or MA” were scored 2 and 1, respectively; all others

were scored 0. For publishing record, respondents

who said they published more than 50% of their

21%–40%, 41%–60%, 61%–80%, 81%–100% (coded

1–5, respectively), and “I don’t know enough to say.”

Respondents who indicated “I don’t know” (n = 156)

were excluded from the analyses, so that perceived

consensus could be analyzed as a single continuous

variable. To assess if the exclusion of “Don’t know”

respondents influenced our findings, we conducted

additional analyses with all respondents using

dummy coding, a statistical technique that allows

noncontinuous variables to be entered into linear

regressions. This produced no significant change to

the results.

Perceived coNflict. Respondents were asked if they

agreed or disagreed with the statement, “There

is conflict among AMS members on the issue of

global warming.” Response options were “Strongly

disagree,” “Somewhat disagree,” “Neither agree nor

disagree,” “Somewhat agree,” and “Strongly agree.”

The responses were coded 0–4, respectively.

Dependent variables. certaiNty. To establish the cer-

tainty of respondents’ views on global warming, we

asked two questions. The first asked whether global

warming is happening, and the second assessed the

respondents’ level of certainty that it is happening.

The first question was worded as follows: “In this