According to a CNN/Gallup poll released today, a majority of Americans, and a majority of both Republicans and Democrats, “believe that global warming has been at least a minor cause of the number and strength of hurricanes in recent years.” The poll asked, “Thinking about the increase in the number and strength of hurricanes in recent years, do you think global warming has been a major cause, a minor cause, or not a cause of the increase in hurricanes?”

Specifically, the poll found that 60% of respondents believe that global warming was either a major or minor cause of “the increase in hurricanes,” — 53% of Republicans, 60% of Independents and 82% of Democrats. Clearly, ideology shapes how one views the science.

Interestingly, 36% of respondents think that global warming is a “major cause”, 25% of Republicans, 34% of Independents, and 48% of Democrats. On the flip side, 30% of respondents to the poll believe that global warming was “not a cause,” 44% Republicans, 34% Independents and 12% Democrats. Let’s assume that the most up-to-date state of the science is presented in the recent work of Emanuel and Webster et al. (and, yes, yes, I know that there are responses to these papers in the pipeline, but they are not published yet, and this poll was taken just recently, for a full assessment of the current state of the literature see this paper (PDF)). These works are suggestive that global warming has had at best, only a minor influence on the storms of the Atlantic in recent years (i.e., no one has asserted effects on frequency, and Emanuel claims that an intensity signal at landfall has not been seen, and Webster et al. claim that attribution has not yet been achieved). As Kerry Emanuel, who has asserted that a global warming signal exists in the data on hurricane intensity, notes, “There has been a large upswing in the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes, beginning in 1995. This is owing to natural cycles in North Atlantic climate that we have observed for many decades and, to the best of our ability to discern, has nothing obvious to do with global warming.”


So it is fair to conclude that 66% of respondents to this poll misunderstand the science as reflected in the recent peer reviewed literature – that is, the 36% who assert a that global warming has been a “major cause” and the 30% who assert that global warming is “not a cause.” The ones whose views are consistent with the most recent science on this subject are the 29% who asserted a “minor cause” – 28% Republican, 26% Independent and 34% Democrat.

There numbers raise some interesting questions about the positions that scientists take in public on the relationship of global warming and hurricanes. Some statements by prominent scientists go well beyond what the peer reviewed literature can support; some vehemently assert no linkage, while others claim that global warming is a major factor. With scientists themselves going to extremes, it is no wonder that the public has misunderstandings. In this environment of dueling experts we should expect that the public tends to align their views of science in ways fit best with their ideological predispositions.

Because slightly more people appear to overstate the linkage than underplay it – at least as indicated in this poll – it is logical for those with an interest in the public understanding of science to devote just as much (or slightly more) attention to reigning in some of the exaggerations of the science as to correcting those who underplay the issue. But such balanced perspectives are few and far between. Nuanced messages about the complexities and realities are lost in the fray. It is “global warming: yes or no” with little room for other perspectives.

To be fair, it may be that some the scientists who are claiming no linkage or a strong linkage are simply arguing in public about what they expect future research will show, perhaps motivated a bit by ego considerations. But of course, science is (usually) not decided in the media or by public opinion, but rather on the pages of peer reviewed journals, and these scientists surely know this. So perhaps there are other motivations here.

Could it be that the views of many scientists about the science of hurricanes and climate change are colored by their own political preferences, just like those of the public? Specifically, perhaps those scientists who are asserting loudly in public that global warming is “not a cause” are focusing their message on the 48% of Democrats who believe that global warming is a “major cause.” And similarly, perhaps those scientists who are asserting a “major cause” are focusing their attention on the 44% of Republicans who think that global warming is “not a cause.” Could it be that some scientists, and even professional societies, show little concern about public misunderstandings of science when they are politically convenient, and work to correct them only when the opposite is true? Is concern among scientists about the public misunderstanding of science selective? Shocking if true.

Of course, the entire debate about global warming and hurricanes is a huge distraction from what needs to be done in a practical sense to better prepare for hurricanes and to mitigate climate change. They are two separate problems. (Before you write in, please consider the following homework assignment: Assume that human-caused greenhouse gases are cut by 80% on Jan 1, 2006, describe the effects on hurricane damages in 2050. This is not to diminish GHG reductions, but to make the point that they are not a tool of hurricane policy.) But the debate sure makes for an interesting new playing field for playing out our left-right political battles. It’s just too bad that it is politicizing the scientific enterprise in the process.

For further reading:

Pielke, Jr., R.A. and D. Sarewitz, 2005. Managing the next disaster, Los Angeles Times, September 23. (PDF)

Pielke, Jr., R. A., C. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver and R. Pasch, 2005 (in press). Hurricanes and global warming, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, December. (PDF)