Climatic Change

, Volume 119, Issue 2, pp 511–518 | Cite as

Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA

  • Aaron M. McCrightEmail author
  • Riley E. Dunlap
  • Chenyang Xiao


Given the well-documented campaign in the USA to deny the reality and seriousness of anthropogenic climate change (a major goal of which is to “manufacture uncertainty” in the minds of policy-makers and the general public), we examine the influence that perception of the scientific agreement on global warming has on the public’s beliefs about global warming and support for government action to reduce emissions. A recent study by Ding et al. (Nat Clim Chang 1:462–466, 2011) using nationally representative survey data from 2010 finds that misperception of scientific agreement among climate scientists is associated with lower levels of support for climate policy and beliefs that action should be taken to deal with global warming. Our study replicates and extends Ding et al. (Nat Clim Chang 1:462–466, 2011) using nationally representative survey data from March 2012. We generally confirm their findings, suggesting that the crucial role of perceived scientific agreement on views of global warming and support for climate policy is robust. Further, we show that political orientation has a significant influence on perceived scientific agreement, global warming beliefs, and support for government action to reduce emissions. Our results suggest the importance of improving public perception of the scientific agreement on global warming, but in ways that do not trigger or aggravate ideological or partisan divisions.


Global Warming Climate Policy Political Orientation Government Action Political Ideology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors thank the Gallup Organization for making the data available for analysis.


  1. Bollen K (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bord RJ, O’Connor RE, Fischer A (2000) In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Pub Underst Sci 9:205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bostrom A et al (2011) Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: international survey findings. Glob Environ Chang 22:210–222Google Scholar
  4. Boykoff MT (2011) Who speaks for the climate?: Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dietz T, Dan A, Shwom R (2007) Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociol 72:185–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ding D, Maibach EW, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2011) Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nat Clim Chang 1:462–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2011) Organized climate change denial. In: Dryzek J, Norgaard R, Schlosberg D (eds) Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, pp 144–160Google Scholar
  8. Hamilton LC (2011) Education, politics, and opinions about climate change: evidence for interaction effects. Clim Chang 104:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hayes AF (2009) Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Commun Monogr 76:408–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoggan J (2009) Climate cover-up: the crusade to deny global warming. Greystone Books, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  11. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) IPCC fourth assessment report. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  12. Kline RB (2011) Principles and practices of structural equation modeling, 3rd edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Lowe L, Visser PS (2006) The origins and consequences of democratic citizens’ policy agendas: a study of popular concern about global warming. Clim Chang 77:7–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values analysis. Clim Chang 77:45–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Malka A, Krosnick JA, Langer G (2009) The association of knowledge with concern about global warming. Risk Anal 29:633–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McCright AM (2009) The social bases of climate change concern, knowledge, and policy support in the US general public. Hofstra Law Rev 37:1017–1047Google Scholar
  17. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2003) Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Soc Probl 50(3):348–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2010) Anti-reflexivity: the American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory, Cult Soc 27(2–3):100–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52:155–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mooney C (2012) The Republican brain: the science of why they deny science—and reality. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. National Research Council (2010) Advancing the science of climate change. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Connor RE, Bord RJ, Fisher A (1999) Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal 19:461–471Google Scholar
  23. O’Connor RE, Bord RJ, Yarnal B, Wiefek N (2002) Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Soc Sci Q 83:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Powell JL (2011) The inquisition of climate science. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Xiao C, Hong D (2010) Gender and concern for environmental issues in urban China. Soc Nat Resour 25:468–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zahran S, Brody SD, Grover H, Vedlitz A (2006) Climate change vulnerability and policy support. Soc Nat Resour 19:771–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aaron M. McCright
    • 1
    Email author
  • Riley E. Dunlap
    • 2
  • Chenyang Xiao
    • 3
  1. 1.Lyman Briggs College, Department of Sociology, and Environmental Science and Policy ProgramMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  3. 3.Department of SociologyAmerican UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations