IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v131y2015i4p487-503.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientists’ views and positions on global warming and climate change: A content analysis of congressional testimonies

Author

Listed:
  • Xinsheng Liu
  • Arnold Vedlitz
  • James Stoutenborough
  • Scott Robinson

Abstract

Among many potential causes for policymakers’ contention over whether there is a largely unified scientific agreement on global warming and climate change (GWCC), one possible factor, according to the information deficit theory, is that the scientists who testified in congressional hearings might be substantially divided in their views and positions associated with GWCC. To clarify this, we perform content analysis of 1350 testimonies from congressional GWCC hearings over a period of 39 years from 1969 to 2007 and use the data derived from this content analysis to provide an overview of scientist witnesses’ stances on GWCC. The key findings include: (1) among the scientists’ testimonies with an expressed view on whether GWCC is real, a vast majority (86 %) indicates that it is happening; (2) among the scientists’ testimonies with an identified stance on whether GWCC is anthropogenic, a great majority of them (78 %) indicates that GWCC is caused, at least to some degree, by human activity; (3) even under Republican controlled congresses, there is still a supermajority (75 %) - among the scientists’ testimonies with an expressed position on GWCC existence or GWCC cause - that believes that GWCC is real and that GWCC is anthropogenic; (4) most scientists’ testimonies (95 %) endorse pro-action policy to combat GWCC; and (5) the percentages of scientists’ views and positions are consistent across different types of scientist testimony groups. Our findings suggest that the scientific information transmitted to Congress is not substantially different from the general agreement in the climate science community. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Xinsheng Liu & Arnold Vedlitz & James Stoutenborough & Scott Robinson, 2015. "Scientists’ views and positions on global warming and climate change: A content analysis of congressional testimonies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 131(4), pages 487-503, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:131:y:2015:i:4:p:487-503
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-015-1390-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10584-015-1390-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-015-1390-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dana Fisher & Philip Leifeld & Yoko Iwaki, 2013. "Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 523-545, February.
    2. Arrow, Kenneth J, 1982. "Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(1), pages 1-9, January.
    3. J Burgess & C M Harrison & P Filius, 1998. "Environmental Communication and the Cultural Politics of Environmental Citizenship," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 30(8), pages 1445-1460, August.
    4. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    5. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo & James Stoutenborough & Arnold Vedlitz, 2015. "Scientific advocacy, environmental interest groups, and climate change: are climate skeptic portrayals of climate scientists as biased accurate?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 607-619, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schwaiger, Rene & Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Determinants of investor expectations and satisfaction. A study with financial professionals," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    2. Cindy Cifuentes Gómez & Siervo Tulio Delgado Ruiz & Jorge Iván González, 2021. "El comportamiento económico desde la perspectiva biológica y psicológica," Apuntes del Cenes, Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, vol. 40(72), pages 17-43, July.
    3. Delli Gatti,Domenico & Fagiolo,Giorgio & Gallegati,Mauro & Richiardi,Matteo & Russo,Alberto (ed.), 2018. "Agent-Based Models in Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108400046, January.
    4. Peter Fraser‐Mackenzie & Ming‐Chien Sung & Johnnie E.V. Johnson, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the Influence of Cultural Background and Domain Experience on the Effects of Risk‐Pricing Formats on Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1846-1869, October.
    5. Dorian Jullien, 2016. "All Frames Created Equal are Not Identical: On the Structure of Kahneman and Tversky's Framing Effects," GREDEG Working Papers 2016-17, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    6. Raj Aggarwal, 2004. "Persistent Puzzles in International Finance and Economics," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 35(3), pages 241-250.
    7. Daniele SCHILIRO, 2016. "Economics and Psychology The Framing of Decisions," Journal of Mathematical Economics and Finance, ASERS Publishing, vol. 2(2), pages 77-88.
    8. Kahneman, Daniel, 2002. "Maps of Bounded Rationality," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2002-4, Nobel Prize Committee.
    9. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "A Psychological Perspective on Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 162-168, May.
    10. Marian W. Moszoro, 2021. "Political Cognitive Biases Effects on Fund Managers’ Performance," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 235-253, July.
    11. Floris Heukelom, 2007. "Who are the Behavioral Economists and what do they say?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 07-020/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. Giancarlo La Camera & Barry J Richmond, 2008. "Modeling the Violation of Reward Maximization and Invariance in Reinforcement Schedules," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(8), pages 1-17, August.
    13. Richard Zeckhauser & Jayendu Patel & Darryll Hendricks, 1991. "Nonrational Actors and Financial Market Behavior," NBER Working Papers 3731, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Aggarwal, Raj & Schirm, David C., 1998. "Asymmetric impact of trade balance news on asset prices," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 83-100, January.
    15. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, July.
    16. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    17. Zhihui Wang & Liangzhen Nie & Eila Jeronen & Lihua Xu & Meiai Chen, 2023. "Understanding the Environmentally Sustainable Behavior of Chinese University Students as Tourists: An Integrative Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Thibaud Deguilhem & Juliette Schlegel & Jean-Philippe Berrou & Ousmane Djibo & Alain Piveteau, 2024. "Too many options: How to identify coalitions in a policy network?," Post-Print hal-04689665, HAL.
    19. Robert S. Chirinko & Edward P. Harper, 1993. "Buckle up or slow down? New estimates of offsetting behavior and their implications for automobile safety regulation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 270-296.
    20. Ellen Garbarino & Robert Slonim, 2007. "Preferences and decision errors in the winner’s curse," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 241-257, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:131:y:2015:i:4:p:487-503. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.