2015 GSA Annual Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, USA (1-4 November 2015)

Paper No. 183-8
Presentation Time: 9:50 AM

ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE DISSENTER INVENTORY: DEMOGRAPHIC BUY-INS


BENTLEY, Andrew Phillip Keller, The Mallinson Institute for Science Education, Western Michigan University, 1903 W. Michigan Age, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5444, CASSIDY, David P., The Mallinson Institute for Science Education, Western Michigan University, 1234 Reycraft Dr, Kalamazoo, MI 49001 and PETCOVIC, Heather L., Department of Geosciences and The Mallinson Institute for Science Education, Western Michigan University, 1903 W Michigan Ave, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5241, Andrew.P.Bentley@wmich.edu

Addressing the widespread impacts of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is a challenge facing scientists and non-scientists alike. This challenge is exacerbated by the conflicting, misleading, or false information regarding ACC that the public is exposed to. Efforts to inform the public must account for both the science and the sociocultural issues surrounding ACC. The goal of this study is twofold: to develop and validate an instrument that measures the extent to which individuals agree with ACC dissenter messages, and to identify if particular demographics are more likely to agree with those messages. Previous work deconstructing and analyzing dissenter media revealed that individuals who argue against ACC utilize arguments both scientific, e.g. 'the sun is the sole controller of climate change', and non-scientific, e.g. 'climate change is a hoax proliferated by academics to receive funding'. Codes generated from this previous qualitative study were used to create items for a Likert-like survey instrument. This survey was completed by individuals (N=133) via an online response system. A number of inferential tests both parametric and non-parametric, e.g. Cronbach-α, item-total correlation, and Exploratory Factor Analysis, were used to explore the data, determine relations, and test the validity and reliability of the instrument. ACC dissenter statements factored into five categories: naïve scientific & non-scientific statements refuting the science of ACC, sophisticated scientific statements which implied climate-change was not anthropogenic in nature, arguments that place ACC in the hands of 'mother nature', arguments that imply the current warming is only part of a larger cycle, and items asserting the beneficial nature of a warmer climate. Validation of this survey tool suggests it could be a powerful instrument in understanding individuals’ views towards misleading climate material. This information could be used to generate tailored climate literacy resources that better address the issues and science surrounding ACC.