The characteristics for each of these categories is pulled from the 2009 Global Warming's Six Americas research from Yale.
- The Dismissive - they're sure climate change isn't happening (or at the very least is not caused by humans), it's not important to them on a personal level, and they don't worry about it; however, they contend they are well-informed and highly unlikely to change their mind; they think the scientific community does not agree on the causes of climate change or that the scientific consensus is not widespread. Within this group are those who believe that climate change is not happening--a subgroup we could also call climate change deniers. Note that noat all in. the dismissive group are climate change deniers.
- The Doubtful - these folks aren't sure if it's happening or not, but like the dismissive group, this issue is not important to them on a personal level and they don't worry about it. While they also believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists, the Doubtful consider themselves less informed on the issue than the Dismissive. And while the Dismissive group does not see climate change affecting people in the US ever, the Doubtful think it won't affect people in the US for at least 100 years, but that it could after that. We could also call this group climate change skeptics.
- The Disengaged - this is an interesting group because they identify as the most likely to change their minds on the topic. So while they haven't previously thought much about the issue broadly or from a personal perspective, and they only know a limited among about it, some disengaged folks do believe people are the cause of the change, but they just don't know enough about it to know whether scientists agree on that. They give just a 30-year time horizon for impacts to negatively affect the US.
- The Cautious - these people haven't thought too much about the issue, but they are open to the idea that humans are causing the changes we see in the climate. And while it might not be of high personal importance or perceived threat to them, they recognize the future threat it poses.
- The Concerned - these folks understand the scientific consensus on the issue but are decidedly not as emphatic as the Alarmed. And while they might not think it's currently a problem for people in the US, they only put the time horizon on it becoming a problem at about 10 years. Generally, they feel relatively well-informed about the issue, but haven't devoted as much time to it as the Alarmed.
- The Alarmed - this portion of the population is most convinced about climate change; it's very important to them, and they're really worried about it. They believe themselves to be very well-informed and, much like the Dismissive group on the other side, they are highly unlikely to be persuaded away from their current stance on the issue. They view climate change as a current threat to themselves and others.
It's important to note that misinformation at either end of the spectrum - either from Alarmists (which could be described as a small faction of the Alarmed category as described by the folks at Yale) or the Dismissive is problematic in advancing sensible and appropriate action to address the causes and consequences of climate change. For instance, ten years ago, it wasn't yet clear whether climate change would cause more intense and more frequent hurricanes; but we now understand that it is more likely and will continue to do so. The disagreements among scientists on this topic were pretty intense. Climate alarmists, like their dismissive counterparts, tend to leave little room for doubt or caveats. In contrast, climate scientists tend to be a cautious lot and usually prevaricate by using terms like “likely,” “unlikely,” “possible,” and “probable.” Many of the topics that used to be relegated only to alarmists (such as hurricane intensity) have been proven with rigorous and replicable science, and so the line between a climate change alarmist and centrist is getting a bit blurrier.
As the current instructor, I would like to add to these points. I have been involved with climate policy and private sector climate action for many years at the local, state, federal, and international level. It is interesting to note that underlying some of the disagreement among the above-mentioned categories of people is the frame of reference. It is important to be on the same page as to what those in these categories are arguing. For example, I have encountered many who are completely on board that climate change is an issue, and believe it is happening, but when the dialogue gets more detailed, disagreement arises. For example, I have noted that the following subtopics tend to be the root of many differences, even among climate change “believers,” but are often mistaken as generalizations of “believers and non-believers.” These include:
- How much of documented climate change is human-induced vs natural?
- Have we examined a long enough period of time to draw conclusions?
- Have we corrected for all possible natural aberrations?
- What are the real impacts of climate change? (What? How severe? For how long?)
- How impactful have global agreements really been vs more local actions?
The point is that substantive dialogue is important to look beyond misinformation and misunderstandings on what people are referring to and what their point of view is.