Policy debates feature conflicting causal arguments offered by political opponents in order to explain ongoing events. This characteristic is present in the current policy debate over climate change, with conflicting arguments emerging in an attempt to explain changes in global temperatures. Despite assertions by scientists that climate change is anthropogenic, disagreement remains within public opinion over the primary cause of climate change as well as the perceived threat if change continues unchecked.A two-step process is introduced as a way to understand the polarization within public opinion. Utilizing a proprietary public opinion dataset, the analysis first considers how the public comes to understand the causal arguments relative to climate change. The acceptance of causal arguments, in turn, influence whether respondents are concerned about the phenomenon. In effect, a two-step process exists, where the public must understand the causal arguments before demonstrating an elevated level of concern for the problem.The dissertation emphasizes the role of scientific knowledge and political values in shaping public opinion. Results support the argument that scientific knowledge guides the public's understanding and acceptance of the causal arguments associated with climate change, with most (but not all) high-knowledge individuals agreeing to even the most politically contested claims. Political values, however, also guide the acceptance of causal arguments and moderate the effect of knowledge. Once respondents accept the causal arguments offered by climatologists, however, they demonstrate an elevated level of concern. The dissertation concludes with a discussion of the implications of the analysis, with consideration given to whether the polarization within public opinion can be mitigated through meaningful policy action.
Read
