"Some people say that most scientists agree that global warming is real and already happening. They say the only scientists who do not believe global warming is happening are paid by big oil, coal, and gasoline companies to find the results that will protect business interests, just like the tobacco industry scientists who said cigarettes don't cause cancer.

"Other people say that scientists disagree among themselves that global warming is happening. They say there is no real evidence that carbon dioxide emissions from coal, oil, and gasoline are causing global warming. With whom do you agree more . . . ?"

Most of the questions being asked about global warming are not as grossly biased as this one, posed by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in August. But many of them are as misleading. They purport to show that Americans have a coherent view about global warming when that is not the case. A little background explains why.

The Rise of Environmentalism

In the late 1960s, concern about the environment was limited to those with higher levels of education and income. Interest spread quickly, and by the mid-1970s nearly all Americans had become deeply committed to a clean and healthful environment and to policies to achieve those ends.

Once the society agreed on ends, most people turned away from debates about means. For better or worse, most Americans are now comfortable letting business, government, and advocacy groups argue over how the Endangered Species Act or Superfund should be reauthorized or what the White House agreed to in Kyoto.

Most of us don't know anything about these complex issues. We answer questions pollsters ask us, but our responses vary greatly depending on how questions are worded or the emphasis they have. Thus it is possible to "prove" that global warming is an urgent problem on which we must take action or that it is one where we should do more research before taking action.

The August 1997 WWF poll found 56 percent agreeing that President Clinton should take action now because "the problem is only getting worse and we cannot afford to take a wait-and-see approach." But an October 1997 NBC News/Wall Street Journal question had 59 percent agreeing that "we don't know enough about global climate change and more research is necessary before we can take action."

Here's another inconsistency. In the November 1997 Princeton Survey Research poll for News-week, the public split 51 to 47 percent in favor of paying 12 cents more for a gallon of gas to reduce global warming, but in the November 1997 Princeton Survey Research poll for Pew, 60 percent said they would be willing to pay 25 cents more per gallon. Hypothetical questions on how much we are willing to pay produce notoriously unstable responses for the simple reason that people don't think in hypothetical terms.

Here's another improbable finding. Sixty-one percent in a 1992 Gallup poll said the effects of global warming had begun, but in the November 1997 Gallup poll, only 41 percent gave that response. Americans haven't changed their minds; they never had solid opinions on this subject to begin with, so their responses are inconsistent.

In their desire to make headlines, pollsters and their media partners are asking questions in areas where opinion is mushy at best and probably non-existent. Questions like the ones above undermine the credibility of the polling profession and contribute to the view that you can take a poll and prove anything you want.

Fortunately, it is possible to find some consistent responses that help us understand how Americans assess the Kyoto pact.

• Global warming always ranks near the bottom of lists when people are asked about environmental problems the government should address. These responses say very little about global warming; they simply tell us that the public is more concerned about environmental problems that are visible (air and water pollution, for example, or toxic waste sites).
• Natural or manmade disasters interest the public; international summits like Rio or Kyoto, where the players are unfamiliar and the issues esoteric, don't.
• If environmental issues are increasingly international, U.S. environmental policymakers will have to deal with some deeply ingrained non-environmental attitudes. Americans are aware of our global leadership role, but they are tired of shouldering burdens alone and cranky about the costs of international involvement. To ask Americans to bear a disproportionate share of the burden on any global issue is not going to be popular.
• Over the past 20 years, confidence in many institutions has plummeted. But the credibility of the scientific community is still high. In part because of this strong confidence, Americans are optimistic that science can address problems like global warming.
• Americans are often dubious about business's claims--whether they are about the costs of meeting fuel efficiency standards, installing air bags, or taking steps to combat global warming. Part of this attitude is a general skepticism of big institutions, but another part of it stems surprisingly from business's record of accomplishment. Because of this generally exemplary record (and because other institutions like the federal government are seen performing poorly in the public's mind), business seems to be held to a higher and more demanding standard than other institutions in addressing problems like global warming.
• The polls suggest that Americans are becoming "lite greens," willing to take actions to protect the environment, such as recycling, that are not difficult or expensive, committed in theory to all sorts of actions to improve the environment that appear to have minimal or no cost to them (e.g., having business make more fuel efficient cars), but resistant to things that cost real money or are inconvenient.

These findings tell us more about opinion on global warming than the global warming polls.

Karlyn Bowman is a resident fellow at AEI. She has collaborated with Everett Carll Ladd, of the University of Connecticut and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, on two new books: Attitudes toward Economic Inequality and What's Wrong: American Satisfaction and Complaint.