I think that Observer story put a strange spin on the poll findings. I'm convinced that climate change is happening, is calamitous, and is caused by us, and yet I'm also sure there are "many" experts who doubt this. "Many" could mean almost anything - I believe it's a tiny minority of 'experts', but still more than, say, "a few".

And Tim, look how you're using polls in this post compared to the last one - if the politicians and experts and right on the existence and causes of climate change, and the public wrong and just need convincing, then why not say the same about the American healthcare system? ;-)

"Many" could mean almost anything - I believe it's a tiny minority of 'experts', but still more than, say, "a few".

I don't disagree with that qualification, actually (I was writing something on the same point yesterday as it happens). You can compare the results with a poll from May, for instance, which finds that 74% of people "believe climate change is happening and can be attributed directly to greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity". I hope that's the case. But ambiguity requires interpretation, and it's also possible the Observer's interpretation is correct. Alternatively, the divergence might be a result of the fact that "scientific experts" are mentioned, and the particular media-endorsed framings that conjures up.

if the politicians and experts and right on the existence and causes of climate change, and the public wrong and just need convincing, then why not say the same about the American healthcare system?

Here's the politicians being "right on the existence and causes of climate change". :-s

There's no scientific consensus on what funding model should be applied in the case of the US healthcare system. That's a matter of policy choice, not empirically established scientific fact (it's also true, of course, that the question of whether or not to do anything at all about human impacts on the climate is a question of policy choice, not fact, and you could hardly say the population would be "incorrect" to favour doing nothing about it - though they might be incorrect in the assumptions on which they based that attitude). It happens that the preference of the US population on this issue is, and has long been, for a publically funded healthcare system. In a functioning democracy, that preference would surely be translated into policy. The fact that it is not only not implemented, but virtually unthinkable within the bounds of the US elite consensus surely has some bearing on the question of how far the US political system can be characterised as meaningfully democratic.

More on those "experts" from George Monbiot, here. Enjoy.

Heh - I don't disagree with any of that, obviously.

Incidentally, on the subject of elites, and your earlier post on Obama's craven caving, what am I missing?

Obama - "On this January morning of two thousand and seven, more than sixty years after President Truman first issued the call for national health insurance, we find ourselves in the midst of an historic moment on health care. From Maine to California, from business to labor, from Democrats to Republicans, the emergence of new and bold proposals from across the spectrum has effectively ended the debate over whether or not we should have universal health care in this country."

and: www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare

If it's obligatory and universal and free for those who can't afford or don't have private insurance, does it matter how it's funded? Canada and some of the Scandinavian social democracies operate insurance-based universal healthcare systems rather than an NHS system, and still manage to do pretty well on equality/healthcare issues.

Doesn't mean it would actually happen, of course, but he and Hillary were both at least talking about it...

The phrase "from business to labor" rather sticks out there, doesn't it? Chomsky has made some interesting observations recently on why the ground may have shifted on healthcare - it doesn't actually pose much of a challenge to the idea of elite dominance, especially since public opinion hasn't really changed.