"American Public Rejects Global Warming." (Serious PR required)

"No, Mabel, I still don't believe there's a tornado out there."

Naturally, when I mutter "PEOPLE!!" and shake my head in disbelief, I don't mean you. You're really savvy.

But who ARE these people - the one in three Americans who do not believe there is solid evidence of global warming and the full half of us who don't believe pollution is causing the earth to warm? (All this from a 2008 Pew Research Council survey). And perhaps worse yet, what about the fact that only 41% of Republicans believe the earth is warming now - but 56% of Republicans know that most scientists think it is? (Gallup.)

Clearly, the scientists must be wrong.

Clearly, there must be reasons so many Americans don't believe it, don't care and (apparently) don't care to listen to scientists.

I got my son's Columbia University alumni magazine, (current issue not yet online, sorry) and to save the earth I kept it rather than mailing it to him. In the latest issue, the article The Deep Sleep sheds some light (heat?) on this subject. Columbia, kindly enough, has established a Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED). Some of CRED researchers' and analysts' findings, briefly paraphrased below, indicate that we need to create much better public relations outreach on why Americans should act now to slow global warming... and why we don't.

• We think it will be a problem for poorer countries, not so much the U.S.

•We have 52 senators from coal mining states blocking better federal policies - but coal, no matter how we position it, ISN'T clean.

•Some Americans' values preclude dealing with global warming: I know it's hard to fathom, but white, male, religious, conservative radio talk show listeners (yup) often don't believe in global warming.

•Global warming is just... too vague. We haven't seen the most catastrophic effects yet, so we focus on more immediate problems.

CRED researchers contend that people's responses to global warming information can change based on small differences in the way the information is presented. For example:

•Doomsday scenarios, while terrifying, tend to turn people off and away. Better to focus on solutions.

•When proposing a solution, describe its benefits before its costs (Marketing 101, of course).

•Explain specifically how our planet has been damaged and what needs fixing. Forget all the nature talk - we place higher value on what we've lost than what we still have.

•Look at people's values and address them. For example, the Christian right? Remind them of their duty to help their neighbor - including that poor soul living at sea level in the developing world.

•Tell people specifically how they can help. Which color Prius is best??

An Inconvenient Truth was a good start. But global warming is still very inconvenient, and we should make sure urgency outranks ennui in the American public.