Public opinion research is part of my responsibilities at NRDC and its a piece of my job that I love. There's nothing quite like watching a group of folks from behind a one-way mirror talk about the issues that NRDC works on each day. Often it is an enlightening experience; sometimes it can be deeply humbling.

As part of our research program, we recently cosponsored some work on public attitudes toward global warming. The results were, as suggested above, both enlightening and humbling as researchers from SRI Consulting Business Intelligence looked at the motivations behind views, opinions and behaviors around climate change. This was diagnostic research, designed to help organizations like NRDC understand best how to tell the critical story of climate change and energy consumption so I cannot go into too much detail here.

But there was one area that I found particularly fascinating.

The idea is based on a theory developed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal, who in the 1600s argued that believing in God was a useful "wager" since the potential consequences of being wrong about the existence of a higher power were so scary.

Applying that theory to the question of climate change, the researchers said, could be a powerful argument for action. Even if not completely persuaded that global warming is real (remember what I said about humbling!) voters could be persuaded to cut global warming pollution when they considered the potential consequences of being wrong.

Personally, I love this line of reasoning. It speaks to a hard-headed realism that I've consistently found in our public opinion research. This realism helps balance the helpings of humble pie we often must eat when we find that public opinion lags on the specifics of one environmental challenge or another.

I'll be writing more about our public opinion research in future posts. While never the final word, our research helps us understand how to approach our work. And I think that understanding should be shared as widely as possible. So stay tuned.