Guest post by David Middleton
From The Hill…
Poll: 70 percent believe in climate change
By Timothy Cama – 01/05/16 10:41 AM EST
A new survey finds that 70 percent of Americans believe the climate is changing.
The poll from Monmouth University, released Tuesday, found a stark partisan divide on most issues surrounding climate change, including whether it is happening, how serious it is and what should be done about it.
The research, conducted mostly before nearly 200 nations voted last month in Paris on an international climate accord, found that Democrats (63 percent) are much more likely than Republicans (18 percent) to see climate change as a very serious issue.
The poll provides another piece of support for actions internationally and by President Obama to fight climate change. Obama’s main climate policy, contentious new limits on carbon emissions from power plants, is due to be litigated this year in federal courts.
But the support is complicated. Pollsters found that only 27 percent of respondents agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is the main cause of climate change.
[…]
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/264767-poll-70-percent-believe-in-climate-change?ref=yfp
Wow! 70% of Americans believe in climate change!!! That’s as astonishing as saying that they believe in weather!!!
This is the real story:
“Pollsters found that only 27 percent of respondents agree with the overwhelming marginal scientific consensus that human activity is the main cause of climate change.”
100% – 27% = 73%
So, 73% of Americans reject the 52% consensus.
Note: In this post “AGW” is shorthand for “the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.“
This makes me wonder what the poll results would have been if these questions asked about “global warming” instead of “climate change”.
I learned something from Dear Leader yesterday, that even a “large majority” of Republicans agree we need stricter gun control. “You see, that I didn’t know.”
“The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one”.
Reminds me of one of my favorite observations. “He who l!es about one thing, will l!e about other things.”
Sorry, myNym but did you mean to write ‘everything’ where you wrote ‘other things’?
Sorry, no. If I were to hear “we want to take away all of your freedoms, and all of your money”, I would tend to believe it. So, no, not quite ‘everything’.
Climate change is not global warming – that’s why the schemers changed the name.
marlene:
Climate Change = Global Warming; it is only people like you that fall into the alarmist trap of not understanding that simplicity. They shoved Global Warming down our throats for a long time, but the temps didn’t follow the hyperbole of a boiling earth AND they knew the PDO was going to flip AND they knew the AMO was going to flip AND they knew about the low sunspot cycle.
Not quite correct KOKO. Climate Change equating Global Warming is only in the political hype. Global Warming is supposedly Human Induced (though some human aspects certainly exist like Heat Island from urbanization) and Climate Change is what happens naturally as the Climate is never stable
Bryan….you don’t get it. If you go back 20, 40, 60, etc., years and someone mentioned Climate Change to you, your thought process would equate that to natural climate variability. Today, that is Not the case. The alarmists hijacked Climate Change in lieu of Global Warming cuz they knew it wasn’t warming and for other factors I previously mentioned. The original premise WAS Global Warming and NOW, with their new name, an ice age is caused by the Magic Molecule CO2.
No Bryan A, Climate Change is the replacement wording for Global Warming when warming failed to happen. You’re going by what you think it means, but Kokoda is correct, he has stated what it really means.
Yes I agree, the obfuscation of Global Warming and Climate Change was purposefully political.
“Schemers” is probably an accurate description, I might expand to say schemers made up in equal parts crooks and fools.
Please, please, please, please … Can we put this tired “global warming v. climate change” chestnut to bed once and for all? It’s been called “climate change” all along, friends. A few examples:
1. 1956: Gilbert Plass’ seminal study “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change”
2. 1971: Barrett and Gast publish their important paper in Science entitled “Climate Change”
3. 1977: The journal “Climatic Change” begins publishing
4. 1988. The IPCC is established — and that “CC” means, well…?
Sure, the mainstream media may have used the term “global warming” more than they did “climate change,” but the scientific community has called it “climate change” for decades. Fair arguments are fair arguments, but B.S. is B.S., as any reasonable person should conclude.
Rik,
And globaloney is globaloney, as any reasonable person should conclude…
Re: “Karl et al. disproved ” [,,,]
Not even close. Scroll up to the top, and type in “Karl” in the search box. You will get a number of hits, such as:
Climate scientists criticize government paper (Karl et al. 2015) that erases ‘pause’ in warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/09/climate-scientists-criticize-government-paper-karl-et-al-2015-that-erases-pause-in-warming/
The CAGW dogmatists have been allowed to extend their myths of evidence for AGW by controlling the language, and sites like WUWT have conspicuously failed to be as effective as they should be. This has happened because our side of the argument have never had a policy on words and wording.
When, ten years ago, the dogmatists stopped using CAGW and started to use new phrases like “Climate Change” and “Extreme Weather” they were reacting to teh obvious fact that the climate warming of the 1980- 2000 has begun to level off. They wanted to make a new link in the public’s mind natural extreme weather events (local cooling events, storms, droughts and floods) with the warming that had been recorded between 1980 and 2000, in this way they successfully managed to give the impression that evidence of CAGW was still mounting up. Their game play succeeded because we let them dictate the language of the debate.
The warming levelled off two decades ago. Monkton began to talk of “the 12year..15 year…18 year pause”, which became very threatening because everyone knows a pause might turn into a stop. So again they hijacked Monkton’s and called the “pause” a “hiatus”. Vocabulary.com defines a hiatus like this “Even things that go on for a long time take a break once in a while: one kind of break is a hiatus. If someone has to leave her job for a time, she’s going on hiatus. A touring band will need to take a hiatus if the lead singer gets in an accident. The key thing about a hiatus is that it’s an interruption of something that was happening, but it’s not a permanent break.”
The stupid thing is that even on this site we talk of the “Hiatus” and use the word introduced to imply that the warming will start up again. The correct neutral term was not pause, it should have been something like “a levelling off of the warming at the end of the last century”. How often is such language used on WUWT and how much more often do we call it a hiatus?
This site desperately needs a language policy that frames the debate in neutral language, words like hiatus should swept out of the debate because no one really knows that it is a hiatus, all we know is that their has been a levelling off which might become either a high point or a hiatus.
Julian….+100; in order to ‘reach’ the general population, wordsmithing is vey important. Most don’t get it.
Nothing is perfect.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
WUWT is pretty darn good IMHO.
Given the full court press being put on by the mainstream media and politicians it is amazing that the vast majority of the population is at least somewhat skeptical. WUWT deserves at least some of the credit for that. It isn’t a direct effect; most of the population isn’t aware of its existence. It works by providing a place for skeptics to recharge their batteries and get fresh information to counter the alarmists. They then go back to their communities and spread the word. I suspect that there’s a big multiplier effect.
Um, even pause implies a restart.
The correct word is “HALT”, for it IS halted until and unless evidense of a restart or drop arrives.
“and sites like WUWT have conspicuously failed to be as effective as they should be.”
I agree totally.
You and I should start another site and show Anthony et.al. how to do it correctly…
donchathink?/sarc
By the way, what’s your plan?
“This site desperately needs a language policy that frames the debate in neutral language, words like hiatus should swept out of the debate because no one really knows that it is a hiatus, all we know is that their has been a levelling off which might become either a high point or a hiatus.”
The temperature has plateaued or flat-lined now that we are in the climate doldrums historically.
It has always been true that he who controls the language will control the debate. That was a large point made by George Orwell in his essay on language.
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1946 https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
The “global warming” minions admitted there was no ongoing CO2 caused global warming when they changed to “climate change”. Heck, the climate is always changing and always has changed. The moved the goal posts yet again. We lost that battle early on. Oh well.
“We lost that battle early on.”
I would not agree. L!ars do have some advantage in that they can just blatantly make up whatever they choose to spew. Meanwhile, honest people, all too often, scratch their heads, and ask themselves “How could that be true?”
But, in the end, the truth will prevail. Physics is physics. We have not lost “the battle”. Their battle is against physics. They aren’t fighting us, they are fighting the truth. There is no winning that battle.
@Julian Williams: “When, ten years ago, the dogmatists stopped using CAGW and started to use new phrases like ‘Climate Change’…” I beg to differ: the IPCC was formed in 1988, and that “CC” referred to … wait for it … climate change.
Argue all you might want in a reasonable fashion about AGW, the Karl et al. disproved “hiatus, Monkton’s — well, let’s be kind — unsupportable mathematics, and the like, but please don’t try to rewrite history, m’kay?
Re: “Karl et al. disproved ” [,,,]
Not even close. Scroll up to the top, and type in “Karl” in the search box. You will get a number of hits, such as:
Climate scientists criticize government paper (Karl et al. 2015) that erases ‘pause’ in warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/09/climate-scientists-criticize-government-paper-karl-et-al-2015-that-erases-pause-in-warming/
“Overwhelming scientific consensus” ??????
Yes I don’t get that, some discredited or at least debatable studies do not a consensus make. So why is the media so lazy about simple basic reporting. Who in their right mind reports on scientific issues based on consensus. If we get consensus that the moon does not affect the tides, does that mean the moon no longer affects the tides? Apparently to the MSM, that is how science works.
Consensus is a tool for getting results in politics not science.
A more accurate statement is, “Many government leaders have reached consensus that warming caused by human activity is a problem, even though the science is not settled as to causes of climate change and whether the impacts of a warmer climate are beneficial, harmful or some combination of both.”
They are dishonest…period !
Consensus is a tool for getting results in politics and religion, not science.
There, fixed it. You’re welcome.
Ian M
Reporters nearly always use consensus scientific opinion. When reporting on evolution they do not usually discuss creationist views. They conflate HIV and AIDS, not bothering to mention those few scientists that think HIV does not casue AIDS. The big bang and inflation are mentioned as events, not just as the majority view. Global warming is reported as occuring, the contrary view of a few scientists is not generally reported. This is all normal and how it should be. Unless the topic of the report is the uncertainty, then the consunsus view is usually assumed.
So we might expect some articles whether HIV causes AIDS or whether the Big Bang or Inflation really occured, focussing on the dissenters. There will be the occasional article discussing the merits of creationism, and there will be a some discussing the merits of AGW. But for most cases, the correct journalistic approach is to assume the consensus of experts is right.
That is different from the correct scientific approach. Here we must never assume anything is right. We must constantly question and investigate, until there is enough evidence for a consensus to emerge. If there is evidence discovered to convince a significant proportion of scientists that there is no AGW, then we will have a new consensus. Just as if enough evidence is discovered to convince a significant proportion of physicists that inflation did not occur in the early universe. Until then, we have the one we have.
even if there is a consensus , what value does that actually have ?
what was the consensus on ?
how do we know there was a ‘consensus’ when we don’t even know the size nor make up of the group that is supposed to have this ‘consensus’ and or in fact if they do represent the majority which they would have to be a ‘consensus’?
lots of basic problems with this ‘consensus’ idea
I believe in weather. I don’t believe in catastrophical anthropogenic global warming.
Wrong questions asked as usual.
A better question to ask is ‘How would you feel if it is determined that climate scientists are horribly wrong about the effects of CO2 and the influence is really more beneficial than harmful?”
An excellent question!
Self serving questions rather than wrong questions, but I agree with you that the politicians will deserve their treatment, when finally handed out by the peasants.
“Inspired by the sermons of the radical cleric John Ball, and led by Wat Tyler, a contingent of Kentish rebels advanced on London. They were met at Blackheath by representatives of the royal government, who unsuccessfully attempted to persuade them to return home. King Richard II, then aged 14, retreated to the safety of the Tower of London, but most of the royal forces were abroad or in northern England. On 13 June, the rebels entered London and, joined by many local townsfolk, attacked the gaols, destroyed the Savoy Palace, set fire to law books and buildings in the Temple, and killed anyone associated with the royal government. The following day, Richard met the rebels at Mile End and acceded to most of their demands, including the abolition of serfdom. Meanwhile, rebels entered the Tower of London, killing the Lord Chancellor and the Lord High Treasurer, whom they found inside”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt#Rebels
Couching the question to predetermine the answer. Sounds like something a lawyer would do.
YES or NO! Have you stopped beating your spouse! Admit your guilty! Accusation proved!
All intelligent people know that the climate changes over time.
The question that we disagree is over, Do human activities cause disruptive changes in the climate? Theory of some say yes. Real scientific investigation says not likely…pg
There are many points actively contested.
From the very basic one of: Can CO2 warm the atmosphere all by itself?
To more general ones like: How much natural variability exists in the climate regimes of the Earth?
And ones that challenge the notions that CO2 increasing or the atmosphere warming are bad things, to be feared or avoided.
There is no one single question or disagreement.
It is more true to say that every single contention of the warmistas is, at the very least, highly debatable, and quite possibly completely erroneous.
It makes you wonder how the results would change if the key word “cyclical” had been used with natural change in the survey instrument. These results show that critical data analysis with imperfect data and irregular cycles is not being taught in college. I guess critical thinking did not make the cut in curriculum development for Political Science and History majors. Add that observation to the time capsule trinkets for the next few generations to look back on.
Whenever I run across someone who believes in CAGW, it doesn’t take long before they are either convinced they are wrong, or are consumed by reasonable doubt. The only ones who fail to see reason are those with a strong political bias which is the main reason why climate science is so incredibly wrong in the first place and unfortunately, many climate scientists fall into this category.
As far as the (inadequate) records show–less than 200 years for small areas–there has been an overall wwarming trend. The problem is the deliberate attempts to cook paleoclimate studies, like the divinely inspired Michael Mann (there must be some reason for that puppy being so influential :)). There is no simple answer, and polls tend to declare there is one.
The warmers would have you believe that this started in the 1700’s with the end of the Dalton Minimum….they blame it on the start of industrial activity and the greenhouse gases we came to emit. Trouble is they don’t check their facts and more importantly neither does the media. The main gas that gets the blame is Carbon Dioxide but there is no increase until the early 1950’s. in the post war boom. Industrial output increased, CO2 emissions increased……but the temperature declined due to a solar minimum.
Just one example of an AGW epic fail.
There is a relatively simple answer TH to the majority of what the alarmists would have you believe is “man made global warming”.
“there has been an overall warming trend”
TH, if you were to remove the constant upward daily adjustments of the worlds temperature records by beureus of meteorology or their equivalents, all according to worlds best practice of course.
Just what have you got left of that “overall warming trend”?
Yes, “global warming” is certainly “man made”!
Over-educated children embrace the silly idea the most. Give ’em a few years, until they’ve seen what accomplished liars their politicians are.
There is also a significant difference in support for government action by age – ranging from 75% of 18 to 34 year olds
But ‘climate’ is an average of 30 years of weather, so unless they were a very aware group of 4 year olds, then they have not really experienced ‘Climate Change’ have they. Plus if they are aware of the satellite data, that has no overall change for 18 years.
What this study has revealed is the effectiveness of Propaganda & Psych-ops.
Propaganda
Create effective propaganda that changes attitudes This is achieved if people identify with a new or changed mission. Propaganda is used to extend this identification to increase popular support for a mission and provide points of convergence for transformative action.
Propaganda Teams
Form Propaganda Teams by selecting and training persuasive, motivated people, who move within an organization and encourage people to support the organizational mission. Trained Propaganda Teams can provide a multi-stage persuasion program that integrates strategic planning with organizational attitudes. Propaganda Teams can also provide feedback about rumors and attitude changes. This role is fulfilled by secret police in authoritarian societies.
Psych-ops operations have maximum effect with people who:
– have little education
– accept information uncritically
– benefit from the proposed change
– want to believe the propaganda
– do not wish to understand their own motivations
http://www.systemiccoaching.com/psych-ops.htm
Frankly what the public believe is so fickle anyway I couldn’t care or less. People believe what is happening in their back yard at that moment. If a cyclone devastates their country they will look for reasons why and suddenly everyone believes in climate change. If they have a long patch of settled weather then this AGW stuff is all rubbish. I think the more informed among us on both sides of the debate know these public surveys are as reliable as politicians to tell us what is happening.
Simon,
Another monitor saved – just.
“As reliable as politicians.” Mmmmmmmmm . . . . .
As constant as the wind.
As invariant as the weather.
I live in England. We do get weather.
Auto, smiling!
Where did David Middleton get the “52% consensus” number from?
John
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/18/anatomy-of-a-collapsing-climate-paradigm/
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/dhm1353054/BAMS02_zpsqmotv1ji.png
David Middleton on January 6, 2016 at 11:45 am
– – – – – – –
David Middleton,
Thanks for the source.
John
David I’d like to point out something very important IMO that has been created out of whole cloth by eco-terrorists an shouldn’t be promulgated; the idea that a scientific consensus can be determined by polling scientists for their position on some issue (“Crest gives you whiter teeth”).
Scientific consensus is is formed by repeated experiments. A scientist presents a hypothesis (“human released CO2 raises the Average Global Temperature”) and proceeds with an experiment that both disproves the null hypothesis (“natural variation causes a rise in AGT”) and supports the hypothesis advanced. When that experiment is determined valid and repeated by other scientists, a scientific consensus is formed.
Scientific consensus is not a popularity contest and it isn’t a democracy. I think it’s importat to get that message out.
What, no “I-don’t-want-to-provide-the-information-because-you’ll-just-try-to-find-something-wrong-with-it” type response? You’ll never make it as part of the hockey team. 🙁
“What, no “I-don’t-want-to-provide-the-information-because-you’ll-just-try-to-find-something-wrong-with-it” type response”
Which of course was precisely the response of embarrassing charlatan and mountebank Phil Jones of University of East Anglia CRU infamy when asked to provide his data.
This is an interesting study. If we look at it closely we see that 83% of AMS members who are publishing in the area of climatology think global warming is real and at least 50% man made. The authors conclude that the results “Confirming all four hypotheses…that greater expertise, more liberal ideology, greater perceived consensus, and lower perceived conflict each predicted higher levels of certainty global warming was occurring, higher likelihood of viewing it as mostly human caused, and greater ratings of future harm.” (my emphasis). Yes, that does say that more expertise in climate (among other things) correlates to higher levels of certainty that global warming was occuring and that it was man made and dangerous.
The table is quite revealing. The overall “Yes, mostly human” figure is 52%, but examination of the table shows that if we use only those who are publishing in climate science, the figure rises to 73% (n=416). If we include the equally natural and man made, the figure jumps to 83%.
If we wish to argue what proportion of “experts” agree that global warming is real and at least 50% man made, I think the 83% is more accurate than the 53%, since the majority of AMS members are not experts in climatology. Of course, many climatology experts are not members of the AMs also.
There are some problems. They say “How to square this with the oft reported 97% consensus? Well, ‘climate scientists’ in these surveys typically includes economists, ecologists etc., nearly all probably representing second order belief.”
This is wrong. The figure for the categories they mention would be 82% – the proportion of AGU members that answered “yes”. The 97% figure comes from the subcategory of scientists that were experts in climate science and actively publishing or form surveys of published papers.
In other words, those people who’s income relies on them believing that CO2 is a problem can be reliably counted on to believe that CO2 is a problem.
Bias is a human conundrum that comes in many forms, including WUWT itself.
Fortunately for WUWT, the facts supporting CAGW are at best very weak.
But, it was never about CAGW, was it ?
Warmists have moved beyond CAGW and are implementing Phase II.
IMO, the most likely candidate for stopping the alternative energy nonsense is a global depression.
We won’t be able to afford it.
Do you find it interesting that the timing of Phase II is running smack into a bloated fiat economy ?
democrats?….republicans?
What about independents which are around 40% of the country
Republicans and independents do not poll….they have caller ID, or hang up
nevermind….they included independents
Caller ID; the best invention since tin cans and twine.
When I get a Pollster call, I just ask them to “hold on for a second and I’ll be right back” then I set the phone down and walk away. They usually disconnect in a minute or two.
Bryan
Pollsters, Marketeers and the rest.
If I’m feeling bad, I do the same, but with the computer playing something by Max Bygraves . . . .
Auto
I don’t know if ever there was a poll taken that wasn’t skewed simply by the the presentation of the questions or the order in which they were asked. None of the pollsters are exactly like Socrates engaged in a dialogue in search of truth.
I think it’s very clear from the ongoing sock puppet rhetoric that the “movement” is deliberately confounding climate change with cAGW. It would take a fool to deny that climate change happens, all the evidence we have in had support that. I don’t think anyone who’s graduated the 4th grade hasn’t been exposed to the idea of Ice Ages. There are children’s cartoons about it.
So the radical eco-terrorists try to label anyone who remains unconvinced of cAGW a “climate denier” even when they agree climate changes. If a person makes any attempt to explain the difference they fall back on the “take your meds” and “get out your tinfoil hat” methods of persuasive argument. From there the situation deteriorates into monkey house tactics.
Personally, I’ve decided the best way to deal with that is to keep presenting evidence (with references if necessary) until the true nature of the sock puppet is revealed. It isn’t necessary to make these people look like fools, they’re very good at doing it all by themselves if you can stay cool long enough to let then do it.
The correct answer for anybody answering honestly is “don’t know”. And only 1% gave that response. That so few answered honestly demonstrates how effective the propaganda campaign has been.
If I were answering honestly I’d probably say most climate change is due to natural causes. After all, nature has caused 100% of the climate change that has occurred during the 4 billion or so years that Earth has had an atmosphere. Only 8% gave that response. Another sign of how effective the propaganda is.
Actually, the science shows that CO2 is a bit player when it comes to climate changes.
Saying that most of the change is natural can easily be supported.
Only one percent don’t know?
It may be coincidence but the adverts on this page are displaying vacuum cleaner heads – which seems to say to me, that this scam is all over bar the vacuuming.
27+34% = 61%. So 61% of Americans believe that warming is occurring, and that human activity is responsible for 50% (or more in the case of the 27%) of the warming. It is not correct to say that 73% of Americans reject AGW, because the AGW position acknowledges that natural causes of warming exist and can be co-contributors to the overall warming that occurs.
It’s about minuscule percentages of warming that might be attributable to human activity. In other words, we don’t trust the figures touted about from those who have vested interests in lying to us. There are close to 7 billion people living on the planet. So what, if temperatures did rise a little? Do you want to cull 3 or 4 billion, Chris?
The survey didn’t mention warming. Here is the specific question that was asked:
“Do you think that the world’s climate is undergoing a change that is causing more extreme
weather patterns and the rise of sea levels, or is this not happening?”
70% of the respondents answered, “Yes, it is happening.”
The definition of “AGW” as it relates to the so-called consensus is that more than half of the recent warming is anthropogenic. Only 27% of the respondents endorsed the so-called consensus…
“Is climate change caused more by human activity, more by natural changes in the
environment, or by both equally?”
“Both equally,” is not an endorsement of the so-called consensus. It is a rejection of it.
Both equally is 50%, so 34% of respondents said that, and 27% said human activity represents 50.1% or more (meaning a majority). If you view that as a rejection of AGW, then why did 64% say they support the statement in question 7: In general, do you support or oppose the U.S. government doing more to reduce the type of activities that cause climate change and sea level rise?
In order to not reject AGW (the standard definition of the consensus) a respondent would have to reply “human activity.” All other responses, including “both equally” is a de facto rejection of AGW.
Since not all people equate “AGW” with “the standard definition of the consensus,” I should have titled the thread differently…
“73% of Americans reject so-called AGW consensus”
Regarding wanting the government to do something about it…
“In general, do you support or oppose the U.S. government doing more to reduce the type of activities that cause climate change and sea level rise?”
I’m shocked that it was only 64% who answered, “yes.” People almost always want the government to fix things. Had the question been…
“In general, do you support or oppose the U.S. government doing more to reduce the type of activities that cause volcanic eruptions and earthquakes?”
Most people would have answered “yes.”
A more interesting question would have been,
“How much are you willing to pay as a taxpayer and a consumer in order to reduce type of activities that cause climate change and sea level rise?”
Very unclear question. Probably intentionally. What does “this” in “or is this not happening?” mean? Are they talking about the change or the extreme weather and rise of sea levels?
Ian M
If the majority of the small warming over the last century+ is natural, then by definition, there is nothing to worry about.
The mythical consensus has tried to claim that most of the warming was caused by CO2.
Keep in mind “Climate change” includes land use changes driving changes as well. My reading of everything leads me to think co2 is a small player but we likely have measurable impact from all of the changes we made tot he landscape. So on such a poll Id be factored in with those who think humans likely changed the climate, but I doubt co2 was the issue.
Is it asking too much to state when the poll was taken? and what percent were reached by landline phones?
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/bbab2f4a-3eef-4772-9b82-8fbdd996452a.pdf
“The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from December 10 to 13, 2015 with
1,006 adults in the United States. This sample has a margin of error of + 3.1 percent. The poll was
conducted as a joint effort by the Urban Coast Institute and the Polling Institute at Monmouth University
in West Long Branch, NJ.”
Okay, then re-testing with another survey at the end of January can test for robustness since they are not asking the know-it-all respondents about weather.
Only 8% responded correctly that the cause of climate change is mostly natural, therefore 92% of poll respondents are morons.
I think that’s a general truth about polls.
Let’s see, 10 C degrees of warming in a couple of decades at the end of the Younger Dryas, yeah I believe in climate change. What’s the IPCC predicting, possibly up to 2 C in a century? When the natural warming trend we’ve been in since the 1800s will account for half of that, should an IPCC prediction actually come to pass?
If the movers and shakers genuinely believed that mankind’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere will end human civilization in the very near future, they would be calling for the complete shutdown of any and all sources of human-produced CO2. However by sheer random happenstance it miraculously turns out that the problem can be solved simply by implementing a particular political faction’s statist agenda and turning all control over to them. We’re saved! :-/
No CAGW proponent really takes it seriously, so why should I?
Several obvious problems with some of the questions:
Complex question. First the survey does not define “climate change” and this first question mixes together whether the never-defined “climate change” is happening with do the effects include more “extreme” weather patterns.
A blatant example of petitio principii (begging the question). The responses on this question can have no useful meaning in terms of what people actually think.
A less blatant example; it really boils down to asking people whether they live in a coastal or inland location. Again the question is prefaced with an appeal to authority (“some say …”), which taints the responses.
The most important thing to know about any so-called opinion poll is: who paid for it? I could not get this information from the provided link:
My unvarying response to phone invitations to “take just a few minutes” to respond to a survey is “no”. This is a good example of why.
This is such bad research and presentation, it reminds me of:
“A new survey finds that 70 percent of Americans believe the climate is changing.”
Phewwwww. Because “Ice Age”
In my humble opinion, for realism, such a poll must be directed/asked in such a way as to determine how many of the respondents have actually properly ‘reviewed’ the subject under question. So, for example, questions like ‘How much independent enquiry have you made about climate change?’ would be useful to see discern those who ‘take MSM as gospel’ and those who ‘check for themselves’. Naturally, one might expect that those ‘higher’ educated may be more prone to checking what they are told (aka being skeptical!). Polling the general public in order to try and obtain some idea of ‘populus’ opinion of a serious matter is largely flawed due to the majority of the population being only ‘aware’ via MSM, etc. It may be apathy, of course, but for Mr and Mrs Average, getting their info from the news is far more likely to fit into their busy ‘average’ lives than obtaining independent, deep or meaningful enquiry. Such a poll seems to me to simply be a means to provide yet another tool for further ‘self flagellation’ of said populus! – hardly fair or realistic, is it? Just my view of polls in general…..
Agreed. If you sample under-informed respondents, you get a measure of media bias.
Best if the poll takers screened respondents for a few relevant scientific facts first.