
Stanford and Woods Institute didn’t like the recent polls like these:
Pew poll: 2 of 3 Americans think Congressional action on climate change is not a priority
Gallup: Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop
Pew Poll: global warming dead last, down from last year
So with public money from the National Science Foundation, they conducted their own poll, and issued a press release:
Large majority of Americans still believe in global warming, Stanford poll finds
Three out of four Americans believe that the Earth has been gradually warming as the result of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop it, according to a new survey by researchers at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.
The survey was conducted by Woods Institute Senior Fellow Jon Krosnick, a professor of communication and of political science at Stanford, with funding from the National Science Foundation. The results are based on telephone interviews conducted from June 1-7 with 1,000 randomly selected American adults.
“Several national surveys released during the last eight months have been interpreted as showing that fewer and fewer Americans believe that climate change is real, human-caused and threatening to people,” Krosnick said. “But our new survey shows just the opposite.”
For example, when respondents in the June 2010 survey were asked if the Earth’s temperature probably had been heating up over the last 100 years, 74 percent said yes. And 75 percent said that human behavior was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred. Krosnick has asked similar questions in previous Woods Institute polls since 2006.
“Our surveys reveal a small decline in the proportion of people who believe global warming has been happening, from 84 percent in 2007 to 74 percent today,” Krosnick said. “Statistical analysis of our data revealed that this decline is attributable to perceptions of recent weather changes by the minority of Americans who have been skeptical about climate scientists.”
In terms of average Earth temperature, 2008 was the coldest year since 2000, Krosnick said. “Scientists say that such year-to-year fluctuations are uninformative, and people who trust scientists therefore ignore this information when forming opinions about global warming’s existence,” he added. “But people who do not trust climate scientists base their conclusions on their personal observations of nature. These ‘low-trust’ individuals were especially aware of the recent decline in average world temperatures; they were the ones in our survey whose doubts about global warming have increased since 2007.”
According to Krosnick, this explanation is especially significant, because it suggests that the recent decline in the proportion of people who believe in global warming is likely to be temporary. “If the Earth’s temperature begins to rise again, these individuals may reverse course and rejoin the large majority who still think warming is real,” he said.
‘Climategate’
Several questions in the June survey addressed the so-called “climategate” controversy, which made headlines in late 2009 and early 2010.
“Growing public skepticism has, in recent months, been attributed to news reports about e-mail messages hacked from the computer system at the University of East Anglia in Britain – characterized as showing climate scientists colluding to silence unconvinced colleagues – and by the discoveries of alleged flaws in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC),” Krosnick said. “Our survey discredited this claim in multiple ways. ”
For example, only 9 percent of respondents said they knew about the East Anglia e-mail messages and believed they indicate that climate scientists should not be trusted, and only 13 percent said the same about the controversial IPPC reports.
“Overall, we found no decline in Americans’ trust in environmental scientists,” Krosnick said. “Fully 71 percent of respondents said they trust scientists a moderate amount, a lot or completely.”
Government solutions
In the June 2010 survey, 86 percent of respondents said they wanted the federal government to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit, and 76 percent favored government limitations on greenhouse gas emissions generated by businesses. Only 14 percent said that the United States should not take action to combat global warming unless other major industrial countries like China and India do so as well.
Among other survey results:
- 78 percent opposed taxes on electricity to reduce consumption, and 72 percent opposed taxes on gasoline;
- 84 percent favored the federal government offering tax breaks to encourage utilities to make more electricity from water, wind and solar power;
- Four out of 5 respondents favored government requiring or offering tax breaks to encourage the production of cars that use less gas (81 percent), appliances that use less electricity (80 percent) and homes and office buildings that require less energy to heat and cool (80 percent);
- Only 18 percent said that policies to reduce global warming would increase unemployment.
For additional information on Krosnick’s research, visit: http://woods.stanford.edu/research/surveys.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mr Krosnick, go choke yourself. Professor of political science, it fits.
The new survey comments “4. What do you think will be the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it? This time, 25 percent said the environment or global warming, and only 10 percent picked the economy or unemployment”.
How do you do something to stop the economy? How do you stop the environment?
As these amateur pollsters noted, poll results are influenced by the way the question is asked. It follows that if you ask an impossible question, you get an impossible answer.
Many times, figures under 10% are largely donkey vote anyhow.
And yes, I did set up and operate a corporate polling operation where we head office folk manned a bank of phones phones after work, using expert pollsters to set the questions. This removed my amateur pollster status.
“If the Earth’s temperature begins to rise again, these individuals may reverse course and rejoin the large majority who still think warming is real.”
Erm…
So, if the Earth’s temps are to rise again, logically, they are currently stagnating or falling. However, there is a large majority that, at present, think the warming is real. Therefore, for the majority, stagnant and falling temperatures mean real warming. With that logic, the only term left to describe increasing temperatures must be unreal warming.
“The results are based on telephone interviews conducted from June 1-7 with 1,000 randomly selected American adults.”
This could mean that they have a ‘pool’ of 10,000 people who they know already lean towards the climate alarmist view and they ‘randomly’ selected a thousand from that pool.
“For example, when respondents in the June 2010 survey were asked if the Earth’s temperature probably had been heating up over the last 100 years, 74 percent said yes”.
——————————————
Of that 74% that said ‘yes’, how many said: “Yes, thank goodness?”
When real science and observations failed …. pay some pollsters to make up some majority percentage of the populace to back your side. Hey, politicians and their spin makers do it all the time!
No one in my social circle has ever brought up global warming , Climategate, or the IPPC. About dozen individuals make up the group, most of them college grads including a physicist, two engineers, a biologist, and a lawyer.
Surveys results depend on the sample, wording of questions, current events and other factors, so differences in findings from one survey to another are to be expected. I don’t doubt the weather at the time of a survey on global warming will influence the results. I wonder if the oil spill in the Gulf also influenced the results of the subject survey, since some may consider global warming an environmental issue.
Interestingly – the survey was completed only towards the end of 2009. Which considering the impact of “Climategate” really only surfaced very late in 2009 and into 2010, I fail to see how a survey that took part in 2009 can tell us a great deal about peoples attitude to an event that hit the fan in 2010.
Having scanned some of the Utube clips from Jon Krosnick on this point, he does seem rather ill at ease when discussing this point and at one stage actually says something like “With my 30 years experience I know that this is very unlikely” when referring to how Climategate revelations in 2010 affect the validity of a survey carried out in 2009.
I believe he also lets slip his bias by stating that a “small error” was found in the IPCC report. I do not believe that the many errors uncovered were small.
The questions and responses are here:
http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/Global-Warming-Survey-Selected-Results-June2010.pdf
Question 33b which is asked of half the sample states: “Some people believe that the United States government should limit the amount of greenhouse gasses thought to cause global warming that U.S. businesses can produce.”
This would seem to bias any further answers by asserting a link between GHG and global warming.
One further point on the time scales as sited in the video link. At one point he refers to the survey being over 4 years reference the publics confidence in Climate scientists and then later he states that the survey was carried out late 2009 and early 2010?
Polls are as irrelevant as is “consensus “”science”” “. If serious scientists driven by scientific integrity reject the idea that we have a consise undertsanding of the climate system then what is the relevance of the opinion of the avearage citicen? Research is what we need not polls.
Risible. There’s lies, damn lies and statistics. But hey, why even bother with the statistics?
I would be deeply suspicious of pollsters who come up with results that are congruent with their own organisation’s biases without an authoritative check on their questionnaire’s design and the selection of respondents. My own view is that any organisation which has to borrow the credibility of a long-respected and long established research institution by inventing and using a very similar name, and displays its biases by featuring a wind turbine on the front page of the section of its website that deals with energy has little credibility.
Hiding another decline.
“…a small decline …. from 84 percent ….. to 74 percent…” Heh.
“…only 9 percent (…) knew about the East Anglia e-mail messages and (….) only 13 percent (…) about the controversial IPPC reports”
In other words: limited loss of confidence is due to being poorly informed, right?
Apologies – should have taken the time to go through the paper – little time available but have found the following:-
Three separate surveys ;-
1) Carried out October 2008 to September 2009
2) Carried out from November 17th to November 29th 2009
3) Carried out from October 7th to October 21st 2009.
I would be grateful if someone would check this but to my initial thinking, I fail to see how this survey can possibly take into account shifts in public opinion post “Climategate”, “Glaciergate” etc. considering when these various “…gates” came to pass.
Doug
It is sad to see that Global warming is in the bottom list of the priorities. I hope people will at least be more concerned with the environment.
How did they get 75% blaming man?
Q14
(Assuming it’s [warming] happening) Do you think a rise in the world’s temperature is being (would be) caused mostly by things people do, mostly by natural causes, or about equally by things people do and by natural causes?
Things People Do 30
Natural Causes 25
Both Equally 45
Basically that says 45% of people are LUKEWARMERS.
the silent majority
The random selection of their respondents was conducted on base of their Green activist lists.
The perfect demonstration of this is from Sir Bernard
You WILL believe in AGW, you WILL, you WILL…
…even if you don’t !
Oops – Don’t believe the html instructions for href in the comment instructions
This is the link for Sir Bernard and “Opinion Polls: Getting the results you want” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo
http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/Global-Warming-Survey-Selected-Results-June2010.pdf
Selected results. hehe
So, you have to tweak the question in order to get the desired result. Nothing new here, just business as usual for these guys.
Working Paper – Accurately measuring the American public’s issue priorities: Tweaking the most important question reveals more concern about global warming and the environment
(Working Paper, May, 2010 – pdf)
■Only 18 percent said that policies to reduce global warming would increase unemployment.
*Only 18 percent of those polled understood the questions that were asked.
Starting with “You may have heard about the idea that the world’s temperature may have been going up slowly over the past 100 years. What is your personal opinion on this – do you think this has probably been happening, or do you think it probably has not been happening?” 74% said probably. Not unreasonable but the term ‘probably’ allows a diffuse answer, not ideal for a survey. Pulling out that 74%,they were asked they were if it was caused by ‘things people do’ or ‘natural causes’ or both. 45% said both, 30% said tpd and 25% said nc. This is leading questioning producing broad ‘safe’ motherhood answers. To then say
“Three out of four Americans believe that the Earth has been gradually warming as the result of human activity.” is an outrageous interpretation. Krosnick lumped the ‘both’ (45%) with the ‘things people do’ (30%) to produce his 75%.
I just hope that journalists out there read and interpret the pdf with wisdom and not fall for this AGW spin.