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.
The only thing that makes any sense is the 4/5ths who like the idea of getting more bang for their buck! Only an idiot would want otherwise IMHO! It means they get more bucks to enjoy the little luxuries in life, make good sense to me. Or is it just little old me?
“For example, only 9 percent of respondents said they knew about the East Anglia e-mail messages”
OK then ,time to call the other 91% and give them the news!
I’d like to see the questions and interview script
I had a look at the poll internals.. I’d summarize by saying they asked if people liked apple pie.. and breathlessly reported that 80% said they didn’t like steak.
JC
So a 1-in-8 drop over three years is a ‘small decline’, but a 2-degree rise over a century is a major crisis?
“Jon Krosnick, a professor of communication and of political science.”
A propagandists qualifications if ever I saw them.
First: Juraj V. I’m surprised your comment made it through moderation. Take a look in the mirror sometime.
Second: surveys are inherently open to multiple interpretations. It would be good to see some of the caustic assessment comments made here applied to the other surveys when the results seemingly favor the WUWT dominant world view — those surveys are in no way any more accurate or robust than the one reported here. They merely gave results that most of the WUWT readership liked.
At the end of the day, the climate system will have the final say – fortunately the climate system does not behave according to opinion.
The opinions of us average citizens have no scientific relevance, but, when pseudo science is used for politico/religious purposes, our opinions in concert become critical. I have been a daily visitor to this site since I discovered it in October 2009. and I believe that the real value of the site does not lay so much in its worth to climate professionals, but in its worth to the enquiring layman. The earth would remain flat if the layman had not been convinced otherwise.
My thanks are due to Anthony for his tolerance of us non climate specialists.
I would be very disappointed in this survey if it came from an undergrad.
They do the old ‘do you want world peace’ approach when it should be ‘would you be willing to pay x for world peace’. Example Q33b ‘..should pollution be limited’. yes 92% – Duh? I’m always surprised that anyone says no! that Q should be ‘would you pay more taxes to reduce pollution a little more than todays levels’.
And how can the public know what the effect on jobs will be? They have no idea what the question means.
I could go on but it’s all very frustrating. I only hope that they have alerted a lot of respondents about climategate and IPCC flaws who didn’t previously know. 😉
cheers David
By the way look at Q54b where the interviewer is told to ask the respondent only if they remember hearing something – how can you have 76% answering that they did not remember hearing something?
In Q52 how can you ask someone what someone else is thinking?
Q33b ends with the question “Do you think the government should or should not limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that U.S. businesses put out?” – note it mentions ‘greenhouse gasses”.
Now look at the options for responses – “Government should/should not limit air pollution from U.S. businesses” – they switched the subject to ‘air pollution’.
So, what are the respondents thinking when giving their answer – ‘greenhouse gasses’ or ‘air pollution’?
I’m against air pollution but do not consider CO2 to be a pollutant. Even if the respondents are of the same mind, are they responding to ‘greenhouse gasses’ or ‘air pollution’?
Tim Gordon says:
June 10, 2010 at 1:15 am
A lot of people are concerned about the environment. If you read the chart you will see 44% rank it a top priority. But more people think other issues are more important.
In the minds of most people, only 28% think otherwise, Global warming is not a problem because it is cooling now.
The environment and Global warming are two separate issues.
The folks running this silly poll are scared of losing their funding, and their jobs. The staging of this poll inadvertently demonstrates the validity of the Pew institute poll. Over 80% of those polled consider the economy and jobs as priorities. So do the people at Stanford and Woods Hole. They want to keep their jobs.
Where would an unemployed climate change specialist find work in today’s economy?
There are lies, damned lies and there are skewed polls. It’s been known for ages that the answers you get can skewed depending on how you phrase the questions.
Has he thought about if the Earth’s temperature begins to fall, the numbers of sceptics will continue to rise? If we get 10 to 20 years of cooling temps along with rising c02 levels, what oh what will they say then.
This is why warmists pray for warming while pushing the world to take action to ‘cool’ the Earth. When temps are flat / cooling they are depressed. Why???? Agenda???
Pollgate
From the story:
“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.”
And of course Krosnick is a ‘government scientist’ …
There’s something to be remarked of about someone who blows his own horn so loudly, that all other opinions are drowned out.
The ‘government scientist’ doth protest too much, methinks.
————-
This is why governments around the world are having trouble shoving cap n trade and other restrictions on hard pressed tax payers and retired folks heating bills. Politicians also look at other types of opinion polls you know. :o)
People can be concerned about the environment and call BS on AGW. IMHO AGW has detracted away from environmental protection and diverted desperately needed resources into a science that is settled and away from numerous environmental concerns. AGW is bad for the environment.
A couple of years ago, I was one of these “randomly selected American adults” for one of these poles. I carefully answered the questions honestly, writing down the questions and my answers…they hung up on me! How offensive!
fredb says:
June 10, 2010 at 2:31 am
Fred, why would a scientific institution find it necessary to conduct opinion polls? Isn’t the money better spent doing science? What will the poll achieve for Woods Hole / Stanford?
Do you ultimately agree that opinion polls will not warm or cool the planet? I don’t give a hoot if 99% of people believe in AGW, it doesn’t make those people right!!! Polls from history tell us that the majority can often be mistaken
Anthony:
Woods Institute for the Environment (at Stanford)
NOT
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *at Falmouth, Mass.)
I never thought WUWT would consider spamming a stupid site = PLEASE!
If the survey ended on November 29, 2009 it is actually quite remarkable that 9 % had heard about Climategate considering how it was ignored by the MSM.
Heh, we should ask Lindsey Graham if politicians are getting this kind of feedback from their constituents.
==============
The usual morally bankrupt hoodwink:
Conflating:
1) environment & climate.
2) pollution & GHGs.
3) nature & anthropogenic computer fantasies (including natural & “anthropogenic” temperature trends).
As an ecologist with *real* concerns about nature, the environment & pollution, I find this morally bankrupt associative tactic strictly unforgivable.
Real environmentalists are standing up with absolute resolve against these morally bankrupt manipulation artists.
fredb,
Hahahaha!!! You said “robust”!!!! LMAO!!!
Kristinn says: “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.”
Thanks, I enjoyed that.
I was fascinated by the questions from the 2009 poll that did not make it into the ‘selected’ responses for the 2010 poll. I want to see the answers to those questions in 2010!
In 2009 they were:
Do you think most scientists agree with one another about whether or not global warming is happening, or do you think there is a lot of disagreement among scientists on this issue?
Most scientists agree 31
Most scientists disagree 66
Do you think most scientists agree with one another about the causes of global warming, or is there a lot of disagreement among scientists about that?
Most scientists agree 30
Most scientists disagree 67
How much of the information provided in the stories written and broadcast by news organizations would you say is accurate – all of it, most of it, about half of it, a little of it, or none of it?
All of it 3
Most of it 22
About half of it 44
A little of it 23
None of it 5