Yesterday, I was quoted in a US News and World report article about ICCC6 and the effect of climate on candidates. This is the start of the article.
I was interviewed by the reporter, and without knowing anything about what the article was to be about I answered her question of “How important is climate change to the upcoming primaries?”, my take on it was:
“While there may be some candidates that get pooh-poohed because they might embrace the global warming issue, it won’t be a deal-breaker,” he says.
I tried to step outside of my own bias toward the issue and figured (based on opinion polls we’ve covered here) that because climate has slid so far down the list of issues important to most Americans, that even if a candidate embraces the AGW meme, if they are strong on jobs, cutting taxes, reducing deficit spending, and other key issues, their position on climate will likely get lost in the noise.
Today to my surprise, I find that somebody is actually doing studies at Stanford to analyze the climate-electability issue. But when I read the study, I found this red flag:
Cell phone sample respondents were offered a post-paid reimbursement of $10 for their participation.
I tend to discount any political “study” where people are paid for participation. And, as we know, three states do not an election make, yet they based the study mostly on polls in three states, Florida, Maine, and Massachusetts. When you look at the map of the 2008 election, is it any wonder why their study turned out like it did? Sheesh. Sample bias, people!
From Stanford University
The impact of candidates’ statements about climate change on electoral success
Candidates gain votes by taking a “green” position on climate change — endorsing the existence of warming, human causation, and the need for taking action to address it, according to a new study of U.S. adults.
Among citizens who are Democrats and Independents, a hypothetical U.S. Senate candidate gained votes by making a green statement on climate change and lost votes by making a not-green statement, compared to making no statement on climate. Among citizens who are Republicans, the candidate’s vote share was unaffected by taking a green position or a not-green position, compared to being silent on climate.
These results suggest that by taking a green position on climate, candidates of either party can gain the votes of Democrats and Independents while not alienating Republicans.
These results are based on experiments embedded in telephone surveys of a representative national sample of American adults conducted in November 2010 and in telephone surveys of representative samples of adult residents of three states (Florida, Maine, and Massachusetts) in July 2010.
To read the complete study, “The Impact of Candidates’ Statements about Climate Change on Electoral Success in 2010: Experimental Evidences,” visit http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/Stanford_Climate_Politics2011.pdf
For more information on Jon Krosnick’s research on public opinion and the environment 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.
“yet they based the study mostly on polls in three states, Florida, Maine, and Massachusetts.”
Stanford dummies. If they wanted to really fudge the reality, they should have picked Iowa, Illinois and Nebraska. Each is a corn ethanol state, yet each can be cast as “conservative” in American gimmicky political analysis.
The Repub who lost to Witch Lady in the last Delaware Senate primary blamed his support on cap and trade. The Dem who won West Virginia Senate ran tv ads of him shooting a target called `cap and trade’ to kill it.
Jackstraw says:
July 6, 2011 at 11:47 am
“Or are you promoting bringing back the total fire suppression policies from the 50s, 60s, & 70s that caused this overbuildup underbrush burn material?”
Exactly. No fuel, no fire, no matter how hot and dry it is. Period. Though this suppression of fire goes back much further, to the suppression of the aboriginal burning regimes that once burned most areas regularly. That was further compounded by Smokey the Bear policies.
The famous AGW poster child, the mountain pine beetle, is another variation of the same story. Let all those pines mature and it was endless habitat for the beetles. And again, no habitat, no beetle epidemics, no matter how warm winters are.
Unfortunately, these fuel buildups now make the fires much more destructive.
2012 will be one of those times it is noticed that some times it works better if you give it two flushes.
There were still some green dems clinging to the sides that will be up for election this next cycle.
Anthony,
You said to the reporter, “While there may be some candidates that get pooh-poohed because they might embrace the global warming issue, it won’t be a deal-breaker,”
It is always good to be circumspect when dealing with the MSM media’s distressingly frequent unpredictable bias and surprising unbalanced reporting. Good show.
John
Obama has set the tone for the Democratic primaries. CAGW is totally on the back burner.
As for the Republicans, Gingrich and Romney seriously hurt their respective “images” as intelligent and far-sighted when they endorsed CAGW. I had hoped that Romney would prove to be an intelligent problem solver but I found his position on CAGW to be naive. Romney will not be able to get my attention again. I had no hope for Gingrich and now see him as hopeless.
Everybody is in favor of “green” initiatives — at least when they think somebody else is paying for them.
I recently realized how important this issue will be in my selection of a presidential candidate. I am looking for someone who can look the public in the eye and say that this science is not yet resolved to the point where policy should be set based upon it. The most sure fire way I can think of to turn our ecomony around is to elect a president who will stand up and announce that we will aggressively drill for oil and gas in our own country…that although solar, wind and the rest may ultimately prove to be viable sources of energy for some, we are going with what we have for the next hundred or so years. The price of oil would drop immediately and stay down. The world economy would immediately benefit from a cheap source of enery it is already geared up to use.
Sample bias, people
——–
Yes, probably, but how much bias? For a sensible result it would be sufficient to also poll political affiliation at the same time. Simple to do and standard practice.
“telephone surveys”
conservatives don’t poll……they let the machine get it, then call the “no call” hot line to complain……
Of course it’s biased.
It’s about CAGW.
The media will always show bias.
@Doug Allen says:
July 6, 2011 at 11:26 am “…those Tea Party and other ideologes who don’t know the difference between Keysian economics and socialism….”
Ah yes, that great economist, Keys. Didn’t he write a book “Economics for Dummies”, and bring about great works of economic prestidigitation for President Taft?
One looks at “Unaffiliated center left voter” with something teetering between open-mouthed dumbfoundedness and outright disdain for one who doesn’t have a clue about which he writes.
I hate to say it, but we’re going to have to put up with this crap for the next 18 months. Hopefully it will be sidelined by the coming hysteria over Dec 21, 2012, which is another load of crap. Sometimes you have to fight crap with crap.
“Candidates gain votes by taking a “green” position on climate change — endorsing the existence of warming, human causation, and the need for taking action to address it, according to a new study of U.S. adults.”
Uhhh…didn’t we just have an election late last year (2010)? And did
Global WarmingClimate Change factor into the results in any way?? Didn’t think so…The way for a candidate to handle the issue in 2012 is to say (1) yes there is (perfectly natural) climate change, (2) yes there is a “greenhouse effect” due to CO2 and water vapor, and (3) the issue is NOT important relative to other matters such as the national debt, taxes and deficit redcution, foreign policy, energy, education, and public health.
James Sexton says:
July 6, 2011 at 10:18 am
===============================================================
“The whole basis of the AGW meme is anti-jobs, larger govt., increased spending and increasing taxes. I find that anyone embracing the AGW meme to be totally incompatible with my political and economic priorities.”
James – My sentiments, Exactly!
Doug Allen says:
July 6, 2011 at 11:26 am
“…. I distrust only slightly less ….those Tea Party and other ideologes who don’t know the difference between Keysian economics and socialism.”
Doug,
You speak ill of that which you clearly do not understand.
Mack;
And which he can’t even spell. It’s “Keynesian”. Named after Keynes.
Depressing. Is there anyone honest in the world?
Doug Adam,
Don’t stick your head in the sand. You should broaden your horizons and view the changing political climate in Australia. The Andrew Bolt blog, his spot in the Steve Price show on Melbourne Talkback Radio MTR 1377 and the Bolt Report on Channel Ten are part of the vanguard of the fight against the watermelons of Oz.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
If you do not watch worldwide political developments, you’ll end up being duped into playing Roshambo with Eric Cartman, without a clue how such an event came to pass.
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/3616/detail/
Paul Westhaver says: July 6, 2011 at 11:26 am
Anthony, you have to know when you have won and how you have won. There is a reason that climate is a non-issue in the upcoming election. It is because it has been appropriately MADE a non-issue by undressing the warmists and their fake science in this blog as well as other places.
I’ll second that. These scare stories are always one-sided: the press indulge themselves as the scare develops … and then totally ignore the subject when the scare subsides: unless something really dramatic comes to light.
Now, “Mann found to have numerous errors that undermine his paper ‘BS as a proxy for real science (2000-11)'” … may be news here, but most people don’t know or care who Mann is and anyway, they know its all BS because anyone with the eyes to see can see it certainly hasn’t warmed and there is not the slightest hint of the sea flooding over the land.
CodeTech says:
Again, it’s the great divide: left = emotion, right = facts. This explains why people who work with emotion-based occupations (artists, teachers, psychologists, reporters, etc) tend to the left, while people who work with, let’s say, “reality” tend to the right (construction workers, business people).
…
Honestly, everyone I know on the “right” are for more interested in ensuring that someone they vote for is capable of doing their job and representing them than any other consideration.
Sadly, I see far too much emotion coming from the so-called “right” as well, typically with regard to issues regarding personal morals and behavior, and often coupled with those topics being used as “litmus tests” to determine someone’s qualifications for office.
Unemotional, objective assessment of political candidates is something that just doesn’t happen.
I admit that I don’t know a blasted thing about Keysian economics. I do know a bit about Keynsian economics, however… It is a statist approach to the economy. So is socialism. That said, tru Keynsian economics has NEVER been practiced in the U.S. You see, Keynes not only recommended that nations spend money during bad times, he also advocated them save money during good times so they would have it to spend during the bad times. We’ve only done the spending part, not the saving part. A much better approach, would be the one that Warren G. Harding took to overcome a nasty little depression in the early 20’s. Reagan followed his approach in 1980 to overcome the statist approach of the Carter years.