From the Carsey Institute: Americans’ Knowledge of Polar Regions Up, But Not Their Concern
Environmental Issues in Polar Regions Are Polarizing
DURHAM, N.H. – Americans’ knowledge of facts about the polar regions of the globe has increased since 2006, but this increase in knowledge has not translated into more concern about changing polar environments, according to new research from the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.
“People’s knowledge of polar regions and issues improved from 2006 to 2010, consistent with hopes that the International Polar Year in 2007 would boost public awareness. Unfortunately, we did not see a companion increase in concern about the environmental changes in these regions, due, in part, to ideological and political divisions,” said Lawrence Hamilton, professor of sociology at UNH and a senior fellow at the Carsey Institute.
Carsey Institute researchers, with support from the National Science Foundation, conducted the first comparative analysis of queries about the polar regions, which were included on the General Social Survey in 2006 and 2010. The polar questions covered topics such as climate change, melting ice, rising sea levels, and human or ecological impacts from environmental change. The surveys formed bookends to the International Polar Year in 2007-2008, which focused on scientific research along with outreach and education efforts to raise awareness of polar science.
The researchers found that the public’s knowledge about the north and south polar regions showed modest gains between 2006 and 2010. The average “polar knowledge score” improved from 53 to 59 percent.
The surveys also carried an 11-question “science literacy” quiz, testing background knowledge about science. Science literacy did not improve from 2006 to 2010, but people with higher science literacy tend to care more about polar environmental change. More scientifically literate respondents also are more likely to favor reserving the Antarctic for science, rather than opening it to commercial development.
Unlike polar knowledge, concern about climate change in the polar regions showed no up or down trend, and there were no changes in support for reserving the Antarctic for science. However, the researchers found there has been an increase in political disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on climate-related questions.
“Among the environment-related issues, all but reserving Antarctica for science show increasing political polarization — and even support for reserving the Antarctic divides along party lines. Polar issues, like many other topics in science, increasingly are viewed by the public through politically tinted glasses,” Hamilton said.
The complete Carsey Institute report about this research is available at http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/CarseySearch/search.php?id=183. The research was conducted by Hamilton, Matthew Cutler, graduate student in sociology, and Andrew Schaefer, graduate student in sociology and a research assistant at the Carsey Institute.
The Carsey Institute conducts policy research on vulnerable children, youth, and families and on sustainable community development. The institute gives policy makers and practitioners the timely, independent resources they need to effect change in their communities. For more information about the Carsey Institute, go to www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu.
The University of New Hampshire, founded in 1866, is a world-class public research university with the feel of a New England liberal arts college. A land, sea, and space-grant university, UNH is the state’s flagship public institution, enrolling 12,200 undergraduate and 2,300 graduate students.
-30-
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have no doubts whatsoever that all the NH ice graphs have been rigged (except 2007) to try to show constant melting (except DMI ice). The fact that NH ice is represented in various sections allows for modifiying the data. NO such rigging can occur in Antarctica which is ONE section
Sounds like they were disappointed that the propaganda hasn’t worked. And even more disappointed they couldn’t manipulate the data into more propaganda.
OT but this is huge
http://www.mcall.com/opinion/letters/mc-penn-state-global-warming-michael-mann-saunders-20120208,0,1310195.story
I predict that Mann will not be allowed to give his lecture and that within 2 months will be fired or asked to resign.
Other newspapers have taken it up with same advice do not allow this Mann to give the lecture.
From the PDF:
I’m curious about question #4, as sounds like an opinion rather than a fact. I didn’t find what they consider to be the correct answers.
“There you go again…”
Corellation is not Causation.
Many people choose their politics as viewed through their scientific glasses.
“Unfortunately, we did not see a companion increase in concern about the environmental changes in these regions, due, in part, to ideological and political divisions…Polar issues, like many other topics in science, increasingly are viewed by the public through politically tinted glasses,” Hamilton said.
Politicization is inevitable when climate scientists morph into policy advocates.
“… Unfortunately, we did not see a companion increase in concern about the environmental changes in these regions, due, in part, to ideological and political divisions,” said Lawrence Hamilton, professor of sociology at UNH …”
Unfortunately?
Gee Larry, ya didn’t roll into that “research” with any bias, now did ya?
Here’s a hint, numbuts: any disparity in the amount of “concern” vs your personal desires is not due in part to ideological divsions, it is due in whole to ideological divisions. That is what “concern” measures. “Concern” references personal values, i.e. ideology.
Sociologists. Freaking witch doctors thinking they are scientists.
“Lawrence Hamilton, professor of sociology at UNH and a senior fellow at the Carsey Institute.”
“with support from the National Science Foundation”
“The polar questions [“11-question “science literacy” quiz”] covered topics such as climate change, melting ice, rising sea levels, and human or ecological impacts from environmental change.”
“The Carsey Institute conducts policy research on vulnerable children, youth, and families and on sustainable community development. The institute gives policy makers and practitioners the timely, independent resources they need to effect change in their communities. “
Sociology, one of the Great Liberal Ologies (the other two being Astrology and Phrenology, with Climatology pending application to be approved to the list), is a four letter word. Bias.
“People’s knowledge of polar regions and issues improved from 2006 to 2010, consistent with hopes that the International Polar Year in 2007 would boost public awareness. Unfortunately, we did not see a companion increase in concern about the environmental changes in these regions, due, in part, to ideological and political divisions,” said Lawrence Hamilton, professor of sociology at UNH and a senior fellow at the Carsey Institute.
Knowledge of the regions only allowed for proper weighing. The more knowledge and awareness, the less compelling the alarmist screeching is.
Awwww.
Polar issues, like many other topics in science, increasingly are viewed by the public through politically tinted glasses
Respectfully disagree. They have the cause/effect reversed. More likely that those with politically tinted glasses tend to either believe everything they hear from the trustworthy media and are concerned, or seek out their own information wherby upon discovering the truth they realize there is nothing about which to be concerned.
It’s a fact of human nature, the more you shout & crow about something the more people switch off! There is a lovely cartoon about politics over at EU, Referendum that depicts a politico standing before a lecturn, preaching whatever, the lecturn is on a large cantilevered platform out over sheer drop, the counterweight are the followers, it shows that one of them has lost interest, if the rest follow, well, the outcome is obvious – I’ll try & find a link.
The “test” is absurd, biased, and filled with leading questions. Epic FAIL.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2012/02/power.html Enjoy:-)
Frankly, if or not the public is buying is not much of an argument. Look at the politicians they vote in. I rest my case, melud.
Polar issues, like many other topics in science, increasingly are viewed by the public through politically tinted glasses,” Hamilton said.
Maybe the average American isnt as stupid as progressive America hopes they are
Vote for Santorum YES
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/02/rick-santorum-on-global-warming.html
perfect especially the last part
Has anyone here tackled this?
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature
I find some of his arguments persuasive, but not so the conclusions. I did not see this metioned on the home page.
@ur momisugly Paul Chopin
“Sociology, one of the Great Liberal Ologies (the other two being Astrology and Phrenology, with Climatology pending application to be approved to the list), is a four letter word. Bias.”
If only you had included Psychology as well it would have been a PERFECT post, lol.
“Polar issues, like many other topics in science, increasingly are viewed by the public through politically tinted glasses.”
Really?? I dunno – let’s ask Mike Mann and Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth and …
“More Soylent Green! says:
February 8, 2012 at 9:00 am
From the PDF:
The GSS polar module included five questions meant to
test knowledge about the north and south polar regions.
1. The North Pole is on a sheet of ice that floats on
the Arctic Ocean (True/False)
2. The sun never shines at the South Pole (True/False)
3. Inuit (often called Eskimos) live north of the Arctic
Circle (True/False)
4. Hunting is more likely than climate change to
make polar bears become extinct (True/False)
5. Would you say the polar ice caps have gotten
larger or smaller over the last 25 years?
I’m curious about question #4, as sounds like an opinion rather than a fact. I didn’t find what they consider to be the correct answers.”
The answers are:
1. This week
2. Never say never…
3. Many are in Fairbanks. A bunch in Toronto.
4. True
5. Yes
“Andrew says:
February 8, 2012 at 9:27 am
@ur momisugly Paul Coppin
“Sociology, one of the Great Liberal Ologies (the other two being Astrology and Phrenology, with Climatology pending application to be approved to the list), is a four letter word. Bias.”
If only you had included Psychology as well it would have been a PERFECT post, lol.”
Coming at psychology from the lens of ethology, I grant it a bit more scientific weight. At least, etholgoically you can cook and eat the subjects, thereby obtaining some benefit from the research. Clinical psychology, however, long left the building, and resembles what sociology aspires to be, if it could ever figure out how to create a certificate that people would be willing to pay to look at..
I wish these zealots would quit calling their cult “science”, that would do much to clear up the confusion regarding environmental issues. They do more damage to legitimate research and inquiry than good. I wonder if this survey equals the quality of the recent NASA survey?
“The surveys also carried an 11-question “science literacy” quiz, testing background knowledge about science. Science literacy did not improve from 2006 to 2010, but people with higher science literacy tend to care more about polar environmental change.”
“Polar issues, like many other topics in science, increasingly are viewed by the public through politically tinted glasses,”
This is Bass Ackwards and, in its own way, akin to the Anthropic Principle. People do not accept or reject certain positions or conclusion because of their political orientation. Rather, their political orientations are determined by their own world view which includes how they accept or reject the findings and pronouncements of scientists. This is like “Oh, the Earth is so perfectly suited to us, it must have been made for us”, rather than, “We are suited to the Earth because this is where we evolved.
We align ourselves with a politcal party for two reasons: First, we are limited by the fact that there are so few choices; second, we choose the side of the party which is most closely aligned with our own personal world views. To state that on does not accept global warming because one is a Republican is like saying one embraces Jesus because one is a Christian. NO!!!! People either accept or reject CAGW on their own.
One more example of politicizing this issue.
For some light entertainment on my own take on why we accept or reject CAGW, pleases visit me at: http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/2009/08/make-mine-on-rocks.html
and while yoou’re there shop around some of the other threads for a few chuckles
TDG
As a whole bunch of people watch the show Deadliest Catch, and note that they were fighting the effects of no polar ice?