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-
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.
@ 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
@ 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?
“There is a lovely cartoon. . . ” Thanks, Alan the Brit!
“Sociologists” = Propagandists = Controllists + their Useful Idiots.
Repeat anecdote: a friend of mine told me about her “Sociology” course at an elite College. Her teacher was a lesbian and advocated in class that her female students become lesbians. The “poor” were allegedly consigned to a life of obesity because they were reduced to having to eat at McDonalds and had no chance to exercise. So my friend raised her hand and asked the teacher if she was “calling her fat”, because she was in fact poor – also allegedly “impossible” because no poor person could ever get into that college – and had often eaten at McDonalds while on the road playing 4 sports at her rural redneck highschool.
Here is my own take:
AGW/Climate change causes;
1. More Storms 7. More snow
2. Fewer Storms/ 8. Less snow
3. Warm temperatures. 9. Male Pattern Baldness
4.Colder Temperatures. 10. Acne in teenagers
5.Warm nights/Cooler Days and so on until the claims of Warmists are
6.Cooler Days/Wamer nights ignored because they cannot explain it all…
The Public isn’t as stupid as the Warmists hoped…
Facts have some of the attributes of gravity.
Those who defy gravity or facts just might end up on their petards.
“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,””
No. You did not see a companion increase because the ice is recovering, sea levels are down and the Arctic is getting colder.
logprof says:
February 8, 2012 at 9:25 am
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.
===============================================
lol, the 4 issues he brings up are easily dealt with and have been at several sites, not the least of which here.
His arguments are not persuasive, they are sophistry. All of them hinge upon the idea that we are causing the CO2 increase which is caused the increase in temps. Further, his arguments contain several fallacies and changes the onus of the null hypothesis. He even leads with a dendrophrenology graph with an instrumental graph conflated onto it. In real world mathematics this is forbidden. In lunatic moonbat world, this is common practice.
Start with the posit that CO2 causes the increase in temps. That’s fine, explain the last 15 years. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1982/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.5/trend
(stating that the heat decided to hide at the bottom of the ocean doesn’t count)
Consider that against the backdrop of this… http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1982/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.5/trend
His entire argument falls apart there. He goes on by setting up strawman arguments to knock down. Then he blathers about why. He babbles about melting glaciers, which is riotous, because glaciers have been recorded as receding since exiting the LIA. That had nothing to do with an SUV, btw. He is also wrong about the ice cap being frozen solid for more than 3 million years. There are some studies covered here which would easily refute that vapid assertion. He then drones on about sea level rise. It is not rising at 3-4 mm/yr. Nor has it for any length of time.
The important thing to remember is that you don’t have to demonstrate alternative theories, you only have to demonstrate his posits as incorrect. The null hypothesis is the default position. In his defense, that was written 3 years ago. He could be a skeptic by now.
Hmm…turns out the ice caps are melting 30% slower than previously thought.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/08/earths-polar-ice-melting-less-than-thought
logprof says:
February 8, 2012 at 9:25 am
Has anyone here tackled this?
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature
You must have missed Madonna’s Super Bowl Halftime Show!
And thanks to Coca-Cola, the next time they do a survey, people will think that the polar bears are becoming endangered because of declines in the penguin population. Stupid Superbowl stunt.
It’s
worsebetter than we thoughtEarth’s Polar Ice Melting Less Than Thought
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/08/earths-polar-ice-melting-less-than-thought
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)
Well, I was reading Winnie the Pooh to my children the other day, and Christopher Robin and Eeyore and Piglet and that bunch went looking for the North Pole, and Pooh Bear found it and used it to rescue Roo from a river, so the answer to #1 is “No, it is currently at Winnie the Pooh’s house. Covered in honey. He uses it to get to the bee hives.”
This fits in well with the other fairy tales the warmists have been telling us.
From the usnews link referred to by Michael Jankowski and MSG! above:
Great!!! More misinformation from the media! Don’t these people have any numerical sense?
That translates to 15.24 mm per year (6 inches per decade, 5 feet per century), almost 5 times the rate currently touted by most sources.
Wanna bet this figure makes it into the latest IPCC effort? 😉
5. Would you say the polar ice caps have gotten
larger or smaller over the last 25 years?
Answer – both!
Arctic’s shrunk, Antarctic’s expanded.
Listen everybody, you anti-science folks just don’t follow. Let me explain. I have a map of the world on the wall in my office at NASA. It clearly shows the Arctic at the top and the Antarctic at the bottom. Nobody can dispute that.
In line with the well-established scientific fact that heat rises, this is causing all of the excess heat produced by human activity to spiral to the top and melt all of the ice in the Arctic.
In a parallel but equally devastating effect, due to gravity, the heavy ice breaking off from the ice pack in the Arctic (because of global warming) is sinking from the top of the world to the bottom. That’s why it appears that Antarctica seems to be growing, whereas in fact it is just heavy icebergs moving from the top of the world to the bottom. And gathering there. Gravity, you see.
So be scared of global warming. Go switch your lights and heating off. Right now.
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.
There is nothing scientific about this left-wing political advocacy group.
“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 . . .”
This is consistent with a study that was done (Texax A&M if memory serves) about global warming in general. The takeaway from that study was that the more people learned about global warming, (i) the less concerned they became about it, and (ii) the less personally responsible they felt.
Thanks for the feedback! I knew it was pretty stillborn by using the Mann graph. (I’ve been an infrequent reader here since Climate-gate.) I did not feel like arguing the science with my friend who posted it. I just took the “So what?” tack and the Lomborg POV that even if you accept all the AGW premises, there are more humane ways to spend the money than funneling it through bureaucrats and Immelt who will do nothing about it anyway.
Old academic Sociology jokes spring to mind
Graffiti above a toilet role dispenser in the Physics building: “Sociology Degrees please take one”
When asked which were the most cost efficient research departments, the University Vice Chancellor replied Mathematics and Sociology. The maths guys only require pencils, paper and a waste basket. The Sociologists are even cheaper they don’t need the waste basket.
Last but not least, one of the most famous UK TV adverts for people of a certain age (no slight to our host is intended) : An Ology staring the great Maureen Lipmann
logprof says:
Has anyone tackled this?
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature
I get aggravated when a fellow geologist like Donald Prothero selectively ignores geologic history and empirical data. Prothero’s first graph: Northern Hemisphere Temperatures (5 yr avg.) is a regurgitation of Michael Mann’s fraudulent (“intending to decieve”) paleo-temperature reconstruction. Its intent was to “contain the ‘putative’ medieval warming period: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/22/mike-manns-secret-meeting-on-the-medieval-warm-period/. Almost 2,000 peer reviewed science papers based on good empirical data (listed at CO2science.org) disprove Mann’s hockey stick paleo-temperature reconstruction.
The second graph of CO2 concentrations over the past 600,000 years (from ice core data) also ignores the vast majority of geologic history. As a geologist, Prothero knows that throughout the past 600 million years, CO2 concentrations have been much higher than now: http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html. Dinosaurs thrived in CO2 concentrations that were ~5X to 10X what they are today. The cover of Prothero’s book “Greenhouse of the Dinosaurs” is misleading as it implies that CO2 somehow contributed to their demise. Reviewers say it focuses more on the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: http://www.amazon.com/Greenhouse-Dinosaurs-Evolution-Extinction-Future/product-reviews/0231146604/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Prothero also knows (as all geologists do) that we have been coming out of an ice age for the past 15,000 years. Glaciers and ice sheets have been melting and sea level has been rising ever since: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png. The lesson here is that ice ages come and go and sea levels rise and fall regardless of human activity.
Prothero’s piece is junk science combined with an alarmist rant. (I hate the word alarmist as much as denier, but Prothero has earned it.) His article contains absolutely zero empirical data to support the theory that CO2 from human activity is negatively affecting our climate.
Most geologists believe our impact on the climate is akin to a pimple on the ass of an elephant.
Same with GlacierGate, don’t buy BS (Bad Science)
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2012/02/glaciergate-no-more.html
Alan the Brit;
That cartoon has need of some physics upgrades. Looking at the pivot point, I’d say he’s safe as long as even 2 or 3 supporters are there to counterbalance. Needs to be a much larger leverage factor!
Apache, just so you know a bit more, a petard is a bomb, or a sapper’s charge, not a pole or hook or whatever you’re imagining!
P.S. Derives from the French slang for “fart”.
I think Hamilton et al are disappointed that the public absorbed some facts without the accompanying interpretation and extrapolations they desired. Despite larding the PR with lots of loaded terms and concepts.
I quite like the idea of the North pole drifting around the Arctic on floating ice. 😛
DaveE.
LOL Funny Post Of The Week!
Actually, they follow independent trajectories, so the Pole cuts a notional swathe through the ice in a complex pattern. Winnie and Santa have their work cut out for them!
My bnrugcokad was science, but limited (B.S. math, with physics minor)back in 1960…..But I did take a course in scientific method, and it’s clear that the proponents of AGW have no evidence to back up their claims whereas there seems to be plenty of evidence to dispute their claims.Some time ago I put together a climate tutorial, if any of your readers are interested… there’s also plenty of references to websites and books.https://docs.google.com/a/ablesfamily.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw&pli=1
The BBC this AM buogrht on some stupid idiot to explain that MMGW is now proven because of, wait for it… BEDBUGS! yes you heard right! apparently bedbugs are on the increase because of global warming, according to this so called climate expert, the phrase clutching at straws comes to mind!Are the BBC so desperate to flog its MMGW agenda that they will resort to such outright trash? The fact is that bedbugs live INDOORS and the outside temperature has NO bearing on the increase in bedbugs, Its dirty bedding that is not cleaned and treated with insecticide that encourages bedbugs to proliferate NOT fake MMGW fairy stories!Is there no end to the lies that the eco nutters will peddle to gullible people to get its fake theories by fake scientists like AL GORE believed?