81 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Disko Troop
April 18, 2012 3:23 pm

I think this illustrates the change in emphasis from the science to the political phase. Having established a narrative to support Agenda 21 [ http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/ ] during the warming phase of the climate cycle using the power of government grant and subsidy to tempt science in to support their Agenda, it is now time to move away from the science which is going against them. The tactic now is to create as much fog, fluff, chaff, dust to obfuscate and confuse so that no coherent arguments will be heard as the data turns against them. Polls like this are purely political in nature. Usually worded as “Do you agree that…….? On a scale of 1 to 10 indicate how much you agree with this statement. Only the number 1 will show: “Do not agree” ,giving a 9 to 1 chance in favour of the pollsters desired answer. Most people who do not agree but who also do not understand the question scientifically will shove in a “neutral” number such as 4,5, and 6 which is then recorded as an “agree”. All good stuff to drive the agenda forward now the science is coming unstuck. I wish I knew who the “Them” who seem to be running the show actually are. Soros? Suzuki? Not nearly powerful enough. There has to be another layer above them.

Katherine
April 18, 2012 3:40 pm

Edgar says:
Poor Yorek says: “Just a friendly editorial comment:
“Problem is, the data does not support it.” => ” … the data do not support it.””
Aah! Doncha just love the Grammar Nazis …. ?

REPLY: No, I don’t, mostly they have nothing else to contribute – Anthony
Especially when they get it wrong. From Merriam-Webster’s usage discussion of data:
Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum, of which it was originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions: as a plural noun (like earnings), taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (as these, many, a few) but not cardinal numbers, and serving as a referent for plural pronouns (as they, them); and as an abstract mass noun (like information), taking a singular verb and singular modifiers (as this, much, little), and being referred to by a singular pronoun (it). Both constructions are standard. (Emphasis added)
As for the poll, I wouldn’t call those questions “sloppy”; I’d say they’re deliberately biased questions. That sort of thorough sloppiness can’t be accidental. The “researchers” don’t even differentiate between extreme rain storms, extreme high winds, and hurricanes. Wouldn’t hurricanes have extreme high winds or extreme rain? Wouldn’t tornadoes be considered extreme high winds too? If the respondent had a tornado warning in his area but no tornado hit, does that still qualify as having “personally experienced” a tornado?

FrankK
April 18, 2012 3:51 pm

Bart says:
April 18, 2012 at 11:19 am
And, at least a quarter of the U.S. population believes in astrology… Belief in astrology is more prevalent in Europe, where 53 percent of those surveyed thought it is “rather scientific” and only a minority (39 percent) said it is not at all scientific.y. So much for European sophistication. No wonder they gulped the Kool-Aid down.
———————————————————————————————————————————
But please correct if its wrong but I have heard it said that more than 50% of the US population believe the earth is 4000 years old.!

Mike
April 18, 2012 5:19 pm

I have always struggled with the phrase: “climate change” It perplexes me. I think of Yosemite being an ex-Californian. I have learned that glaciers once carved that fantastic granite valley. The glaciers are obviously gone now except for a few permanent ice patches in the back country. So I assume that represents climate change. It just took eons. But people use the term to mean rather short term events like; Its cloudy today. It wasn’t cloudy yesterday. ergo climate change. I have a problem with this free wheeling and loosy goosy definition.
Just don’t get me started on climate disruption.

April 18, 2012 5:25 pm

This poll is so stupid it hurts. It’s barely worthy of even debunking. Poll the public on how confused they are, based on anecdotal memory recall, then try to assert this implies something. Yale and George Mason University you say? Embarrassing for them…

SteveSadlov
April 18, 2012 5:26 pm

Here are some of the unusual events I can think of over the past 10 years:
1) Multiple low elevation snow events (whereas, previous to the past 10 years, they would be much fewer and further between)
2) Generally cooler than normal springs and summers
3) Early onset of fall leaf turning

Bill Marsh
April 18, 2012 5:32 pm

@FrankK says:
April 18, 2012 at 3:51 pm
———————————————————————————————————————————
But please correct if its wrong but I have heard it said that more than 50% of the US population believe the earth is 4000 years old.!
========================
I think it would be somewhat difficult to prove that you haven’t heard it said.
I don’t think that 50% of the US population believes the earth is only 4,000 years old.

April 18, 2012 6:20 pm

Frank, I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt and most of us down here believe in evolution and geology. But keep it up since it seems to make you feel superior.

higley7
April 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Since when do we do science by poll?

Jimbo
April 18, 2012 6:37 pm

When you ask them for peer reviewed evidence all you hear is silence.

Jim Clarke
April 18, 2012 6:41 pm

I think this survey reveals that the general public is as uneducated about weather and climate as main stream climate scientists and university professors. At least the general public has a good excuse.

No name
April 18, 2012 7:18 pm

Don’t rely on the poll. Just ask anyone over 40. I’m not a climate scientist, just a former naval weather observer and I’ve never seen so many oddities. A couple of more years of continuing irregular seasonal patterns and you won’t need a poll.
[REPLY: Anyone over 60 will tell you he’s seen all of this before. Please check our site policy and submit a valid e-mail address. The fact that your ISP registers out of Washington, D.C. suggests that you won’t and that you are not who you pretend to be. The word for that kind of behavior, these days, is “Gleicking”. -REP]

Poor Yorek
April 18, 2012 7:57 pm

“Edgar says:
Poor Yorek says: “Just a friendly editorial comment:
“Problem is, the data does not support it.” => ” … the data do not support it.””
Aah! Doncha just love the Grammar Nazis …. ?
REPLY: No, I don’t, mostly they have nothing else to contribute – Anthony
Especially when they get it wrong. From Merriam-Webster’s usage discussion of data:”
====================================================================
1. Firstly, what part of “friendly” did you (pl) not understand? A bit touchy perhaps? Though this can probably be understood, given some of the acerbic comments made here.
2. Merriam-Webster may not be the only canonical source on usage. For example, American Heritage states: “data is now used both as a plural and as a singular collective. The plural connotation is the more appropriate in formal usage. The singular is acceptable to 50 percent of the Usage Panel.” Seemingly less of a consensus than observed for some other issues. Whether blogs represent “formal usage” can be debated, but as one charged with the training and education of scientists, my professor hat sometimes stays on even after leaving campus (an occupational hazard). In any case, my intention was not to be acerbic v.s. point #1.
3. It is true that I have not contributed much here if one means by “contribution,” post volume, though I read the site frequently and have used what I learn here in discussions with academic colleagues who are engaged in climate or solar-related research. I have written a few substantive posts (one I think on some technical issues regarding how “heat” is defined) and a few merely humorous (or attempts thereat) ones. So please don’t lump me in with the Grammar Nazis.

Poor Yorek
April 18, 2012 8:09 pm

Edgar says:
Poor Yorek says: “Just a friendly editorial comment:
“Problem is, the data does not support it.” => ” … the data do not support it.””
Aah! Doncha just love the Grammar Nazis …. ?
REPLY: No, I don’t, mostly they have nothing else to contribute – Anthony
Especially when they get it wrong. From Merriam-Webster’s usage discussion of data:
==========================================
1. Perhaps you (pl) did not read the word “friendly?” The comment was not intended to be snarky.
2. Merriam-Webster is perhaps not the only authority. For example, American-Heritage states: “Data is now used both as a plural and as a singular collective. The plural construction is the more appropriate in formal usage. The singular is acceptable to 50 percent of the Usage Panel.” 50% is less of a consensus than in some other areas, of course. As one charged with the education of scientists, perhaps my professor-hat stayed on after leaving campus: in any case, vide supra #1.
3. Perhaps it is true that I have not contributed “much” to this site, though I did write at least once on some technical distinctions involving the definition of “heat” and “work.” Still, the moniker of “Grammar Nazi with nothing else to contribute” is a bit facile.
REPLY: Ah but you see that last quote in totality is your own construct, not mine, nor Edgar’s. I didn’t change “data” because the complaint was invalid, as you point out. Some people want perfection. I can’t provide it, especially when WUWT is free. – Anthony

Brian H
April 18, 2012 9:56 pm

Edit note: “Note the phrase I highlighted” … nothing highlighted.
________
The poll demonstrates three possible things to me:
1) The way that slanted questions can generate desired responses;
2) How mis-interpretation of the results can be editorially slanted;
and 3) How public perception can be distorted by media repetition of a false meme.
Perhaps, with respect to #3, it may be a valid measure of how misinformed the public is.

John F. Hultquist
April 18, 2012 10:01 pm

Bill Marsh says:
April 18, 2012 at 5:32 pm
@FrankK says:
April 18, 2012 at 3:51 pm

Where did the 4,000 year estimate come from?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/10/survey-u-s-protestant-pastors-reject-evolution-split-on-earths-age/
“Asked whether the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, 46% agreed, compared to 43% who disagreed.”
——–
Maybe from the 4,004 figure of James Ussher:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
4,004 + 2012 = 6016 and countng
—————————————————————————-
*Weather extremes?* Sure. On the eastern slopes of the Cascades — trees are just beginning to push out leaves. This is about one month behind 2010 when back to back nightly frost caused fully leafed out walnut trees to drop all their leaves. Green pea sized sweet cherries turned black and dropped. No fruit on either that year.

Logicophilosophicus
April 18, 2012 11:44 pm

The opening lines of the NYT article seem to suggest that climate scientists are dragging their heels, and that Joe Public has got the “right” answer first:
“Scientists may hesitate to link some of the weather extremes of recent years to global warming — but the public, it seems, is already there.”

ragnarcarlson
April 19, 2012 1:22 am

1. “Since warming hasn’t been cooperating lately,”
http://earthsky.org/earth/in-march-2012-15000-warm-temperature-records-broken-in-us
2. “in desperation, Yale and George Mason University are trying to use a poorly worded and loaded poll to convince us that “weather is climate”.
climate (n) cli·mate [ klmət ]
typical weather in region: the average weather or the regular variations in weather in a region over a period of years
place with particular weather: a place with a particular type of weather
3. “Problem is, the data does not support it.”
The data:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/climate_change

ragnarcarlson
April 19, 2012 1:24 am

1. “Since warming hasn’t been cooperating lately,”
http://earthsky.org/earth/in-march-2012-15000-warm-temperature-records-broken-in-us
2. “in desperation, Yale and George Mason University are trying to use a poorly worded and loaded poll to convince us that “weather is climate”.
climate (n) cli·mate [ klmət ]
typical weather in region: the average weather or the regular variations in weather in a region over a period of years
place with particular weather: a place with a particular type of weather
3. “Problem is, the data does not support it.”
The data:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/climate_change

ragnarcarlson
April 19, 2012 4:18 am

Also: regarding “Thomas” (his comment appended to the main post body above) ; I just looked at a graphic of all states that experienced deadly tornadoes in 2010. As far as I can tell, those states (with pop in millions) are these: Louisiana 4.6
Oklahoman 3.8
Kansas 2.9
Arkansas 2.9
Tennessee 6,4
Missouri 6
Alabama4,8
missippi 3
North carolina 9,7
Virginia 8,1
Massachusetts 6,6
Minnesota 5.3
Georgia 9.8
Now, did everyone in each of those states personally experience a tornado? Obviously not. But this is only a list of states where tornado fatalities occurred. Add in all the states where surely non-lethal tornadoes affected humans and I am sure we can use the above list as a guide.
However difficult “Thomas” may find it, these states total 74 million people, or 25%of the US population. Wow!
But who needs data when The Truth is a matter of common sense?
Right guys?

Todd
April 19, 2012 4:19 am

It says everything I need to know, seeing that this is a product of the Communications School and not a product of any Science departments.
By the way, how did the authors of this “study” do on that 50 question science test of last week? That would make for an interesting case study.

Chris Wright
April 19, 2012 5:18 am

When 21% of the people polled said they had experienced a tornado, what they probably meant was that they had personally seen it on TV. This could probably explain most of the other poll results as well.
Chris

Alan D McIntire
April 19, 2012 5:53 am

Here’s a link to a June 24, 1974 TIME magazine article warning of
global coling. One of the signs is, more frequent tornados.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
“Scientists have found other indications of global cooling….
Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept
up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing
temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest’s
recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.”

April 19, 2012 6:18 am

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
It is amazing how gullible the average person is. It has to do with lack of memory. Most people can hardly remember half a lifetime. We should all remember that life is short, even when we attain great age, and maturity comprises much more than time. Maturity is required for one to realize when he is being taken-in. Stay mindful that the smooth talker is probably trying to trick you in one way or another, and keep your hand on your wallet.

j molloy
April 19, 2012 6:35 am

My highest science qualification is a C.S.E. (certificate of secondary education ) grade 1 in physics but even with my lowly knowledge when i read the question about “extreme” weather my first thought was define “extreme”