When hockey stick creator Dr. Michael Mann responds to valid questions about his science by blocking the person asking the questions as well as deleting them so that others can’t see them, is it really any surprise that distrust of climate scientists is on the rise?
From Stanford University
Support for climate change action drops, Stanford poll finds
The drop was concentrated among Americans who distrust climate scientists.
By Rob Jordan (Stanford)
The study found that, overall, the majority of Americans continue to support many specific government actions to mitigate effects of global warming.
Americans’ support for government action on global warming remains high but has dropped during the past two years, according to a new survey by Stanford researchers in collaboration with Ipsos Public Affairs. Political rhetoric and cooler-than-average weather appear to have influenced the shift, but economics doesn’t appear to have played a role.
The survey directed by Jon Krosnick, a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, shows that support for a range of policies intended to reduce future climate change dropped by an average of 5 percentage points per year between 2010 and 2012.
In a 2010 Stanford survey, more than three-quarters of respondents expressed support for mandating more efficient and less polluting cars, appliances, homes, offices and power plants. Nearly 90 percent of respondents favored federal tax breaks to spur companies to produce more electricity from water, wind and solar energy. On average, 72 percent of respondents supported government action on climate change in 2010. By 2012, that support had dropped to 62 percent.
The drop was concentrated among Americans who distrust climate scientists, even more so among such people who identify themselves as Republicans. Americans who do not trust climate science were especially aware of and influenced by recent shifts in world temperature, and 2011 was tied for the coolest of the last 11 years.
Krosnick pointed out that during the recent campaign, all but one Republican presidential candidate expressed doubt about global warming, and some urged no government action to address the issue. Rick Santorum described belief in climate change as a “pseudo-religion,” while Ron Paul called it a “hoax.” Mitt Romney, the apparent Republican nominee, has said, “I can tell you the right course for America with regard to energy policy is to focus on job creation and not global warming.”
The Stanford-Ipsos study found no evidence that the decline in public support for government action was concentrated among respondents who lived in states struggling the most economically.
The study found that, overall, the majority of Americans continue to support many specific government actions to mitigate global warming’s effect. However, most Americans remain opposed to consumer taxes intended to decrease public use of electricity and gasoline.
Rob Jordan is the communications writer for the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
Media Contact
Jon Krosnick, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment: krosnick@stanford.edu, (650) 725-3031
Rob Jordan, communications, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment: rjordan@stanford.edu, (650) 721-1881
===============================================================
Here’s the survey in PDF form: http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/GW-Policy-Trend-2010-2012-1.pdf
Gail Combs says:
May 8, 2012 at 3:59 pm
“A question measuring trust in climate scientists was included in the 2010 survey. It asked: “How much do you trust the things that scientists say about the environment – completely, a lot, a moderate amount, a little, or not at all?” However, this question was not asked in the 2012 survey. Therefore, we constructed a measure of trust for respondents in both years using the following method.”
******
They must have used tree ring proxy data for the 2012 bit.
Would that also include ‘education’ on finance, and how our financial system works, the logic and use of fractional reserve banking for instance? And how our banking system actually came together as opposed to relying on G. Edward Griffin’s conspiracy-based fabrication “The Creature from Jekyll Island”?
.
I don’t think it shows so much a distrust in scientist as a distrust in the the sciecobable that has been generated in the guise of science…and then used by others to further a political (read “power over others”) agenda.
(On another thread someone alluded to The One (tree) Ring to Rule Them All. They didn’t quite put it that way, but I Ioved it.8-)
I think that the mantra of global warming is excellent for obtaining research monies. In every begging letter I send to the respective authorities for reseach cash, I ensure that the words “Global Warming ” are mentioned at least once on every page. PS. I am a biotechnologist and my reseach has absolutely nothing to do with climate. See? I have manageded to mention Global warming three times here without even trying.
Funny no global warming for 15 years and they have a poll suggesting government should act to curb the non event. Polls for global warming profits are popular. Polls that are intended to generate a consensus that government should be in charge of the intimate details of your life. Polls paid for by the government indirectly. Polls to export the jobs to countries not controlled by people that believe that government should be in charge of the manufacturing and assembly lines.
This is a classic push poll.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/push+poll
The questions are worded in a way designed to get a specific response. When you ask people, “Should we have less pollution?” of course there is no surprise that a large majority agrees. Similarly, asking if we should have cars with better gas mileage or more efficient appliances without mentioning increased costs or lowered performance is quite simply dishonest.
And of course, they decided to just make up the data about trust of scientists since they didn’t even ask that question! Which is ridiculous.
James Fosser says:
May 8, 2012 at 7:54 pm
I think that the mantra of global warming is excellent for obtaining research monies. In every begging letter I send to the respective authorities for reseach cash, I ensure that the words “Global Warming ” are mentioned at least once on every page. PS. I am a biotechnologist and my reseach has absolutely nothing to do with climate. See? I have manageded to mention Global warming three times here without even trying.
===========================================================
You didn’t capitalize “Warming” in your last sentence.
Grant denied!!!
“The study found that, overall, the majority of Americans continue to support many specific government actions to mitigate global warming’s effect. However, most Americans remain opposed to consumer taxes intended to decrease public use of electricity and gasoline.”
Have to laugh at this summary don’t we? We say we support government actions while we oppose paying for them. This is today’s social science. We must be ignorant and/or confused should be the conclusion of this poll.
These results stem from poorly designed survey questions.
Here are some questions I would like to be asked of the public:
Do you think that a politician or even a political party can change the weather better than some other politician or party in your lifetime?
Do you think that carbon should be outlawed?
Do you know the definition of the scientific method?
Do you know what a climate model is?
Any other basic questions I may have missed?
I would like to thank the people for seeing through the f***ds before they looted us back into the stone age, and that includes Anthony (it’s about time), but I suspect the moderator will refuse to allow that term. Please don’t. It’s about time skeptics called spades spades.
It is good to know that in 2010 75% of Democrats and independents had a high trust in (climate?) “science”, and 70% had a low trust. That’s 145%. Democrats and independents, well done!
Stanford U still employs Paul Erlich, whose treatise, The Population Bomb began with this statement: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate”
With astute scientific predictions like that, how can they expect any credibility in current predictions?
>>
A question measuring trust in climate scientists was included in the 2010 survey. It asked: “How much do you trust the things that scientists say about the environment – completely, a lot, a moderate amount, a little, or not at all?” However, this question was not asked in the 2012 survey. Therefore, we constructed a measure of trust for respondents in both years using the following method.
>>
In view of who conducted the poll, one can hardly imagine it was conducted objectively
It’s well known that you can show what you want with such polls. It’s just a case of framing the questions to get the answer you want.
It’s pretty clear they did not want the answer to this one.
The fact that they did a comparative poll yet omitted such an important question clearly demonstrates that this was a propaganda exercise from the outset.
Hint to gullible readers: California is not America. Now, Rob, which “America” did you actually survey?
Whatever else Stanford is and does, it is home to the Hoover Institute. Their position(s) on Global Warming have been anything but sanguine.
The Pseudoscience of Global Warming, by Bruce Berkowitz, 2001 – http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7944
I don’t think that scientists across the board are being distrusted, just climate scientists pushing tha AGW scam. It’s real scientists doing honest science who are showing up the flaws in their argument.
Bogus scientists are teaching the world how NOT to do science (now that the world is finally beginning to pay attention and is seeing how shoddy their work is).
Real scientists are the heroes in all this. They shine. Enough said.
We’re going to be seeing a lot more of these campaigns based on “polls”, not least because after the Shakun mauling and a few others like it more recently, it’d take a brave climate scientist to come up with a suitably alarming paper, which was so bullet proof, it couldn’t be torn to pieces in public
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/lies-damn-lies-and-polls/
Pointman
These polls show that the majority, even in America, still believe in the CAGW scam. In Europe that majority is significantly larger. We have a long, long, way to go to get the great unwashed to understand.
I would like to repeat what I said before, in WUWT and elsewhwere:
“I am getting bored. The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html. The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended in order to achieve worldwide disorientation away from the actual IPCC aims of their monetary and energy policies – and bringing a whole, if not all, of science into disrepute. Even the UK Royal Society has become Lysenkoist.”
The Poems of Our Climate says:
May 8, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Chuck Nolan says:
Why combine the democrats and independents?
Good eye, Chuck! I would guess that the author is a Democrat and would like to think that Independents are going to vote for his guys.
____________________________
Fat Chance That! an Independent (I just wish I had something to vote FOR this time)
Sounds like more dinosaur farts to me.
There is a distinction between scientists and climate scientists.
Real scientists create solutions, climate scientists create imaginary problems.
The great benefit of creating imaginary problems is that it creates massive funding for them, but ordinary scientists suffer. The main stream media have been very supportive of climate alarmism as promoting fear and hysteria has become profitable.
The difference between Y2K and climate change:
Climate change is endless.
_Jim says:
May 8, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Would that also include ‘education’ on finance, and how our financial system works, the logic and use of fractional reserve banking for instance? And how our banking system actually came together as opposed to relying on G. Edward Griffin’s conspiracy-based fabrication “The Creature from Jekyll Island”?
________________________________
Jim I learned to read BEFORE I went to school. Moreover, I have read A PRIMER ON MONEY. SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC FINANCE. COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wright Patman Chairman
Wright Patman was a DEMOCRAT. He and others introduced articles of impeachment against Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon. Henry B. Gonzalez, another DEMOCRAT proposed an audit of the FED in 1993. He introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 101, against Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and ten other members of the Federal Open Market Committee and H.R. Res. 102, against Volcker alone. He introduced two additional impeachment resolutions in the following two years. All his resolutions fell into a black hole.
I only mention Griffin’s article as a dumbed-down version for people who do not seem to have the attention span or the reading skills to get through Patman’s A PRIMER ON MONEY
I am sure Gonzalez, who was referred to as a “communist” by Rep. Ed Foreman (R-Texas) in 1963, would roll on the floor laughing if he was accused of being a “Bircher”
You ask whether I understand “the logic and use of fractional reserve banking” of course I do. According to the Bankers it is to “expand the money supply to facilitate commerce” of course the bankers fund the economics departments at the big schools, so that is what is taught.
Bankers created $1961.967 billion dollars (M2) in fiat currency starting from 1964 ( $54 billion ) to the end of 2010. In that time frame the national average wage index (according to Social Security) went from $4,086.76 to $41,673.83. For a new home the 1964 median price was $30,000, for a new car the average cost was $2,250, a gallon of gas was 25¢ and a Stamp was 5¢.
Looks to me as though the increase in the money supply just added a zero, increased our taxes though the “progressive tax” and moved a lot of wealth from the peons to the bankers through fraudulent contracts that trade newly minted fiat money for labor.
So how does fractional reserve banking actually work? Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955) explained it very plainly.
Q. “Will you tell me why a government with power to create money, should give that power away to a private monopoly, and then borrow that which parliament [Congress] can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?” GEE, isn’t that the question people in the USA, the EU and elsewhere should be asking their reps in government?
For some reason, I can just never get past…
Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences
Professor-Communication
Professor-Political Science
Professor (by courtesy)-Psychology
Every single one of these “studies” is conducted by people with such bios.
Bill Parsons says:
May 8, 2012 at 10:44 pm
By Rob Jordan (Stanford)
The study found that, overall, the majority of Americans continue to support many specific government actions to mitigate effects of global warming.
Hint to gullible readers: California is not America. Now, Rob, which “America” did you actually survey?
____________________________
He polled eastern Massachusetts and southern California. See, he covered coast to coast and north to south that way. You just have to know how to do these things right Bill.
You lost track of what was actually found.
1) There was loss of support for government action.
2) It was in all states, not just struggling ones.
So it is false that “there was no decline in public support for government action”. Anywhere.