From the “who to believe” department. First, the pro climate view from NORC AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO:
Most Americans want government to combat climate change
Nearly 4 in 10 Americans have not yet made up their minds on fracking, while just 2 in 10 say they favor the practice. About 8 in 10 say the United States should maintain its commitment under the Paris Agreement–even if other countries do not.
Sixty-five percent of Americans think climate change is a problem that the government needs to address, including 43 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of Democrats, according to a new survey from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. While the major political parties have in recent years frequently clashed over the need to combat climate change, the Paris Agreement, and the role of coal and fracking in our energy system, Americans are largely in favor of efforts on all fronts to combat climate change.
But, how much Americans are willing to pay to confront the climate challenge varies widely. When asked whether they would support a monthly fee on their electric bill to combat climate change, 42 percent of respondents are unwilling to pay even $1. Twenty-nine percent would pay $20, an amount roughly equivalent to what the federal government estimates the damages from climate change would be on each household. And, 20 percent indicate they are willing to pay $50 per month. Party affiliation is the main determinant of how much people are willing to pay, not education, income, or geographic location. Democrats are consistently willing to pay more than Republicans.
“These findings confirm that there is a shift underway in how concerned all Americans are about climate change. It is becoming clear that people are seeing more and more that it is worthwhile to invest some money today to help reduce the odds of the worst climate damages,” said Michael Greenstone, director of EPIC and the Milton Friedman Professor in Economics, the College, and the Harris School. “At EPIC, we are working to better understand how climate change will affect human well-being. We believe this research and its careful communication are critical for aligning public opinion with the best available evidence.”
When it comes to support for policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most Americans (46 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Democrats) are in favor of federal regulations that would decrease U.S. coal consumption. If this question is paired with the assertion that such regulations have resulted in the loss of thousands of coal jobs, support wanes slightly from 54 percent to 45 percent. Democrats express the same level of support regardless of whether or not the question includes an assertion about job losses.
Despite low expectations that the United States will fulfill its obligations under the Paris Agreement–and even less confidence in China or India to meet theirs–the vast majority of Americans want the United States to continue working toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions even if other countries do not. That includes 77 percent of Republicans and 91 percent of Democrats.
“While climate change has in the past eight years become an increasingly divisive issue in American politics, we do find widespread agreement that the United States should be a leader on this issue globally,” said Trevor Tompson, director of The AP-NORC Center. “Americans aren’t particularly hopeful that any country will meet its obligation under the Paris Agreement, but more than 7 in 10 in each political party believe that the U.S. should at least try to make progress even if other countries do not.”
Of all the issues surveyed, the role hydraulic fracturing should play in America’s energy mix has traditionally been an issue where Democrats do not agree–with some believing it should continue playing a role under tighter regulations, and others believing it should be banned entirely. The survey found that just 13 percent of Democrats actually favor fracking, as opposed to 36 percent of Republicans. Nearly 4 in 10 Americans don’t offer an opinion at all, suggesting that additional education would make an impact. Of those who have an opinion, twice as many oppose the practice than support it.
At the same time, the poll finds that most Americans significantly underestimate the share of U.S. natural gas that is produced using hydraulic fracturing. Just 1 in 5 correctly say that fracking accounts for about two-thirds of the U.S. natural gas supply.
Some of the poll’s key findings are:
- Sixty-five percent of Americans say climate change is a problem the U.S. government should address. Another 12 percent say climate change is happening, but the government should not be involved in fixing it; 1 in 10 Americans say climate change is not happening; and 13 percent of Americans remain unsure if climate change is happening or not.
- When asked whether they would support a monthly fee on their electric bill to combat climate change, 42 percent of respondents are unwilling to pay even $1. Twenty-nine percent would pay $20, an amount roughly equivalent to what the federal government estimates the damages from climate change would be on each household. And, 20 percent indicate they are willing to pay $50 per month.
- Party affiliation is the main determinant of how much people are willing to pay to combat climate change, not education, income, or geographic location. Democrats are consistently willing to pay more than Republicans.
- Energy issues and climate change are important issues for about half of likely voters as they cast their ballot.
- A majority of Americans underestimate how much of the country’s natural gas supply comes from fracking, and many don’t hold strong attitudes about the practice. Among those who do have an opinion, twice as many oppose its use than support it.
- Only a quarter of Americans are confident that the United States will fulfill its obligations under the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- Americans have even less confidence in China and India meeting their obligations. But even if these countries don’t, 8 in 10 Americans say the United States should continue making progress to meet its own obligations.
###
About the Survey
This survey was conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and with funding from EPIC. Data were collected using AmeriSpeak Omnibus®. The survey was part of a larger study that included questions about other topics not included in this report. Interviews for this survey were conducted between August 11 and 14, 2016, with adults age 18 and over representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Panel members were randomly drawn from AmeriSpeak, and 1,096 completed the survey–832 via the web and 264 via telephone. The overall margin of sampling error is +/- 3.6 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level, including the design effect. The margin of sampling error may be higher for subgroups.
About the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago
The Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) is confronting the global energy challenge by working to ensure that energy markets provide access to reliable, affordable energy, while limiting environmental and social damages. We do this using a unique interdisciplinary approach that translates robust, data-driven research into real-world impacts through strategic outreach and training for the next generation of global energy leaders. epic.uchicago.edu @UChiEnergy
About The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research
The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research taps into the power of social science research and the highest-quality journalism to bring key information to people across the nation and throughout the world. http://www.apnorc.org
The Associated Press (AP) is the essential global news network, delivering fast, unbiased news from every corner of the world to all media platforms and formats. Founded in 1846, AP today is the most trusted source of independent news and information. On any given day, more than half the world’s population sees news from AP. http://www.ap.org
NORC at the University of Chicago is an independent research institution that delivers reliable data and rigorous analysis to guide critical programmatic, business, and policy decisions. Since 1941, NORC has conducted groundbreaking studies, created and applied innovative methods and tools, and advanced principles of scientific integrity and collaboration. Today, government, corporate, and nonprofit clients around the world partner with NORC to transform increasingly complex information into useful knowledge. http://www.norc.org
The two organizations have established The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research to conduct, analyze, and distribute social science research in the public interest on newsworthy topics, and to use the power of journalism to tell the stories that research reveals.
Now the dissenting view, from the Pew Institute:
The Politics of Climate
Polarized views about climate issues stretch from the causes and cures for climate change to trust in climate scientists and their research. But most Americans support a role for scientists in climate policy, and there is bipartisan support for expanding solar, wind energy
Political fissures on climate issues extend far beyond beliefs about whether climate change is occurring and whether humans are playing a role, according to a new, in-depth survey by Pew Research Center. These divisions reach across every dimension of the climate debate, down to people’s basic trust in the motivations that drive climate scientists to conduct their research.
Specifically, the survey finds wide political divides in views of the potential for devastation to the Earth’s ecosystems and what might be done to address any climate impacts. There are also major divides in the way partisans interpret the current scientific discussion over climate, with the political left and right having vastly divergent perceptions of modern scientific consensus, differing levels of trust in the information they get from professional researchers, and different views as to whether it is the quest for knowledge or the quest for professional advancement that drives climate scientists in their work.
…
The climate-engaged public
Some 36% of Americans are deeply concerned about climate issues, saying they personally care a great deal about the issue of global climate change. This group is composed primarily of Democrats (72%), but roughly a quarter (24%) is Republican. Some 55% are women, making this group slightly more female than the population as a whole. But, they come from a range of age and education groups and from all regions of the country.
There are wide differences in beliefs about climate issues and climate scientists between this more concerned public and other Americans, among both Democrats and Republicans alike. Indeed, people’s expressions of care are strongly correlated with their views, separate and apart from their partisan and ideological affiliations.
Full report here: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/
Gallup has been polling American priorities for 15 years and climate change doesn’t even show up on their open-question poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
The U.N. has an on-going international poll of priorities and “action on climate change” ranks dead last.
http://data.myworld2015.org/
Whenever I see polls saying a significant number of Americans, or even a majority, are concerned about climate change, I want to see the questions, the methods, and the group of people they polled. I personally don’t know a single person who is concerned about climate change / global warming other than wanting to see the government stop wasting time and money on it.
Hear, hear!
Polling guided by confirmation bias will produce biased results (duh). The task is to identify bias in the polling process or method.
I know a lot of people who care deeply about climate change. I’m from California. All those who care deeply are Democrat and would vote Idi Amin for president – if he were running as a Democrat. The big pull for the Democratic Party is that they want to tax the working wealthy to provide free stuff for the marginally employed. Climate Change allows for this extra taxation, and as we’ve learned from Social Security and gas taxes – the money goes where it is “needed”, not where it was pledged and guaranteed to go.
“Democrats express the same level of support regardless of whether or not the question includes an assertion about job losses.” — That’s a pretty damning statement about Democrats! I think if I were still registered as such, I would be utterly ashamed. I guess the party is now becoming totally amoral.
Polls can get people to say many things they don’t even believe.
” Do you believe that most men have stopped beating their wives ? ”
See how easy that was !
G
Sure I’m willing to pay $50 per month to combat climate change. I’ll take the $50 from ‘him'(er) and I’ll use it to help defray the cost of retiring to the Sea of Cortez, round about Loreto.
”Do you believe that most men have stopped beating the wives that beat them?”
– Other side of the coin, which must be considered
It is sad that people have bought into the AGW hoax. It is all religion with no science. Government has bought-off “kept” scientists to perpetuate the fraud. We have zero chance of having the means, ability or wisdom of controlling the climate. We are actually fortunate that we cannot.
The governments in all countries?
Because (for example) Chinese scientists are of the same opinion as US and European scientists on this.
Why yes, politicians do support schemes that promise to give them more money and power.
Chinese scientists have no opinions that are not Party approved.
Actually, “Do you care about X?” is often a specious question.
I can still care about climate change but not worry about it.
Asking the wrong question leads to bad poll results.
Political parties and their proxy liars are masters of asking the particular question that gets the answer they want.
When they ask “Do you care about …”, I always respond “What I care about is NONE of your business”
I don’t care about what other people feels. I judge from what my eyes and reason tells me only.
Unfortunately, I do know people who think it’s a problem and don’t hesitate to label me a denier.
Tough to deny that temperature is and will go up one degree every 100 years. Tougher to understandcwhyvthat is a problem.
Regardless of risk or cost, trying to change the climate is a fool’s errand.
Those who believe the global warming hoax believe the unscientific lies that claim it. No contest – no global warming, no CO2 ‘dangers’, no man-made effects and no cow farts! The fanatic warming activists are the useful idiots of the elite who are scheming to enrich themselves by taxing us for the air we breathe, to control the world’s resources, and to reduce the world’s populations so they can steal everything for themselves. Men who play God are the real danger to all of us.
I believe the climate has changed between Vostok Base , Antarctica, and Timbuctoo which is somewhere in north Africa.
g
Not talking about climate change. Climate has always changed. Talking about “global warming” as it is described today. Doesn’t exist.
Marlene, every data set that exists, all the evidence points to the fact that the earth is warming. So when you say: “Doesn’t exist” you are wrong. The earth is warming.
Climate change is natural, not man-made.
Boy, camel, you are galloping all over the place and getting mostly wrong. Pause and think or, at least, read some WUWT articles and “learn.” Look up the global temperatures over the past 10,000 years or so. Any temporary warming periods, such as the 1930’s when it was warmer than the present, overall, are insignificant in the overall DOWNWARD trend in temperatures for millenia.
Janice says: ” read some WUWT articles and “learn.”
…
Sorry Janice, this site is for “news and opinion” ………if you want to read about science, you need to go elsewhere.
Janice says: ” as the 1930’s when it was warmer than the present,”
…
Nope, not globally.
…
Do you understand what the word “global” means?
It was global, camel. You can easily verify that fact for yourself by checking temperature data records.
I checked the records Janice. It is warmer today than in the 1930’s.
..
What data source are you looking at?
Galloping camel;
Read how global average temperatures are done. So is it getting warmer or LESS COLD?
I struggle with the concept of a global average. I still believe climate is regional. Further,using 30, 60 or even 100 year averages is not really reflective of long term climate. Today where I live, it is 10 degrees below AVERAGE with snow in the forecast. That’s weather, not climate.
First of all, camel, you apparently are looking at adjusted-to-the-point-of-inaccuracy (or simply scrubbed — and not with a cloth) data:
David L. Hagen:
(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/20/myths-and-facts-about-global-warming/#comment-1153113 )
Now, for your convenience, here are some data illustrating my main point (that for the past 10,000 years or so earth has been, overall, cooling, and any temporary warming today is statistically insignificant as to that downward trend):
The 1930’s were warmer than average — in enough regions of the world to label it “global” (if not, then, you cannot call the 1990’s warming “global”):
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/esper-etal-2014-1024×613.jpg
(Cited here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/06/ooops-another-big-failure-of-the-climate-models-rainfall-did-not-increase/#comment-2183882 )
Finally, for your convenience, re: the STOP in temperature warming:
(Source: Werner Brozek here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/19/uah-and-enso-now-includes-july-and-august-data/ )
And EVEN IF there ends up being a statistically significant warming for a temporary, El Nino-caused, rise as of the end of 2016, given that we do not know what temperatures will actually do in the following months, for the present,
warming
as a statistically significant TREND,
is still
STOPPED.
gc wrote: “I checked the records Janice. It is warmer today than in the 1930’s.
..
What data source are you looking at?”
Try the realclimatescience.co website. There, you can find charts showing the hot years of the 1930’s, for various countries around the globe, and how the Climate Change Gurus have doctored the charts to make them appear cooler than they really were.
Tony has “before and after” comparison charts, so you can see the NASA/NOAA/CRU skullduggery yourself.
The whole world was hotter in the 1930’s, before the Climate Change Gurus conspired to change the temperatue charts to make things look like the 1930’s were cooler than today, to fit in with their CAGW narrative that things are getting hotter and hotter.
The Climate Change Gurus conspired to reduce the *global* temperature record of the 1930’s. Read all about their conspiracy in the Climategate emails.
They were not conspiring to change the U.S. surface temperature record. There was no need to conspire to do that since all they had to do was make the same argument you make: that it is *just* the U.S. temperature record, and doesn’t apply to the whole world.
But the Climate Change Gurus did *not* make that argument. Instead, they went to the trouble of conspiring, internationally, to change the official surface temperature records of all the records around the world that they could get their hands on.
(BTW, mods, the search engine page for the Climategate emails no longer works. But, Startpage is your friend.)
gallopingcamel,
A bit of advise from nobody special, whose been hanging around these comment threads for the better part of a year; Don’t take Janice Moore lightly. She’s a heavyweight.
John Knight!
THANK YOU for that. You are so generous and kind to think so (and, especially, to SAY so). If you only knew to what depths my self-esteem has plummeted in the past 3 weeks (no need to feel sorry for me — just wanted you to know how MUCH your compliment did for me)…
And you, too, are a “heavy weight,” a deep, sharp, critical thinker (I was reading your application of Isaiah (and other passages) on a thread recently — fine analysis and very apt application, “There are{, indeed,} more things in heaven and earth, {Jeff,} than are dreamt of …” (Hamlet)).
With gratitude,
Janice
: )
galloping camel: “Do you know what the word Global means?…What data source are you looking at?
Janice Moore: (paraphrasing) I am looking a USA temperatures and a temperature reconstruction of Northern Europe. This is despite there being actual instrumental records covering the period under discussion (1930 to present).
I like the way Janice puts “learn” in inverted commas when referring to what happens when you review WUWT posts.
TA: “The Climate Change Gurus conspired to reduce the *global* temperature record of the 1930’s. Read all about their conspiracy in the Climategate emails.”
TA admits conspiracy theory is the only way to avoid thinking it has got warmer recently.
“She’s a heavyweight.”
She’s a KNOCKOUT PUNCH !!!
Once again the troll proclaims that it’s only science, if it agrees with his opinion.
The warming in the 1930’s was global. The LIA was global, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods were all global.
Mark W. Can you point to the data that says the 1930’s was warmer than today? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t but I have seen no data to support the assertion that it was.
seaice1 wrote: “TA admits conspiracy theory is the only way to avoid thinking it has got warmer recently.”
No, it’s not a conspiracy “theory”, it is a conspiracy fact, as confirmed by the Climategate emails.
Does temperature increase mean more bad weather or more good weather?
Incorrect arm-waving on each point.
WOMEN TOO.
That’s a conspiracy theory, not science.
Have you any evidence at all for this elite and its actions?
You mean like the “big oil” conspiracy theory? 😉
There’s plenty of proof. It’s called “science.” Study it through independent scientists and stop reading and believing the faulty analyses of the media and their bought-and-paid for stoolies, who have been exposed and continue to be exposed, one by one. Your comment shows you need to learn a whole lot more about this because you offered no “proof” to the contrary.
Griff commented: “…That’s a conspiracy theory, not science….Have you any evidence at all for this elite and its actions?..”
People from the IPCC, UN, and other NGOs have gone on record to say “Climate Change” is not about protecting the environment nor about temperature. It’s about ‘wealth redistribution’ which is today’s popular term for Socailism/Marxism/Communism/Ism, Ism. Obama even claimed such in his first Presidential acceptance speech. They openly proclaim that the time is right to end Capitalism and the fall of the industrial society is the goal to help accomplish that worldwide shift in ideology. People that like to shout “conspiracy theory” about skeptical AGW claims are useful idiots to the Socialist ideological cause.
No independents were surveyed? I would guess there are plenty of people who don’t want to be affiliated with either party.
Independent for many decades. I believe the two major political parties would behave differently if a significant portion of the Registered Dem’s and Rep’s changed their affiliation to Independent. They can take their Hoax and shove it.
Independents are said to number 39% of the voters in 2015, Dems 32% and Rs 23%. ..https://www.google.com/search?q=%25+of+voters+independent&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
I read somewhere that this is the highest % achieved for the Independent Party.
Guess what I am and have been all my life?
I signed up as R this election, as I wanted to participate in the primary election. I had hoped to see Cruz get the nod. Trump is the worst choice that the R side could have made, but now there is no choice with Hillary as the alternative.
the Independent Party
Say what? The American Independent Party (AIP) nominated George Wallace for Pres. in 1968.
Or do you mean “unaffiliated voter”?
I meant unaffiliated voters who registered as independent, small i. My mistake.
Real independents are not affiliated with any party. That being said, a good argument could have been made for voting for George Wallace over the establishment, just as a good argument can be made for voting for Donald Trump over the establishment. The establishment has brought us the corrupt government we have today.
(1) Polls asking about a single issue are inherently misleading. Polls that ask people to rank their public policy concerns gives a more realistic picture. Resources are limited. Priorities are everything.
Also, Gallup’s polls of the “Most Important Problem” consistently put the environment among the least often mentioned problems: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
Their polls asking how much Americans worry about specific problems also consistently put climate near the bottom: http://www.gallup.com/poll/190253/worry-terror-attacks-high-not-top-concern.aspx
(2) I suggest taking these with some salt. They’re subject to “virtue signalling”.
(3) “And, 20% indicate they are willing to pay $50 per month. Party affiliation is the main determinant of how much people are willing to pay, not education, income, or geographic location.”
People are willing to give $600 per year to fight climate change irrespective of their income? That seems unlikely. Paging the replication crisis center! A recount, please.
While your points about virtue signalling and single topic polls are on the money there is a bigger problem. The platform they used to gather the data is an “opinion sharing” site. I’ve never been able to figure out how AmeriSpeak can extract a projectable sample. Their filters and weighting, alone, would not make any sample even closely resemble random selection, or at the very least no one would be able to validate that it approaches random assignment. The fact that it “mirrors” a cross section of the U.S. population don’t mean crap.
Mark,
Thanks for pointing that out! So the study is just clickbait. Since we’re all discussing this junk study, it is successful clickbait.
” Resources are limited. Priorities are everything.” I agree, but we are talking about costs of a fraction of GDP here. The question is what do we do with this small fraction? Thus it is consistent that people do not rank environment as one of the main concerns, yet still think we should do something about it.
I love the way those who are trying to fool the public always try to pretend that they only want a tiny fraction of your money.
First you have to prove you are going to do some good with it. Then you can start arguing about whether your plans are worth the cost.
Mark W. I agree with the second part of your comment but fail to see how it relates to the first part.
“…a fraction of GDP here. The question is what do we do with this small fraction?” Keep your friggin’ hands off. It ain’t your money to play with. Do you actually believe that all GDP belongs to the government and it’s up to the government to parse it out as they see fit? I hope I’m wrong, but that’s the way I read you comment.
seaice: You would.
A 2/3 web completed poll provides only self selected ‘hot button’ answers (cause those only bother to respond). The core method is junk, so the poll result is also junk. You want a ‘reliable’ poll, you need over 2000 randomly selected geographically dispersed responses to get an uncertinty in the 3% range. GIGO. Shame on U Chicago if EPIC is in fact university sponsored, rather than just affiliated via some professor’s hobby.
And if “just affiliated via some professor’s hobby” I would seriously review my hiring practices.
ristvan – And this from a population that in another survey said only 11% followed the discussion. So when you get responses like
“Despite low expectations that the United States will fulfill its obligations under the Paris Agreement–and even less confidence in China or India to meet theirs”–AP–NORC poll
What China did agreed to?
From the FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/fact-sheet-us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change-and-clean-energy-c
At the same time, President Xi Jinping of China announced targets to peak CO2 emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early, and to increase the non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20 percent by 2030.
In political spin talk, China will grow CO2 at the rate they want till 2030, then will increase the mix of non-fossil fuel (think nuclear power, thorium reactors & hydro growth of 3X the size of the Gorges Dam). Their planned growth doesn’t need what the West considers ‘renewable s’. If you actually look at China Power future growth plan, Obama gave away the store to get exactly what China was planning to do anyway.
Even if they don’t change or make the targets, what is the penalty? Remember, as some have said, “Communists always lie.”
How hard will China have to go to get to the vaunted 20% non-fossil fuel share?
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/11/non-fossil-fuel-sources-provide-25-chinas-electricity/
According to the latest round of statistical data issued by CEC, China’s nation-wide electricity generation reached 5550TW hours in 2014, for year-on-year growth of 3.6%.
In 2014, nationwide hydropower generation breached the 1000 TW hour threshold for the first time in history to reach 1070TW hours,1070 TW / 5550 TW = 19.23 %
Despite China’s ongoing push for expanded wind power capacity, usage hours for wind power installations fell by 120 hours last year to 1905 hours. Nationwide grid-connected wind power generation nonetheless posted a year-on-year gain of 12.2%, to reach 156.3 TW hours. 156.3 TW / 5550 TW = 02.82 %
China’s grid-connected solar power capacity also posted an impressive increase in 2014, rising by 67.0% year-on-year to reach 26.52GW by the end of December 2014. Nationwide grid-connected solar power generation reached 23.11 TW hours in 2014, for a year-on-year increase of 170.8%.
23.11 TW / 5550 TW = 00.42%
Nationwide nuclear power generation in 2014 was 126.2 TW hours, for a year-on-year increase of 13.2% Usage times fell 385 hours year-on-year to 7489 hours on average.
126.2 TW/ 5550 TW = 02.28 %
Hydro + Nuc in 2014 = 21.51% – They are already 1.51 percent over now.
AmeriSpeak Omnibus…an online and telephone poll
and 1,096 completed the survey…….and 36,472 republicans did not answer the phone or hung up
Latitude, the “hang up” factor must be huge, in ALL polls. i wonder if/how that gets accounted for…
because they only tell you how many people were surveyed….they never tell you how many people they tried to survey
Conservatives don’t poll…
..liberals never shut up
“..liberals never shut up”
that’s the problem with life in general these days (in a nutshell)…
Latitude,
That’s one of the funniest quotes I’ve seen in a long time. :>)
Latitude, just got the answer on the kelly file… LA Times poll tracks the same 3,000 people so that they see real shifts in how people plan to vote. Other polls depend on those who “pick up the phone” (which can be influenced by the enthusiasm of any given day). The LA Times poll methodology was tried only once before with great success in 2012. They weight the sample to be representative of the country on the whole. It consistently has trump ahead by several percentage points…
Any more, “hang up” may not be the big issue. That would be “Caller ID” and an answering machine. I don’t hang up on people because I don’t “pick up” unless I want to talk to the caller.
People with cell phones can get themselves on the no-call list. Polling agencies are bound by this list as well as tele-marketers.
As a result, any telephone survey is going to over sample people who still have landlines.
I suspect that Democrats are willing to pay $50 IF: 1. the poor get a $60 subsidy and free child care, 2. all non-deniers get a $49.99 subsidy, etc., etc., etc.
the climate is a set of statistics NOT some force, NOT something that controls the weather in any way……the weather comes FIRST and then the stats it creates get averaged into the “climate” stats……….i dont see why so many dont seem to understand this simple reality?
Be careful, William Briggs will accuse you of reification!
Does anyone trust polls anymore?
Yes. Politicians do.
You can be terrified, now. (sarcasm)
What “the public thinks” is only meaningful as a measurement of ignorance
(both: 1) as a symptom of a false-premise-based emotional belief stubbornly adhered to in spite of knowing facts to the contrary; and 2) bona fide).
There will always be a % of “the public” who are afraid of what “scientists say:”
In May 2015, a group of 190 independent scientists from 39 countries, who in total have written more than 2,000 papers on the topic, called on the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and national governments to develop stricter controls on cell-phone radiation. They point to growing research—as well as the classification of cell-phone radiation as a possible carcinogen in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the WHO—suggesting that the low levels of radiation from cell phones could have potentially cancer-causing effects.
***
In a recent nationally representative Consumer Reports survey of 1,000 adults, only 5 percent said they were very concerned about the radiation from cell phones …
(Source: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/smartphones/cell-phone-radiation )
While the % of ignorance is higher for AGW than for cell phone fears, it is wavering and, thanks to brave scientists like Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Nick Drapela (just to name two), the ignorance % is dwindling.
Thus, what the above tells us science realists is: KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
Truth is holding its own — thanks to Anthony Watts (and WUWT) and Jo Nova and many, many, other warriors out there — you, too, you who have written letters to the editor, spoken out in public meetings, braved hostility during your stroll after Thanksgiving dinner, etc., etc..
Hang in there: time is on our side. Be patient and have courage and fight on in the War Against Ignorance. (Note: the AGW Battle IS over — that underlying truth has long been victorious — just a propaganda war, now, i.e., skirmishes from a vanquished foe still holding captive the brainwashed, some of whom, sadly, we can never save — but, with the “Average Joe and Maria,” we are winning the War for Truth!)
Evidence: the Democrats had to use the tactic of desperation, a unilateral declaration by one without the constitutional authority to bind the U.S. in such matters (and it will ultimately fail for it is unconstitutional), to push the Paris human CO2 economy-wrecking deal back from the brink of the “NO WAY” (said America) cliff because ———– the U.S. public overall is NOT behind such measures. Not — at — all.
Take heart! Follow the money tells us THE PUBLIC (overall) DOESN’T GIVE A RAT’S TOENAIL (to any degree of significance vis a vis demanding drastic action).
(from first article posted above)
I wonder what email list EPIC used to solicit the web responses (The Sierra Club?).
How can any poll be considered the least bit reliable since the vast majority of the coverage regarding global warming and fracking has been decidedly slanted towards the alarmist view. How many people still rely on the feckless and highly partisan MSM for their information, those same people so involved with keeping their heads above water with no time to fact check the ridiculous claims regarding these issues that are passed off as rational thought.
They’re depending on the theory that if you tell a big lie long enough, people will believe you.
The trouble is that the people know they’re being cheated but they can’t put their finger on the cause of the problem. They thus give up and support Trump who only tells little lies.
b$20, an amount roughly equivalent to what the federal government estimates the damages from climate change would be on each household.
20 BUCKS a month? That’s it? 20 bucks per month per household? The federal government estimates the damage from climate change to be just $240 per YEAR per household? I don’t know where that number came from, but if from a legitimate government source, it should be mocked loud and long on every blog and every letter to every editor. I mean SERIOUSLY?
20 bucks per month per household? That’s a catastrophe?
The question should be:
– Would you agree to have your electricity and gas prices double (and other products increase by 10%), so that the government can tax CO2 emissions and then spend that money on all kinds of boondoggle green save-mother-Earth projects?
…10,000 Gold Stars….
Ah? Well that is exactly what the province of Alberra is doing. And BC, Quebec and Ontario have done. Quel surprise
I don’t answer calls I don’t recognise. Most intelligent folks don’t either. Only the weak minded answer a number they don’t recognise and don’t let the answering service screen it. If polls were conducted by text messaging invitations to websites, there might be a much better cross-section of the public.
Sorry, what’s text messaging?
Thus, not a better cross-section.
Why should we believe anything Associated Press says? They’re primarily a leftist propaganda organ, not a news organization.
There’s an old saying in the garment district: “If the man wants a blue suit, turn on the blue lights.” That mercantile spirit is also seen in nearly everything connected with the climate debate.
Jeez, that’s been the MO of the current administration for almost 8 years.
…and I’ve watched my last episode of Madame Secretary. Downloaded it and watched until the Hollywood Climate Change propaganda started. I feel ill.
For me, less TV – more reality. Just sayin’
turned mine off about 6 years ago–don’t miss it at all. View from the front porch is the best reality show around.
Perhaps future documentaries on the naivete of believing in human global control of weather during this period will feature the Hollywood influence in their analyses.
don’t get TV over here in Kirby – just as well, except for the Sox and the Pats !
The best way to conduct such a poll is this; get a random list of 1000 Republicans offer them a $50 gift card for the store of their choice to to take the poll.
Next get a random list of 1000 Democrats, offer them the opportunity of taking the poll in exchange for a $50 donation.
michael
+10 Mars/Venus
you’ve got it backwards … the libs want to be paid with someone else’s money …
On the other hand, what has been done to date appears to be working perfectly.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Yup! 🙂
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
And PLANET GREENING.
Hey Janice, you know what else has stopped? Mockton’s posts about the “Pause.”
So what?
Statistically (significantly, I mean) speaking, temperatures are still in a plateau, i.e. warming has, for the time being, “stopped.”
Nope. Monckton would still be posting if they stopped rising.
Only Lord Monckton knows why he is not posting on WUWT. If he is not posting because he believes that temperatures are now warming (not a mere temporary El Nino blip), he is, sorry to be an iconoclast (obviously, you have great reverence for Monckton), camel, but, he would, in that case, be (brace yourself) mistaken.
Janice, Monckton is not posting his “Pause” articles because the RSS data set no longer shows a “pause”
And still, GC, to get to the main point: warming has stopped. RSS cannot show us what temperatures will be in 3 months (or even tomorrow). So far as any statistically significant warming, the STOP is</b..
Janice says: ” RSS cannot show us what temperatures will be in 3 months ” …. that is true, the RSS dataset shows you what has happened, not what will happen.
.
However, if you examine the RSS data it shows that warming has NOT stopped.
…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend
gallopingcamel October 5, 2016 at 6:11 pm
Hello,
might I suggest you look to the right hand side of the page margin. Specifically the “ENSO Meter”.
The brief blip in temperatures brought on by El Nino are fading, wave bye, bye bye.
As for Temperature records. Warmer in the 1930s and 1940s .World wide. Do some more checking.
Go to your local library examine hard copy records from documents printed in the 1960-70s
Surprise.
Oh yes, I know some of the alarmists are now saying the records can’t be accurate. Odd though that the records are only now challenged when they prove it was warmer then.
There are many other records that prove it has been much colder world wide. Read a few of the manuscripts compiled by survivors of Napoleons retreat from Moscow. Hint what happened to the buttons of the uniforms.
anyway read more a lot more.
And as for this not being a science Blog? It has won awards for being the best of science blogs. BTW I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are merely misinformed and not a “troll”
michael
Nice try Mike, but telling me to go to the library does not provide me with a citation.
…
Please cite your source that shows it was warmer in the 1930’s than today.
…
Here’s what I can show you:
…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1900/trend
@ Camel — That RSS or hadcrut4 (in your woodfortrees attempt) reflects the recent, El Nino-caused, rise in temperature does NOT make for a warming TREND. The stop IS until YEARS of warming ensue. It has not warmed statistically for nearly 20 years. That a given month (or 3 or 4) is warmer than average, does not end the STOP in warming.
More importantly, you keep ignoring the overwhelming downward trend in earth’s temps for the past 10,000 years. THAT is the main trend. Warming of the sort you are having a conniption about is NOTHING compared to that.
In other words, you are arguing to no significant or useful purpose.
A waste of time.
(and Mike (not a) Morlock and others ONLY argue with you to prevent you from fooling others)
gallopingcamel October 5, 2016 at 7:11 pm
Nice try Mike, but telling me to go to the library does not provide me with a citation.
Wrong. Go to library examine “primary sources” Your citation is useless if it conflicts with the original primary sources. You must learn to do real research get out of you chair go to the library come back and report.
By the way their are those here who make it a hobby of collecting over the years the published temperature graphs put out by NOAA Now those are fun to compare to each other.
Oh yes pitiful try gallopingcamel
Oh and I know you would never examine true historical temperature data, you already know it would undermine your argument . Besides you might actually learn something and you wouldn’t want that now would you. Again, hint, buttons 1812 Moscow.
michael
michael
Hi janice,
This is what I was trying to get camel to “bite” on. It is called tin disease. On the march out of Moscow (Dec. 1812) back to Germany all of the tin buttons of the french uniforms fell apart. There are are writings by French officers describing the event.
Below is a video showing what happens. I came across the information 40 or so years ago.
Just watch. It takes only 20 hrs at -40 degrees F.
science its oh so settled.
michael
To the Camel person:
It is mathematically provable that the atmospheric temperature will rise approximately 0.8 degrees C per doubling of the CO2; beyond that number, everything else is speculation. A look at the Paleo-climate data shows that we are still several degrees cooler than the Holocene Optimum average temperature which was cooler than the Eemian Optimum. Those two facts, taken together, mean that we could start seeing climate related problems if the atmospheric CO2 gets up around 4,000ppm. Hardly a catastrophic scenario.
My view is that, within reason: More organic Carbon plus a higher Oxygen level plus warmer climate equals more life on Earth. Disaster scenarios sell soap, support doomsayers, and convince lazy thinkers that more government will save us all from ourselves but the truth is that we are not as important as our collective egos would lead us to believe.
Dear FlounderingDromidary: Everyone in the world predicted that the El Nino would create a temporary pause in the pause.
I’m surprised that a world class expert such as yourself didn’t know that already.
Since the pause started with an El Nino it is not surprising that it stopped with an El Nino. It is not true that everyone in the world predicted a temporary pause in the pause.
Hi, Michael,
Thanks for sharing that video about “tin disease”. Surprisingly quickly, indeed.
You should WRITE A WUWT MAIN POST. With your encyclopedic knowledge of history, it would make an intriguing read, I am certain (remember, “gee whiz” stuff is ON topic — and no matter what, this is Anthony’s site and if he says it’s okay, it’s okay!). If you would like someone to edit your article (for readability/style/typoes — heh, I may not be the one for typoes, I so often miss my own!), just ask a mod (by spelling out m0der@t0r correctly) for my e mail address. I’d be happy to help you to publish (and to enlighten us all)!
Janice
seaice: There you go with the lies again.
The pause started about 18 months prior to the 1998 el nino.
Janice Moore October 6, 2016 at 8:01 am
Thank you Janice. Perhaps someday I may take the time to write something. There is a book that I have that comes to mind. It is somewhere buried in the garage, was the binder red or yellow?(We moved back to AZ a year and a half ago still unpacking) It is a scholarly work details roman forts/bases through out the empire. Whats interesting about these bases?They housed 10,000-15,000 man garrisons year in year out for decades, centuries. Think about feeding them, keeping them healthy. Roman enlistments were 20 years. The Rhine had four of these installations for the army posted there. Point of issue, architecture, infrastructure, reflects climate.
During LIA it was impossible to maintain a army over a couple thousand. They would starve. And it did happen. So why could the Romans maintain an army of 30-45,000 men in northern Europe but the great Captains of the Renaissance period (thirty years war) constantly had to disband their armies come winter?
I’am going to far off track. This was about polls. All that a poll does is tell you the level of ignorance of the person responding. How many of those questioned could even describe the GHG effect? This not a condemnation, but rather a observation; there is so much information to know. How do you get 50 years experiences and knowledge into a 18 year old? You see this everywhere.
michael
You’re welcome, Michael. And I hope you do!
Mark W. the pause as defined by Monckton is merely a statistical artifact. When it was there it carried a little beyond the El Nino, but it existence was entirely dependant on the El Nino.
Mark W: on the same note the pause has not returned and we no longer have an El Nino. The end of that pause is not dependant on El Nino.
I wish the vertical scale on this graph started at 0. Plotting it as shown is an old rick to scare the innocents.
“The survey was part of a larger study that included questions about other topics not included in this report.”
Need to know the full extent and questions asked in the survey.
There could have been softening up questions such as “what future do you see for your grandchildren and their children etc etc” “would you expect the Government to plan now for your grandchildren’s futures etc etc”.
There are all sorts of techniques to bias a survey and I am not saying this is but you need the full context.
You had me at Chicago…
Do you mean that if you want a democrat flavored poll, go to a democrat held area?
Saw a poll that concluded that 7 out of 10 US citizens believe in angels … food for thought?/sarc.
My friend’s sister says “the Universe will provide”. The ” Universe ” is her oil industry exec. husband who pays the bills while she slags his industry. A microcosm of the Western world.
Mr. Harmsworth, that is so sad. It’s one thing to have a stranger use you, but your best friend…. your partner for life….. truly deplorable.
It is a perfect allegory for the AGW profiteers/true believers and a wealthy society such as Australia or Canada or the U.S. (or many other nations I could name). The wealth they seek to destroy is what gives them the time, tools, health, and energy to attack it. Do you think the “Floundering Dromidary” (nice one, MarkW 🙂 ) would have the time, the access to the internet, etc., to bellow half-truths half the day to promote pseudo-science, free market-choking, ideas here if he or she were living the life of an average Chinese or Kenyan or Colombian citizen?
What do you call a three humped camel?
Pregnant.
ANOTHER laugh — thanks, MarkW. We can use all the laughter we can get around here!
🙂
“About 8 in 10 say the United States should maintain its commitment under the Paris Agreement–even if other countries do not.”
I’m a little skeptical of this claim since I doubt seriously that 8 out of 10 of those polled know anything about the Paris Agreement or its details.
Most Americans want government to combat climate change
Nearly 4 in 10 Americans have not yet made up their minds on fracking, while just 2 in 10 say they favor the practice. About 8 in 10 say the United States should maintain its commitment under the Paris Agreement–even if other countries do not.
____________________________________________
Yep – and an overhelming 100% of US Americans won’t comply with that fake polls.
____________________________________________
That’s When My Gods are laughing.
The answer is, on their quarterly bill, say, give the consumers the freedom to choose i.e. pay this amount or if you want to use renewable power pay this amount (maybe alternative percentages could be offered).
If sixty-five percent of Americans think climate change is a problem that the government needs to address they will be keen to feel the warm inner glow of at least pretending to contribute towards a solution.
Its not just utility bills … its everything.
Pass a bill, in congress that requires two more little boxes on the income tax forms:
“Do you want to contribute 2% percent of your overall taxable income to the Climate Change Solution? A yes answer will increase your tax liability.”
“Do you want to contribute a all, or a portion of, your tax refund to the Climate Solution? A yes answer will decrease your refund.”
The hard core CAGW adherents will even think about checking the box. The lack of response will show the true feelings of the US citizens, regardless of the polls.
The hard core CAGW adherents will not even think ….
Once polling became a business the data veracity became questionable.
Not necessarily true.
First off, pollsters who aren’t in business are just as likely to produce false polls as are those who are being paid.
Secondly, pollsters who want to keep getting paid, will produce as accurate as possible polls for those who are doing the paying.
It is real popular with angry old liberal women. No body else cares or believes the nonsense.
If anyone is interested in what Canadians think on similar questions – here is a recent poll. Basically, they are concerned about climate change, but are more concerned about a lot of other things, and don’t feel it is an urgent problems. And they are not really willing to pay much more to try to ‘combat’ it.
http://innovativeresearch.ca/will-canadians-pay-for-their-good-intentions/
I would expect that most Canadians would actually welcome a bit of global warming.
According to today’s news, President Obama says enough countries have ratified the Paris agreement and he is going to make the US comply with its provisions. Of course the provisions are non-binding otherwise the agreement would have to be ratified by the Congress. Welcome to the US dictatorship.
It says the government estimates that the cost of climate damage to each household is $20? What exactly is the damage? The cost to comply? Or some actual damage from a few degrees warming? An inquiring mind wants to know.
“aligning public opinion with the best available evidence”. That’ll be the day.
Climate change? Anthropogenic climate change? Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change?
The first is true as a natural process. The second is believable in local and perhaps regional frames. The last is prophetic and may be accepted by individuals who conflate logical domains, receive their religious instruction from the twilight zone (a.k.a. penumbra), or have ulterior motives.
I checked out at “social science”. Social science is manipulation
Lets widen this out a bit – survey across the world:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/
(It particularly notes the Republican/democrat split on the issue in the US…)
and here’s a recent German poll showing Germans continue to support renewable energy…
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/polls-reveal-citizens-support-energiewende
“More than two thirds expect electricity prices to rise if power comes from renewables. But a majority (55 percent) believe the transition to renewables is advancing too slowly, blaming politics, high costs and a blockade by the utilities for the delay. Only 8 percent said renewable development was too fast.”
Opposition to renewables and a belief that the science of climate change is wrong is a political opinion, held mostly by US Republicans and people of a similar political outlook.
It is virtually non-existent in a place like Germany…
If support was as large as claimed it would be easy enough to have energy suppliers create “renewables only” tariffs and “non-renewables tariffs” reflecting the total cost of each (no subsidies) . People could opt for whichever tariff they supported.
I wonder how many takers the renewables tariff would have when they see the price!
Suddenly, the support would disappear. It is only the hidden costs in bills and taxes which keep this scam from being very obvious to the majority of the public.
SteveT
I’m trying to decide if Griff actually is stupid enough to believe the propaganda he keeps pushing?
Facts tend to refute your last three sentences, see https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/ the limit for renewables and a stable grid seems to be a little over 20%, depending on ‘dump’ and ‘shortfall’ availability.
The headline is again misleading. The Pew poll says 74% care deeply or some. The NORC one says 64% think it is a problem the Govt ought to address. There is no contradiction between these two findings. There are no dueling polls – they are in pretty good agreement.
These polls tell us almost nothing about the truth behind the issues. 80% of Americans thought fraking accounted for less gas than it did. That does not make them right.
Gee in my county Dems are 32%, Rep, 13%, Independent 42%, Libertarian 6%. So would most people not even be in the poll?
The part I found interesting was that people were concerned that China and India wouldn’t meet their Paris Agreement obligations. What Obligations?!
People who are being asked have no idea. The biggest misrepresentation by The alarmists is that any action taken by any countries other than China and India is effectively an exercise in futility and there is zero prospect of having any impact on global warming or climate change. Any reduction in CO 2 will be swamped by those two countries.The lack of comprehension of the Paris agreement and the idiocy of the countries who are actually taking measures is something that is not well understood by the vast number of people who actually have limited interest in climate change. If they had a real interest in climate change and wanted something done about it they would realise that India and China have agreed to do nothing.
As others have pointed out, the wording of the poll, and the intent (i.e. which questions are asked) will influence the poll. I searched the site (not exhaustively, but then they did not seem to want to make the data readily available) for the questions and preambles and did not find them. Clearly the 2 polls cannot both be true. So the answer lies in both the way the questions are asked and the preamble to each question. It can also be due to just plain deception (i.e. “Is the plant warming” becomes “Man is causing CAGW”).
Still others here have also stated, which Gallup consistently points out, that when lumped with all the issues of the day, Climate Change ranks dead last consistently.
These factors taken together indicate this latest poll is about “Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it”. Or can do anything about it since no proposal advanced by any Government agreement yet has been projected to impact the thesis that the planet is warming to any appreciable degree.
As far as those wanting to pay more, it always comes down to the same thing. With OPM. There is no law or prohibition on anyone giving more to the government than they are legally required to. So the only conclusion is they want to give more of OPM to their pet peeve, not their own.
It can also be in how the results are interpreted. In the first survey that started the 97% nonsense, two quite reasonable questions
1) Has the planet warmed?
2) Did man play a role in this warming?
Became CO2 is going to kill everyone, once the activists got done with it.
True, but as many have pointed out, the Doran/Zimmerman preening was not scientific by any stretch of the imagination. I would hope that both of these outfits were more professional.
Looking through the “experts” listed at the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago website, I see it is loaded up with economists, environmentalists and management. Where is the expertise in ENERGY?
It’s another political thinktank like the “Melbourne Energy Institute” which has no one on its staff with any credentials in energy, especially not at utility level
How are these thinktanks funded?
Can someone tell me where the climate has changed or is changing? Last I checked, the Amazon is still a tropical rain forest and the Sahara is still a hot, dusty desert.
Good point, john doe. And the Arctic and Antarctic are still frozen over rock solid AND the troposphere is not suffering from a “temperature” (Algore) — bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaa!
I don’t believe polls. They show general trends. Like the volatility on the Stock markets, they are up one day and down another. It all depends on who’s got the most outrageous sound byte. Ephemeral opinions based upon half wits who are really two wits. (twit for short.)
PEW Questions
Scientists understand very well the best way to address climate change
Liberals 36 percent US total 19 percent.
Climate scientists research findings are influenced MOST OF THE TIME based on best available evidence
only 55 PERCENT of liberals believe that to be true. Even With the qualifier MOST they could barely crack the 50 percent amongst their most ardent supporters. What is the option to using ” best available evidence”
AFP Poll finds vast gaps in US climate views
“More than half of liberal Democrats (54 percent) said climate scientists understand the causes of climate change very well, and 55 percent believe there is “widespread consensus among climate scientists”
97 percent of climate scientists believe these numbers need to be adjusted upwards
People are so cute when they think this might cost them as much as $50 per month. Civilizations have been built using the energy that caused the climate to shift a few tenths of a degree C. How much effort will it take to shift the climate back? $50 a month? Try $500 as a starting point.
I care deeply about “climate change”. I care that we’re being lied to about it, and that “green” energy” is being forced on us, and that multi-$billions have been wasted on a non-problem, and that democratic principles are being trashed because of it.
Wait. That isn’t what they’re asking?
I like the comment about single issue polls. Pew managed to get the percentage of people that believe global warming is man-made up to 48%. However the math they used is at least fuzzy if not corrupted, see my posting here cbdakota.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/pew-research-report-data-not-supported-by-the-interviews-human-caused-co2-claimed-to-be-48-but-in-reality-is-31/
A recent large and highly cited poll in Australia came up with similar findings. As a statistician I looked into it as it didn’t gel with others. Same methodology: a ‘panel study’ reporting margins of error. But most market research ‘professionals’ seemed to have been asleep in week one of their stats 101 unit. That’s when students are taught that a necessary condition before you can extrapolate proportions from a sample to a population is that every sampled response is a RANDOMLY selected one. In neither this survey or the Australian case was this true. Panel members are self selected and usually complete several surveys a month (for some kind of recompense) . The reasons panels are used is that they are cheap: properly randomised samples are orders of magnitude more expensive to conduct. Plus, there is rarely an independent way to find out the true proportion in the population (and so to challenge the survey results) . Clients of these panel studies are rarely psychometric specialists, so don’t understand or focus on randomness either – that’s why panel use has proliferated. But if a survey is based on a non-random sample, all talk about representativeness, error margins or even quality of the questions is like talking about the quality of the radio in a car that has no wheels. Question 1 should always be: ‘how were informants selected’? This ‘survey’ is worthless.