From the PEW RESEARCH CENTER and the “government can’t do anything right” department.
There is strong bipartisan agreement over expanding renewable energy sources, but deep political divides remain over fossil fuels and the effects of climate change
WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 14, 2018) – Majorities of Americans say the federal government is doing too little to protect key aspects of the environment, according to a new study released today by Pew Research Center.
In a national survey of 2,541 U.S. adults, 69% of Americans say the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect water quality of lakes, rivers and streams and 64% say the same about air quality. Two-thirds (67%) say the government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change.
At the same time, the survey, conducted March 27-April 9, 2018, found that Americans are closely divided (52% to 48%) over whether or not it is possible to cut back on regulations while still effectively protecting air and water quality. There is a wide political divide on this issue, with around three-quarters of Republicans (74%, including independents who lean to the Republican Party) convinced this is possible but a majority of Democrats (64%, including independents who lean Democratic) convinced it is not possible.
And, although large majorities of Americans – including majorities of both political parties – favor expanding solar and wind turbine facilities, the political divides over fossil fuels remain vast.
Republicans and Democrats also remain divided over whether the Earth is warming and the importance of human activity in the process. In addition, there are wide political differences over whether polices aimed at reducing the effects of climate change have a positive impact on the environment and the economy. Republicans are skeptical about whether polices aimed at reducing climate change benefit the environment, with 72% of Republicans and Republican leaners saying these polices either make no difference or do more harm than good. Further, a 57% majority of Republicans and those leaning to the GOP say these policies hurt the U.S. economy. By contrast, most Democrats (66%, including leaners) think such policies help the environment, and most see either no harm to the economy (39%) or net benefits (45%) from such policies.
“While majorities of Americans believe the government isn’t doing enough to protect the environment and reduce the effects of climate change, about half of conservative Republicans see the government as doing about the right amount to protect air and water quality,” says Cary Funk, director of science and society research and lead author of this report. “Republicans and Democrats are largely at odds over how much regulation is needed to safeguard the environment and reduce the effects of climate change.”
Also among the findings:
Roughly six-in-ten Americans (59%) say climate change is having at least some effect on their local community.
- About six-in-ten (59%) think climate change is affecting their local community either a great deal or some; 31% of Americans say the effects of climate change have had an impact on their personal lives.
- When asked about the kinds of effects from climate change Americans have observed in their local community, 45% of those asked point to changes in the weather, including increased frequency of severe storms, droughts, floods and wildfires.
Republicans and Democrats remain divided over the evidence and main causes of climate change.
- Slightly more than half (53%) of Americans say the Earth is getting warmer mostly due to human activity; 29% say it is due to natural patterns, and 17% say there’s no solid evidence the Earth is getting warmer at all.
- Three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents believe the Earth is warming primarily due to human causes; 26% of Republicans and Republican leaners say the same.
More Republicans say reducing reliance on foreign energy sources should be a top policy priority; more Democrats say the U.S. should prioritize environmental protection.
- Majorities of Americans believe the top priorities for U.S. energy policy should be protecting the environment from the effects of energy development (72%), increasing reliance on renewable energy sources (71%), reducing dependence on foreign energy sources (69%), keeping consumer energy prices low (66%) or creating jobs in the energy sector (58%).
- Eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican leaners (80%) say reducing dependence on foreign energy sources should be a top policy priority.
- Meanwhile, similar shares of Democrats (including leaners) believe protecting the environment from the effects of energy development (83%) or increasing America’s reliance on renewable energy sources (80%) should be top priorities.
Renewable energy sources have bipartisan support, but there is a wide partisan gap over expanding fossil fuel sources.
- Large majorities of Americans are in favor of expanding solar (89%) and wind (85%) power. Fewer Americans support expanding hydraulic fracturing (39%), offshore oil and gas drilling (39%) or coal mining (37%); 44% of Americans support more nuclear power plants.
- There are wide political divides over fossil fuels. Including independents who lean to each party, roughly two-thirds (64%) of Republicans support more offshore drilling compared with 22% of Democrats; 60% of Republicans support more coal mining vs. 20% of Democrats; and 60% of Republicans approve of more hydraulic fracturing compared with 25% of Democrats who say the same.
Republican Millennials are less inclined than their elders in the GOP to support increased use of fossil fuel energy sources.
- For example, 75% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents in the Baby Boomer and older generations support the increased use of offshore drilling compared with 44% of Millennial Republicans and Republican leaners.
- Among Democrats, there are no more than modest differences by generation on beliefs about these energy issues.
###
To read the report click here: http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/14/majorities-see-government-efforts-to-protect-the-environment-as-insufficient/
Well it’s pretty obvious right away that this survey is run-of-the-mill garbage. No pragmatic person (Republican) I have spoken to is in favor of government intervention in the energy market, which inherently means they aren’t in favor of expanding wind and solar energy since they are completely dependent on government mandate.
Of those 69% and 64%, I wonder how many could elaborate on what pollution is affecting surface water/air quality and what the federal government should do to prevent that.
“Of those 69% and 64%, I wonder how many could elaborate on what pollution is affecting surface water/air quality and what the federal government should do to prevent that.”
Probably very few of the people polled have any familiarity with these subjects, yet we are supposed to modify our thought process because of the opinions of a bunch of uninformed people.
Mostly this survey shows that most people have no freakin’ idea…
I’d be interested in the separate question of how many people think the government is doing too much. The real problem (to the extent that there is one) is misallocation of resources. Too much of the wrong things, not enough of the right things.
That’s right Tim. This poll shows that between 64% and 69% of Americans have the intellectual capacity of a marmot.
TA, uninformed people vote. So you had better take notice of their opinions, because the politicians will.
Is this like the Cook et.al. paper creating the 97% consensus?
11,000 papers looked at 10,923 eliminated, 77 approved, 74 agree with CO2 being the cause and Man as the source.
20,000 people surveyed, 17,459 responses disallowed 2,541 responses approved and utilized
MarkW
Spot on.
Therein lies the difference between alarmists and sceptics.
From my observational experience, sceptics tend to look at the science whilst alarmists are more inclined to listen to the politics (media).
Look around the contributors to this site, with a few exceptions (including me) you all tend to have an educated, and often scientific/engineering, or otherwise professional background, and examine the data to the nth degree.
We welcome the likes of Griff (the late Griff?….did he convert?) and Ivan who rely on media reports for their information. Ivan even has his own blog chock full of Guardian reports he is clearly a slave to. There are of course other informed alarmists who visit, and they should be welcomed as no one is immune from groupthink.
The problem is politics appeals to everyone because there is no qualification required to become a politician. Rightly or wrongly, anyone can become a politician irrespective of their background. So appealing to the politics of anything necessarily includes everyone, appealing to science and education necessarily narrows the audience considerably.
So far the alarmist popular appeal has been through ignorance of the science and swamped by ignorant political messages like 97%.
No one with even a moderate education, or certainly a higher education could possibly fall for the 97% appeal to concencus, but the ill educated (like me) political amateurs seem to swallow it hook line and sinker (unlike me).
Which leaves me in despair, because if I smelt a rat at that insane proposition, anyone with just a secondary school education can, yet they don’t!
The problem is, of course, the real scientific concencus is that whilst climate change is happening, it’s probably not a threat, it might be an opportunity, and it probably has little to do with man. But that doesn’t sell papers or get politicians elected.
We lurch from media and politically hyped, crisis to crisis and have done so for the 61 years I have been alive.
HotScot
Regarding your last paragraph (Excluding your final statement) Climate Change IS happening, always has, always will. The climate isn’t a stable feature within 3-4C But is relatively stable within 15C or so.
Probably lots of folks in favor of banning dihydrogen monoxide.
as well they should, DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide) is a very dangerous substance, inhaling it can be deadly and in fact 3,500 people die from DHMO every year in the US alone.
needless to say the previous post should be read with your sarcasm filter turned on.
It is clearly a Push-Poll. It is pure “let’s make everything Trump is doing look bad”. It would help if they published the questions asked. It’s kind of like showing the data in a scientific study.
They mentioned Republican Millennials. These kids were taught by leftists. I wouldn’t find it too hard to believe a large number of them want more windmills. They still spend more time following the Kardassians or whoever, and spend little time learning about how the MSM is fooling them. Fewer of them had STEM majors, and those that did write software for a progressive company. I wouldn’t expect an Art History major to be able to determine that in reality windmills and sunflower fields don’t generate electricity as efficiently (and maybe not as cleanly) as gas turbine generators. They are taught that fossil fuels get higher subsidies than RE. In the US, they would have to think a while to differentiate a kilowatt from a kilometer.
A lot of what this survey says is probably true.
This only means that propaganda about the environment being in terrible shape and getting worse has been successful. I have had people who have lived in the era actually try and tell me that the 60s had cleaner air than now. That’s cognitive dissonance on a grand scale.
…..And subsidies that are provided by economic endeavors who are powered by non-sustainable energy sources such as fossil fuels, hydropower, nuclear, etc.
“Saving money” (82%) tops the list as the primary motivator infl uencing homeowners’
decisions to purchase clean-energy products and services.
“Reducing my environmental impact” comes in a distant second place at 34%.
The most popular reason cited for someone’s likelihood to install solar was “saving
on monthly electrical bills.”
https://www.solarcity.com/sites/default/files/reports/reports-2015-homeowner-survey-clean-energy.pdf
Which of course it doesn’t do if you amortize the cost of installation and maintenance over the life of the panels.
Bryan – Few people have the ability to do that kind of analysis. The salesman tells them they will save money. They don’t have any alternative information. State and Federal Government will tell them it is all true AND they save the environment as a bonus. Cost of money is not a term they’ve heard of, and would be a non-sequitur to them. Maintenance is not even considered, as “sunlight is free”. We don’t maintain the sun.
Pretty easy sale.
I looked at solar power when we moved into the new house. A useful, 3.6kw installation was expensiveish, but payout as a loan, irr, and reduction in electric bills showed it would break even before it wore out and produce reduced electric bills along the way. The Feds chipped in $7500 after we decided to do it late in the year, making it a no brainer. The next year the Federal $7500 was matched by the state, and the local power company had to start buying Renewable Energy Credits for 20% of their power so they gave a similar subsidy. We added a third row of panels basically with no out of pocket cost.
In the mean time we signed up for a program to sell the REC’s. Since then they’ve averaged about the same as the electric bill.
Yes the subsidies were helpful, thanks everyone for your contribution. But we planned to do it anyway just to cut back on electricity usage. In PA anyway, the solar panel output lines up pretty well
with the air conditioning usage.
@philohippous
Thanks for the comment.
Knowing all that and your very generous subsidy “thank you”, my question is:
How can you sleep at night?
The Feds and state picked up probably about 90% of the cost of installation, and thanks to mandates the energy company is buying the energy you produce at many times what it would cost the company to generate that power on it’s own.
Yes, that’s a good deal. Free OPM is always a good deal, until it runs out.
good deal for the people spending OPM, not such a good deal for the OP whose M is being spent.
Which is why I think the poll should have included a followup question that asked if the respondent would be willing to pay higher electrical prices in order to increase the amount of solar and wind power produced. My guess is that most would be OK with a small (less than 10%) increase, but the positive responses would drop pretty sharply at higher percentage increases. The same goes for clean air and water. If people were informed that we have cleaner water and air now than at any other time in the last 100 years, most would be unwilling to increase their taxes by anything other than a trivial percentage in order to achieve a very small improvement. But they don’t poll that way and most of the public is clueless about these important issues. Of course, it doesn’t help that the lamestream media, in collusion with the environmental non-profits, bombard them with disinformation all the time.
A major problem is a low response rate for such surveys, and those who monitor which calls to pick up are different in their political opinions than those who take surveys.
conservatives do not poll…
…liberals won’t shut up
It is largely true. And on the few occasions when I took a poll, I made the answers as contradictory as I possibly could.
“(53%) of Americans say the Earth is getting warmer mostly due to human activity”
Considering this is injected into every textbook, sitcom, movie, and documentary this is a testament to the idea common sense hasen’t been completely removed from the species.
Wow! That is a good point. 47% are actually thinking.
There is more hope for us than I thought.
This will turn out to be a good day. Thank you, Mr Frank.
Gotta say, the 2016 election has put me off believing in polls … part of the problem is that the questions generally are not carefully phrased. For example, the climate has always changed. So if you ask “Is climate change having an effect on your community?” … how could it NOT have an effect.
Garbage in … garbage out …
w.
It is a matter of orders of magnitude. We perceive change seasonally and yearly, and maybe by the decade (some of us).
Climate changes, if they are happening at all, will not be perceptible to anybody in the community.
People can quibble about +/- 0.50 deg. calibration on thermometers and argue about bias in the temperature record. I have a very hard time believing that the “community” at large will see changes in the flora and fauna in the community due to temperature changes.
You want to have an effect on the community?
Pass a bond issue and raise property taxes to pay for:
A) The new town hall
B) The new police station
C) The new fire station
D) The new library
The community will have a lot more to worry about than “climate change”.
I do see one change in the Fauna due to mildly increasing seasonal temperatures and early springs.
the Songbird population in my neighborhood is booming and fledging three hatches per season instead of two. The First fledglings were in flight school 3 weeks ago.
definitely by the decade, TonyL. In my first decade of life, snow used come up to my waist – and higher. Since then, it rarely comes above my knees. Even the rivers I played in as a child don’t come up as high on me now.
On the other hand (and more seriously) I learned to fly out of John Wayne Airport in So Cal. Visibility on a good day (late ’70s) was 7 miles, and most of the time I flew, 2 miles, sometimes less. Often, on a ‘clear’ day I could not see the ground from 2,000 ft AGL – or surrounding mountains – well enough to navigate. Following radio signals was necessary to fly in the LA basin.
Now visibility is nearly always 10 miles or greater. The mountains are always visible – even from the ground. You can navigate using landmarks from 12,500 ft ASL. It takes a storm to reduce it below that.
AGL = Above Ground Level
ASL = Above Sea Level; 12,500 ASL is max flight altitude under most conditions without oxygen.
Bryan A, glad you’ve had nice weather. We didn’t even see the geese, much less songbirds, until the end of April. Now we have some singing away and coming to the feeder but not nearly as much for mid May as in most previous years.
. .reminds me of this way to ‘twist a survey with the ‘pre questions’, up to the ‘FINAL” question . . . ( . .I posted this once before . . .take a look .
Great show; love the British sense of humor.
Actually Willis, part of the problem is usually that the questions ARE carefully phrased.
indeed, carefully phrased to get the response they want.
I am throwing down the red flag on this whole survey.
The lead off by claiming that Americans believe there is a serious water pollution in the US, and by a 2:1 margin. There has not been a water pollution problem in the US since the 1970s. They even claim a number higher than for air pollution, which the CAGW crowd has been flogging for years now with their “carbon pollution” nonsense.
Then, in the very next sentence:
They claim 67% want more government intervention! Absurd.
Not Credible, At All.
Where did they do their survey, college campuses?
Right on. This is absurd, not only biased but suggesting government will make miracles on demand. No, actually not only absurd but faurd, as if the goal was to increase goverment overreach. Did they do the survey in Sweden? More taxes please, bus drivers are in strike.
You can sanitize responses to surveys and achieve almost any statistic you desire
Difficult poll to eliminate any bias in the responses
ASK IF LOCAL COMMUNITY AFFECTED A GREAT DEAL OR SOME (CLIM9b=1,2) [N=1,510]:
CLIM11 Would you say the effects of global climate change in your local community are impacting you, personally, or not?
Based on those who say their local community is affected a great deal or some
Mar 27-
Apr 9
2018
52
Yes, the effects are impacting me personally
47
No, the effects are NOT impacting me personally
2
No answer
Pew Research Center survey conducted by telephone: Which of these statements come closest to your own view about the MOST EFFECTIVE WAY to increase reliance on renewable energy sources, even if neither is exactly right? [READ AND RANDOMIZE RESPONSE OPTIONS 1 AND 2]
May 3-7
2017
54
Government regulations are necessary to encourage businesses and consumers to rely more on renewable energy sources
38
The private marketplace will ensure that businesses and consumers rely more on renewable energy sources, even without government regulations
8
No answer
Like the question in a different survey
“should the government regulate the pollution that causes global warming?”
Q1: Should adorable fluffy kitty cats be fed nuclear waste or do you prefer wind power?
Q2: Would you prefer that the government gives you solar panels and a free electric car or would you prefer to pay $50,000 for a 1983 Yugo and a poke in the eye with a sharp stick?
Ahaa!!
Thanks Joe.
Your second example is most telling.
Both available choices offer that more reliance on renewables is a given. The question is only on how to achieve that.
The survey was stacked and biased from the ground up.
Lol. Do you want your poison pill in you morning coffee or tea?
I’ve stopped answering most polls because of this. It takes too much time to read/understand the questions.
I thought Pew was a serious try, but no?
So…have you stopped beating your wife?
It is extremely difficult to craft the wording of questions in a survey to eliminate and/or reduce the bias in the questions. This is a fairly long survey, with the early questions having very little built in bias, though the trick used is having so many “unbiased questions” create a strong tendantency for bias. the bias in this survey was much more suttle.
Skeptical science went out of their way to chastise me when I commented on a similar survey as being highly biased. with the question ” Should the government regulate the POLLUTION that causes global warming”
“Climate Change” is affecting me personally. I pay more for electricity to support windmills and sunflower fields. I pay a Gas Guzzler tax on my new cars (I love raw power). When I lived in Kalifornia, I paid extra for water because we were always in a drought condition. I also had to pay extra for decommissioning of SONGS, because the Sierra Club doesn’t approve of nukes.
Climate change affected me to the point I moved out of Kalifornia, but there is no where in the US that is completely free from subsidizing Renewable Energy.
I don’t believe this poll tells us anything other than that most of those answering these questions don’t have a clue about what they are talking about.
How many people are expert in any of the areas mentioned? I bet one in 100 of the people answering these polls could quantify their answer by actually givig an example.
They are mostly just repeating the propaganda they hear every day.
Here’s an example:
Quote from article: “About six-in-ten (59%) think climate change is affecting their local community either a great deal or some; 31% of Americans say the effects of climate change have had an impact on their personal lives.
When asked about the kinds of effects from climate change Americans have observed in their local community, 45% of those asked point to changes in the weather, including increased frequency of severe storms, droughts, floods and wildfires.”
“increased frequency of severe storms, droughts, floods and wildfires” is right out of the Alarmist propaganda playbook.
I hate polls like this. It starts out with the assumption that humans are causing the climate to change, for which there is no evidence, so all those who answer that humans are causing this have no idea whether that is true or not. So what good is a poll asking this question other than to display the ignorance of all involved?
There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and polls. You can make a poll say anthing you want it to say.
“I don’t believe this poll tells us anything other than that most of those answering these questions don’t have a clue about what they are talking about.”
That is the statement of the day.
Not only that but they have other things to think than the complicated questions that are designed to get emotional responses.
Pollers know how to trick interviewees. They can get whatever results they want. Sad but you wouldn’t ask about global warming policy from your plumber, would you? That’s what Pew does.
I also think this poll tells Pew and it’s Statist supporters like George Soros that their disinformation campaign is working wonderfully. And of course, publicizing it helps reinforce the message even more.
Nearly 100% believe the government isn’t doing anything at all to protect the environment.
After all that’s what they are told day in and day out by the MSM.
I had thought that a majority should not force their views on a minority group, has that changed?
“HOWEVER, no majority, no matter how sizable or vocal, may deny constitutionally guaranteed rights to a minority. Ever. Period. That’s how it works.”
“the minority’s rights must be protected no matter how alienated a minority is from the majority society”
Pew research, polling results? ‘Charitable’ NGO trusts? Won’t find a denier among them. Distant cousin of PBS, NPR.
There should be questions added to gauge the knowledge of the person answering the poll. I would love to know what observations people make that tell them climate change is affecting them personally.
Good point, K K.
I have personally been affected by climate change for many years. Mainly in my electric bill. /sarc
Years ago we did not have air conditioning, and that was where I grew up in New Orleans. And after decades along the trail of life I settled in the Florida Panhandle. But the new homes were closed up like insulated picnic coolers and no windows or whole house fans or….. So the HVAC became a biggie, just like the electric bill.
So using the latest scare tactic data that shows we are a tenth or two tenth degrees above the magical baseline ( the anomaly type of chart versus raw data we could examine ourselves), I can definitely claim my electric bill is higher than it would be if we only had that magic baseline value from 50 years ago, or is it 30?
Gums whines…
Pew Researrch is a part of The Pew Charitable Trusts. They have an agenda. We simply cannot trust their stuff to be unbiased.
It is really hard to create a valid unbiased poll. It is really easy to create a poll that gives you exactly the answers you want.
To get an idea of how important most people consider climate change and renewable energy, consider this Gallup poll. The question is simple: “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?” Climat change and renewable energy aren’t even on the radar. One percent of people consider “environment/pollution” as the Nation’s most important problem. Less than half a percent consider “Energy/Lack of energy sources” as the Nation’s most important problem.
Reminds me of Pew’s equally phony 2016 election polls.
The ones where their cunningness found out that Donald Trump could have some chances of winning? Or the other that was paid by Hillary Clinton for President, Inc?
I think the result was fair. Clinton paid and Pew played. That’s what I think happened.
The Pew Foundation once was a polling and focus groups I would go to in order to get a sense of the public’s views on issues. At one time Pew prided themselves in being non-partisan and were for a time a dependable source of information on public opinion. That changed in the late 1980s and early 1990s when they clearly stated that they intended to work on changing the public’s opinion to thereby change the politics of various issues, especially environment issues. Somewhere in my many boxes of papers, articles and books I have their statement of intent. My interest then was they created a group specifically dedicated to oceans research and policy. I knew a very good scientist they offered to fund. The only problem was they wanted to know the results before the research began. Seriously! He said he couldn’t do that since he had not yet conducted the research. They never funded him.
2.541 out of 200,000,000+ registered voters?
Pretty small sample.
And I don’t do surveys. (Maybe I’m part of a “silent majority of survey spurners.)
The poll-type of surveys had Bill Clinton as the First Lady.
PS I’d be interesting in hearing the numbers of those they attempted to contact or succeeded in contacting but refused to participate vs those who did participate, regardless of their answers.
Actually, for a 95% CI, random sample size of 385 would be sufficient…
See http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
Yirgach, actually that size sample might be theoretically possible if the sample size was chosen carefully and properly stratified. When you start splitting that sample size by political party, and today there are now more than one, and by other demographics, sample size has to increase. Remember that as soon as you move away from a two choice answer sample size must go up if you wish to obtain an accurate result. Of course if you are using your polling to drive public opinion and not trying to understand public opinion that sample size doesn’t matter at all.
Pew Research polling should be taken with bucketloads of salt grains.
There are some things they consistently get correct in polling the same subject year after year:
In 2012, Pew did a survey of over 1,000 Americans. It revealed, “Republicans generally outperformed Democrats on the current quiz. On 13 of the 19 questions, Republicans score significantly higher than Democrats and there are no questions on which Democrats did better than Republicans. In past knowledge quizzes, partisan differences have been more muted, though Republicans often have scored somewhat higher than Democrats.”
http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/2/
So what do you do as a Leftist polling group in 2018, when year after year, you get a result you do not like?
Well of course, You change the question:
Now it is “Democrats now more educated than Republicans, Pew survey finds”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/22/democrats-more-educated-republicans-pew-research-c/
So “More informed on a wide range of issues” survey that greatly favored Republicans has now be dumbed-down to the simple metric that finds “Democrats are more likely to be college educated than Republicans.”
Maybe that tells you something about the state of today’s colleges and universities?
And then there are other times Pew Research results are proven not just wrong, but wildly wrong.
For example:
October 18, 2013 – “More than a year ahead of the 2014 congressional elections, Democrats have a six-point edge when it comes to which party voters would support in their districts.” Pew Research reported.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/18/democrats-hold-small-lead-over-republicans-in-early-look-at-midterm-elections/
Then reality arrived in the form of the ruthless , unstoppable calendar.
November 5, 2014: Liberal CNN wrote, “Republicans seize Senate, gaining full control of Congress. …The thumping win upends the balance of power between the White House and Capitol Hill only six years after Obama’s Democrats swept to power….In the House, CNN projected the GOP will have at least 246 seats, its largest majority since World War II.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/politics/election-day-story/index.html
Of course, the 2016 Trump victory over Clinton smashed all the pollsters. So there’s no need to single out Pew in that polling debacle.
The Pew Research Organization likes to claim it is unbiased.
To be fair, they do try to structure and conduct unbiased polling and surveys, but when the results are not what they expect, you have to go deep into their reports to find their “uncomfortable” conclusions. They sugar coat uncomfortable findings for the Left.
The best example is this:
Partisan divides over political values widen
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/05162647/10-05-2017-Political-landscape-release.pdf
Pew, in its broad brush presentation of this survey simply claimed the divide has increased. That is a half-truth to disguise the uncomfortable (for them) finding that, “The results show that while the Republican center moved only slightly to the right over the past 23 years, the center of Democratic part shifted far to the left.
It took the Investor Business Daily digging into the Pew Report to uncover the full truth from the Pew’s survey data and findings that it was the Democrats that are the extremists today.
The IBD wrote, “Given the way politics gets reported these days, it’s easy to conclude that the widening gap [of partisanship in America] is the result of Republicans become more extreme in their views. That is, after all, a mantra among Democrats and the press. The GOP is the party of racist, sexist, xenophobic, right-wing extremists, we hear over and over again, while Democrats are but humble centrists.”
The Pew data, however, make it clear that the shift toward the extreme has happened among Democrats, not Republicans.
Read more here:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-center-study-shows-that-democrats-have-shifted-to-the-extreme-left/
The IBD finishes their analysis of Pew’s reporting of its own results with this zinger, “Democrats and their water carriers in the press are like people on a boat that is drifting off to sea, but are convinced that it’s the land that’s moving, not them.”
Pew Research polling should be taken with bucketloads of salt grains.
There are some things they consistently get correct in polling the same subject year after year:
In 2012, Pew did a survey of over 1,000 Americans. It revealed, “Republicans generally outperformed Democrats on the current quiz. On 13 of the 19 questions, Republicans score significantly higher than Democrats and there are no questions on which Democrats did better than Republicans. In past knowledge quizzes, partisan differences have been more muted, though Republicans often have scored somewhat higher than Democrats.”
http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/2/
So what do you do as a Leftist polling group in 2018, when year after year, you get a result you do not like?
Well of course, You change the question:
Now it is “Democrats now more educated than Republicans, Pew survey finds”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/22/democrats-more-educated-republicans-pew-research-c/
So “More informed on a wide range of issues” survey that greatly favored Republicans has now be dumbed-down to the simple metric that finds “Democrats are more likely to be college educated than Republicans.”
Maybe that tells you something about the state of today’s colleges and universities?
And then there are other times Pew Research results are proven not just wrong, but wildly wrong.
For example:
October 18, 2013 – “More than a year ahead of the 2014 congressional elections, Democrats have a six-point edge when it comes to which party voters would support in their districts.” Pew Research reported.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/18/democrats-hold-small-lead-over-republicans-in-early-look-at-midterm-elections/
Then reality arrived in the form of the ruthless , unstoppable calendar.
November 5, 2014: Liberal CNN wrote, “Republicans seize Senate, gaining full control of Congress. …The thumping win upends the balance of power between the White House and Capitol Hill only six years after Obama’s Democrats swept to power….In the House, CNN projected the GOP will have at least 246 seats, its largest majority since World War II.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/politics/election-day-story/index.html
Of course, the 2016 Trump victory over Clinton smashed all the pollsters. So there’s no need to single out Pew in that polling debacle.
The Pew Research Organization likes to claim it is unbiased.
To be fair, they do try to structure and conduct unbiased polling and surveys, but when the results are not what they expect, you have to go deep into their reports to find their “uncomfortable” conclusions. They sugar coat uncomfortable findings for the Left.
The best example is this:
Partisan divides over political values widen
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/05162647/10-05-2017-Political-landscape-release.pdf
Pew, in its broad brush presentation of this survey simply claimed the divide has increased. That is a half-truth to disguise the uncomfortable (for them) finding that, “The results show that while the Republican center moved only slightly to the right over the past 23 years, the center of Democratic part shifted far to the left.
It took the Investor Business Daily digging into the Pew Report to uncover the full truth from the Pew’s survey data and findings that it was the Democrats that are the extremists today.
The IBD wrote, “Given the way politics gets reported these days, it’s easy to conclude that the widening gap [of partisanship in America] is the result of Republicans become more extreme in their views. That is, after all, a mantra among Democrats and the press. The GOP is the party of racist, sexist, xenophobic, right-wing extremists, we hear over and over again, while Democrats are but humble centrists.”
The Pew data, however, make it clear that the shift toward the extreme has happened among Democrats, not Republicans.
Read more here:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-center-study-shows-that-democrats-have-shifted-to-the-extreme-left/
The IBD finishes their analysis of Pew’s reporting of its own results with this zinger, “Democrats and their water carriers in the press are like people on a boat that is drifting off to sea, but are convinced that it’s the land that’s moving, not them.”
Much of popular opinion results from indoctrination by the misguided MSM.
I can assure you that the left, In control of the Democratic party, is playing the long game here and with certain leftist notions they are successfully insinuating themselves into the young republicans. CAGW is one of those notions. Their game is one of attrition. They control the Propaganda Ministry both traditional main stream and social media. They control the indoctrination centers both Public Schools and the University safe zones. Hell, Obama wanted to federalize Pre-School so the left could begin molding these malleable minds of mush at the earliest possible moment. I am not in the prognostication game so I won’t predict how long it takes but they are winning with each baby boomer funeral and these surveys are their measuring tools to see how close they are to their end game. That would be for a majority to voluntarily turn over control of their energy needs to centralized government. With this survey they see us as one step closer to Big Brother.
I have no doubt the majority of activists they interviewed feel the same way – remember, no matter what they do ‘it’s only a beginning, just a bare beginning.’
After you’ve heard that enough you realize that mentality is reason enough to stop reaching out. Give them everything they want, they got a new list tomorrow.
As I see it, this survey says NOTHING MORE than what people THINK.
It does NOT, in any way, present what INFORMATION people KNOW to support what they think.
They survey may as well have been a report on what people think about space aliens or unicorns or elfin folk.
What do you expect from Pew Research. Yes, they add “research” to their title to make it sound scientifical, but it is actually ideological.
Ignore polls at your own peril. Look what happened to Trump after ignoring an overwhelming defeat according to the polls and now he’s paying the price as the target of a witch hunt.
These polls should also be asking people critical of government inaction on climate what they themselves are doing to supposedly reduce their carbon footprints. Are they buying electric cars, utilizing public transit more, installing solar roof panels, reducing air travel, etc.? The vast majority aren’t as the figures regarding the above clearly show. So what difference does it make who or what’s causing the alleged warming when no one intends to do much about it in the first place?
Sorry Edward !
The PEOPLE who expressed these opinions also VOTE.
Once their opinion is expressed it creates an OBLIGATION to “stand by that choice”
( confirmation bias I think it’s called ). This could well translate to POLITICAL
CHOICES that don’t represent THE FACTS in any way !
Just the “feeling” that they have to stick to their previous commitment.
PLUS , most of “academia” it seems is pushing the “green barrow” for all it’s worth !
TIME is NOT ON THE SIDE OF AGW SCEPTIC’S ! ( SKEPTIC’S ) .
I do hope that people are ACKNOWLEDGING Scott Pruitt’s “HONEST” policy and
are MAKING SUBMISSIONS to his EPA committee !
If it’s Pew, it’s bent.
It is obvious that most who are even semi-knowledgeable about the facts of climate change understand that the general public doesn’t have a clue about true story of climate change. The false narrative of the CAGW crowd,the Democrat leadership and the mass media has sufficiently indoctrinated or confused the public to the point that most probably cannot put together a single coherent sentence about climate change. The greatest future threat related to climate change is the possibility of prematurely taking actions to promote renewable energy and not continuing to maximize the development of cheap and abundant oil and gas resources in the U.S. until renewables are technological feasible to develop. Knowledgeable energy realists need to get organized on educating the public on energy options before it is too late. Talking to each other is a losing strategy.
Surveys of this nature only measure the success or failure of the propaganda processes currently in vogue. Unfortunately they also have a propensity for feedback and are often used in the propaganda process. Facts and reality rarely get a look in and as they are the only control mechanism available the potential for runaway disaster is great.