backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by Lazarus Dark.. on Jun 16 at 10:13 PM


  (Source: Responsible Investor)

  (Source: Daily Galaxy)
And they want the government to do something about it

Researchers at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University conducted a survey that shows three out of four Americans believe in global warming and want the government to establish laws to stop it.

 

The survey was funded by the National Science Foundation and administered in June 2010 by Woods Institute Senior Fellow Jon Krosnick, a professor of communication and political science at Stanford University. From June 1-7, 1,000 randomly selected American adults were chosen to participate in the survey via telephone interviews. 

According to the June 2010 survey, 74 percent of Americans think the Earth's temperature probably has been heating up over the last 100 years, and 75 percent think human activity is the reason why. 

"Several national surveys released during the last eight months have been interpreted as showing that fewer and fewer Americans believe that climate change is real, human-caused and threatening," said Krosnick. "But our new survey shows just the opposite."

While the number of people who believe in global warming has increased, Krosnick says there are people who do not trust climate scientists and they "base their conclusions on their personal observations of nature." According to Krosnick, 2008 was the coldest year since 2000 in terms of average Earth temperature, and these "low-trust individuals were especially aware of the recent decline in average world temperatures" and "they were the ones in our survey whose doubts about global warming have increased since 2007."

"Our surveys reveal a small decline in the proportion of people who believe global warming has been happening, from 84 percent in 2007 to 74 percent today," said Krosnick. "Statistical analysis of our data revealed that this decline is attributable to perceptions of recent weather changes by the minority of Americans who have been skeptical about climate scientists."

The survey also included questions concerning the "climategate" controversy, where thousands of e-mails and other documents were leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. Only nine percent of American's said they knew about this controversy and that it caused them to distrust climate scientists. Despite all the skeptics, there has been no decline in trust for environmental scientists.

Krosnick believes that the decline in proportion of people is likely temporary, and the skeptics will probably join the majority who think global warming is real if the Earth's temperature begins to rise again.

Out of those respondents who believe global warming exists, 86 percent want the government to "limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit," 76 percent of respondents want government limitations on greenhouse gas emissions "generated by businesses" and 14 percent think the government should not take action at all unless other countries like China and India do so as well. Though, in the UK, Professor Seamus Garvey at the University of Nottingham has designed a plan to power the UK completely by renewable energy by 2030 through the use of off-shore energy farms.

Other survey results include four out of five participants wanting the government to offer tax breaks to encourage more fuel efficient vehicles, 84 percent want tax breaks for utilities that use more green methods for power generation, and 80 percent want more energy efficient appliances.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

"Believe"
By danobrega on 6/14/2010 12:49:35 PM , Rating: 5
That is where the problem starts. If it's a matter of believing or not than we are not going in the right direction.




RE: "Believe"
By PandaBear on 6/14/2010 12:50:15 PM , Rating: 1
Most scientists believe in global warming, just disagree on whether it is man made or not.


RE: "Believe"
By danobrega on 6/14/2010 12:59:02 PM , Rating: 3
Scientists don't base their opinions and thoughts on belief. They base it on facts.

Maybe I just need to restructure the way I interpret the word "believe". I relate it closely to faith. :)


RE: "Believe"
By NainoKami on 6/14/2010 1:17:12 PM , Rating: 3
Don't scientists base their opinions on probable theory?

From wikipedia:
"Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses."
and:
"The purpose of a scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a proposed explanation about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can definitively contradict the hypothesis."


RE: "Believe"
By Mitch101 on 6/14/2010 2:01:58 PM , Rating: 5
No No today its based on grant money.


RE: "Believe"
By mcnabney on 6/15/2010 9:40:31 AM , Rating: 4
You are an idiot. Everything scientists do is based on grant money. I am quite sure that the oil/gas industry has been funding plenty of grants to support their desires. Strangely enough, the papers those scientists write can't survive peer-review because there isn't any evidence to support them. The weather outside, today, is not evidence.


RE: "Believe"
By Mitch101 on 6/15/2010 3:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
I said
quote:
based on grant money

You Said
quote:
based on grant money

But Im the idiot?


RE: "Believe"
By Jeffk464 on 6/14/2010 2:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
Nope laymen, read you, base their opinions on whatever they feel. Scientists base their conclusions on observable evidence that they painstakingly study.


RE: "Believe"
By rcc on 6/14/2010 4:15:42 PM , Rating: 3
Mark that "Are supposed to base........"


RE: "Believe"
By geddarkstorm on 6/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: "Believe"
By bhougha10 on 6/14/2010 2:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think we have been comming out of an ice age for a while now. Call it global warming or not.
I don't know why this is so political. If you cut down all the rainforsts, you can expect some bad consequences. You have a zillion cars running, you can expect some there as well. Now we got China with 4 or 5 times the amount of people pumping out those special green house gases as you call them. We already sent all factories over to China and soon we won't be able to afford cars,so, I don't really know what the issue is anymore from the US perspective.


RE: "Believe"
By chunkymonster on 6/14/2010 2:52:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Nope, belief is completely the right term until something has been proven. All science starts with observation from which a belief (hypothesis) is formulated. The only difference between scientific belief and any other sort is that it's falsifiable through testing


Sorry, wrong.

A hypothesis is not a belief, and never the two should meet!

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation based on observable and explainable events in an attempt to prove or disprove a theory.

Belief is a psychological state in which a person holds a proposition or premise to be true.

By interchanging "belief" with "hypothesis" it interjects personal opinion into the research and leads one to think that an outcome should be one thing or another rather than the self concluding and objective results of the research itself.

Science is and should remain objective.


RE: "Believe"
By Solandri on 6/14/2010 4:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
In theory that's how it's supposed to work. In practice, it really is a belief. One scientist believes in their pet theory, and dreams up experiments which can substantiate it, while making extra effort to criticize competing theories. Another scientist believes in a different pet theory, dreams up experiments which could support his theory, while making extra effort to criticize the theory advocated by the first scientist. The cumulative effect is that both theories get well thought-out and well-criticized, so there's no real loss.

In my experience, the difference is that science types are more willing than the general population to let go of a theory they believe in if evidence turns up disproving it or showing it to be highly unlikely. And they are honest enough with themselves that they are much less likely to ignore evidence which blatantly contradicts their pet theories when it turns up in their own experiments. But if they've already settled on a pet theory they believe in, trying to get them to even consider a different theory is just as difficult as with regular people. Propose a competing theory without direct evidence and scientists can be just as vindictive and belittling as neighborhood ladies gossiping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener#Reacti...


RE: "Believe"
By DominionSeraph on 6/14/2010 11:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
What you're describing are equal theories -- explanations which both fit the available data. For two scientists on opposite sides to do a straight swap would be inefficient -- the original theorizer knows his theory the best and can therefore best determine when an attack hits home or when it misses. He is also the worst at coming up with ways to fail his theory -- all of his techniques for disproof have already been used in testing the hypothesis. So he's at an impasse for ideas. The fresh perspective of another person is needed to formulate new attacks.

To use "belief" to describe the position of a proponent of a theory is sloppily imprecise. Belief covers all positive levels of conviction, and is completely independent of level of intellectual honesty. The most delusional religious nutjob in the world believes, but that doesn't mean he has proposed and is honestly judging criticisms of a scientific theory.

Science should not be lumped in with the techniques of the unwashed masses.


RE: "Believe"
By geddarkstorm on 6/15/2010 1:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
No, now we are just quibbling over language use.

A hypothesis says "x influences/causes/affects y", we formulate that idea from an observation where something happened to implicate a connection between x and y, but it isn't proven nor substantiated, hence it's a hypothesis. But that's identical to "belief", hence why the two are commonly used interchangeably. A hypothesis is put forth assuming it is true and THEN the process attempts to disprove it. Only on failing to -disprove- the hypothesis (and succeeding to disprove the null hypothesis), does the idea become substantiated and move on to theory level.

Bias is not involved in the process itself, but can sadly easily crop up during the selection and utilization of the experiments used to test the hypothesis.


RE: "Believe"
By Stacey Melissa on 6/14/2010 2:12:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Maybe I just need to restructure the way I interpret the word "believe". I relate it closely to faith. :)

You do need to restructure the way you interpret the word "believe". Saying one "believes in X" doesn't tell you a thing about how one arrived at that belief. It could be faith or facts or indoctrination, or any combination of those. You also can't tell what the strength of the belief is, or whether it can be dislodged, and if so, by what means, merely because someone "believes in X". You could certainly find out all of the above information, but it's gonna take more questions to do so.


RE: "Believe"
By bupkus on 6/15/2010 3:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe I just need to restructure the way I interpret the word "believe". I relate it closely to faith.

Absolutely... if said scientists base their beliefs on "facts" or a scientific methodology that can convince us we are actually approaching a truth.


RE: "Believe"
By chunkymonster on 6/14/2010 3:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most scientists believe in global warming, just disagree on whether it is man made or not


I don't want any scientist "believing" in anything. I want scientists to prove or disprove a theory using objective, measurable, and unbiased methodology. If I want someone to believe in something, I will visit my Priest.

While some scientists claim to be agnostic or atheist they have turned to science and technology to answer the mysteries of the universe and effectively adopted science as a religion. They tried that once, during the Middle Ages, it was called Alchemy.


RE: "Believe"
By jbartabas on 6/14/2010 3:45:38 PM , Rating: 3
Belief (3rd definition): conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence .
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/belief

Scientists using the term "believe" is a rather common practice. That term does not imply, necessarily, a conviction based on faith, without any consideration of evidences.


RE: "Believe"
By Stacey Melissa on 6/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: "Believe"
By Stacey Melissa on 6/14/2010 5:06:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
during the period from the ancient Greek philosophers of science (e.g. Epicurus, Democritus, not Plato) until the Enlightenment.

That came out wrong. I meant to refer to the period running from after the ancient Greek philosophers up until the Enlightenment.


RE: "Believe"
By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2010 2:23:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Only nine percent of American's said they knew about this controversy and that it caused them to distrust climate scientists.


Because our media barely reported and quickly swept it under the rug maybe??


RE: "Believe"
By Stacey Melissa on 6/14/2010 5:20:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Because our media barely reported and quickly swept [Climategate] under the rug maybe??

I saw Climategate as a major story on the NBC nightly news for a couple of days when the story first broke, and then I saw it commented on by Jon Stewart in following days. What I haven't seen from any TV source of any kind is the followup reporting on Climategate that showed all the smoking gun quotes were actually just creationist-like quote-mining. I also haven't seen any TV reporting of the various official investigations that have been done and cleared the scientists of misconduct. What little I've heard about the followup has been from a few back page AP newspaper articles, and a few articles here at Dailytech.


RE: "Believe"
By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2010 10:17:43 PM , Rating: 3
Right so basically one of the biggest news story this decade, got about the same national coverage as the weather balloon boy hoax...

Oh by the way the only "official" investigation has been from East Anglia itself, not law enforcement agencies. What a shock that they investigated themselves and found themselves clear of all accusations.


RE: "Believe"
By consumerwhore on 6/15/2010 11:24:02 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Right so basically one of the biggest news story this decade
[rolleyes/]

quote:
got about the same national coverage as the weather balloon boy hoax...
Quite fitting given it was a hoax too.


RE: "Believe"
By Jaybus on 6/15/2010 3:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely not. There was relatively little coverage of balloon boy prior to it being found to be a hoax. The father pleaded guilty less than a month after the supposed flight. By contrast, we have heard some alarming, end-of-the-world global warming story nearly daily for years and years. Therefore, Climategate is a much more newsworthy story, and has not, in the US, received anywhere near the coverage it should have.


RE: "Believe"
By Lazarus Dark on 6/14/2010 9:24:53 PM , Rating: 3
My thoughts: Everyone I know that "believes" in Global warming, it was because they were told to. If I probe them in the least, few if any have read or researched ANYTHING about the subject. So... just because most Americans "believe" what they are told... that makes it true? This is almost certainly true of even a majority of politicians and even environmentalists. Most just accept it cause someone said so with little or no evidence presented. I don't think we should base policy about the environment based on what a lot of people "believe".

If you tell a lie long enough and often enough...


RE: "Believe"
By mcnabney on 6/15/2010 9:58:29 AM , Rating: 1
The following are known facts that all scientists agree upon.

1. The recent decades have had a disproportionate number of record 'average' global surface and ocean temperatures.
2. Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily rising for decades. It is up about 50% (albeit from a very low percentage to begin with)
3. Ocean acidity has also been rising (CO2 disolves in water to form carbonic acid)
4. Since the industrial age began, humans have been digging up/drilling for sequestered pockets of hydrocarbons in mass quantities. CO2 is released when those fuels are burned/combusted.

Now the earth DOES have heating/cooling cycles. That can explain climate change all by itself. The elephant in the room is the two extra pieces of data - higher CO2 count and ocean acidification. Those pieces of data show that the system is out of balance. If that system being out of balance is causing the climate shifts then that leads directly to us since we have obviously been the source of the increased CO2.

I, personally, fall on the line that there is no way that the whole world - especially developing nations - are going to rapidly curtail usage. We might as well buckle-up and hope for the best. It will likely be an exciting ride and technically we are doing it to ourselves, but as humans beings we always fall on the side of Me-First. We do the same thing by charging up massive debt for our grandchildren to pay. A pathetic lot we are.


RE: "Believe"
By JediJeb on 6/15/2010 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now the earth DOES have heating/cooling cycles. That can explain climate change all by itself. The elephant in the room is the two extra pieces of data - higher CO2 count and ocean acidification. Those pieces of data show that the system is out of balance. If that system being out of balance is causing the climate shifts then that leads directly to us since we have obviously been the source of the increased CO2.


I have seen a few graphs that make me question this cause and relation. One was by a AGW advocate in a lecture where when you look closely at the graphs showing temperature rise and CO2 concentration rise versus time, they do both increase, but the sticking point is the temperature graph begins to rise several years before the CO2 levels begin to rise. His whole argument was that the slopes of the two graphs change together indicating a relationship, but he never explained how rising CO2 levels caused the temperatures to rise years before the CO2 rise began. To me that would suggest that rising temperatures is what is causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, not the other way around. Had this been a graph presented by an AGW skeptic I may have questioned it, but since it was a graph presented by an AGW advocate and yet it contradicted his claims I began to study it and have found other evidence of the same data.

Also being a chemist I know that as you heat water, gasses become less soluble in it, thus if temperatures rise then the concentration of the gasses dissolved in the water will rise in the air above it. There are far too many variables involved with climate to simply say we burn fossil fuels we raise the temperature of the planet. Plus a lot of the graphs I find when I search are temperature rise versus CO2 forcing, not CO2 concentration, which makes it harder to discover the truth.

All in all the thing to watch will be what the author eluded to when he said "if temperature begin to rise again will the skeptics then believe", what happens if temperatures fail to begin to rise again?


RE: "Believe"
By Lazarus Dark on 6/16/2010 10:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
Please note, I was not arguing about the validity of global warming research, I was talking about the article. The article seemed to indicate that because a certain portion of Americans "believe" in global warming, that should be a reason for legislation and such based on that belief. I was saying that Americans are stupid and the fact that a lot of people believe in global warming should not be reason in and of itself for legislation.

BUT, as far as what should be considered: facts, proof, evidence, scientific consensus...
The only scientists that I see claiming there is consensus are the ones on the side of global warming. Any research or scientist that says there is NOT a consensus, is simply a heretic. I've seen as much evidence on both sides, the only difference being that global warming data consistently seems to be eventually proven incorrect, flawed, or downright falsified if you wait long enough. I have yet to see any data from the non-warming side disproven (unless you count scientists who dismiss it without actually looking at it, because any evidence to the contrary of global warming is automatically wrong because global warming is "truth". I swear, its like a religion...)


...this just in...
By inperfectdarkness on 6/14/2010 12:59:33 PM , Rating: 5
75% of Americans are gullible




RE: ...this just in...
By IvanAndreevich on 6/14/2010 1:01:48 PM , Rating: 5
I think you are a bit low on the estimate there


RE: ...this just in...
By Jeffk464 on 6/14/2010 2:45:55 PM , Rating: 1
Who has more to gain by misleading the public. Scientists or businesses that will be hurt by any global warming measures that will cost them more money. I've know people in the science field and I've known people in the corporate world and I can tell you I definitely trust people in science a lot more. most businessmen I have seen would sell the grandmother's soul to the devil if it made them an extra buck.


RE: ...this just in...
By JediJeb on 6/14/2010 3:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Scientists or businesses that will be hurt by any global warming measures that will cost them more money


You forgot one category, businesses that will make a huge profit from people believing in global warming, such as those who will broker the carbon credits to be traded as a part of cap and trade.


RE: ...this just in...
By Danish1 on 6/15/2010 7:15:08 AM , Rating: 2
and another, scientists who lives of having something to study and create reports about.

Why would you publicly fund a global warming unit if global warming isn't an issue?


RE: ...this just in...
By Jeffk464 on 6/15/2010 3:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
The scientist would get paid if he found evidence contrary to typical global warming thought.


RE: ...this just in...
By Luticus on 6/14/2010 1:31:52 PM , Rating: 3
Manbearpig strikes again... Aerosol AWAY!!!!


RE: ...this just in...
By retrospooty on 6/14/2010 2:21:38 PM , Rating: 5
" 75% of Americans are gullible "\

Sad but true...

Just thing about how stupid the average person is... Then realize 1/2 of everyone is stupider than that guy. - George Carlin.


RE: ...this just in...
By marvdmartian on 6/15/2010 9:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
Makes you wonder if they decided to save money on toll calls, and just called locally to conduct this survey?

I'd have to say where I live, the vast majority of people think that global warming is nothing more than a bunch of hooey made up, and believed by, a bunch of gullible loons!


USA USA USA...
By Daniel8uk on 6/14/2010 1:13:45 PM , Rating: 4
Please Americans, go back to the early days, you guys and girls were great then. The flag that waved for freedom and the great American dream etcetera etcetera.

Now the whole country is just a bloated mess of stupidity, arrogance, warmongering, and scaremongering.




RE: USA USA USA...
By Luticus on 6/14/2010 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
yea... we have our moments >;)~


RE: USA USA USA...
By bhougha10 on 6/14/2010 2:00:03 PM , Rating: 5
I'm from the USA and generally agree with this statement. But, we need to make clear here that it's the government that is causing this. We need to get rid of both parties and start over. Both parties have sold us to China and countinue to let socialism take hold and destroy us from the inside out. It's the people of this country that make this country great, even still. It's just hard to get past the politicians that are payed off in pork.

Funny thing is, as stupid as our country is, your's is probably 10 times more so. Kinda ironic isn't it. You look at how bad the USA is and can't see how bad it is at home. I might be wrong, maybe you do see how bad it is at home.


RE: USA USA USA...
By phantom505 on 6/14/2010 6:06:49 PM , Rating: 1
Socialism isn't the problem. The problem is the unwillingness for people to understand that the world changes, and therefore needs change.

It's poor management that dooms us. Go read Collapse by Jared Diamond. Then go spew antisocialism nonsense, as if it's the problem.


RE: USA USA USA...
By bhougha10 on 6/15/2010 9:26:44 AM , Rating: 2
Socialism is the root of all laziness. As Money is the root of all evil. Read all the books you want and tell yourself differently, there is no example of socialism bringing about prosperity. It only breads entitled lazy people and hence no motivation to better ones self. Money motivates and handouts demotivate. Call laziness and money both evil, but if you want a more prosperous country don't go with laziness.
Socialism will make you feel better when it is firt implimented, but in a few short years, you will all be worse off then you started.


RE: USA USA USA...
By Danish1 on 6/15/2010 7:29:31 AM , Rating: 2
That's just an excuse, You Americans are responsible for voting the politicians into office you do and that means the American people hasn't been great for a long time now.

No offense meant and I'm not saying it's any better here, it's not, our government is also only going in one direction, bigger and more bloated, and just like over there once a government bone has been handed out it's pretty much political suicide to try to do away with it, no one wants to lose their own bones.

"Me first for I am > the greater good" is the trademark of the west these days.


RE: USA USA USA...
By Dr of crap on 6/14/2010 3:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
It's the stupid media and the whole of the people believe whatever they say. Of course there is the stupid people factor as well. I truely believe that we as a whole group have a lowed IQ than we did 20 years ago. And with the increase in population we only get stupider!!!


RE: USA USA USA...
By jimbojimbo on 6/14/2010 3:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget lazier and fatter every year. Why work if you can just vote for someone to give you things for free?


RE: USA USA USA...
By phantom505 on 6/14/2010 6:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well the unemployment rate is 10% yet gas is in the pump, food is in the market, hospitals are open, utilities are on.

So are you telling me we need them? For what?


No pre-bias here...
By Suntan on 6/14/2010 1:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
According to Krosnick, 2008 was the coldest year since 2000 in terms of average Earth temperature, and these "low-trust individuals were especially aware of the recent decline in average world temperatures" and "they were the ones in our survey whose doubts about global warming have increased since 2007."

So people that disagree with this person's opinion on the subject are "low-trust individuals."

Well, certainly that kind of a comment wouldn't lead you to believe that the poll was skewed to begin with.

Stepping completely aside from the whole Al Gore Warming debate. Honestly people (on both sides)if you want to be taken seriously, you need to conduct your research with integrity. That includes *not* pre-deturmining the answers you want to receive.

And anyone wonders why so many people see this whole thing as a complete farce.

-Suntan




RE: No pre-bias here...
By SublimeSimplicity on 6/14/2010 1:11:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly people (on both sides)if you want to be taken seriously, you need to conduct your research with integrity. That includes *not* pre-deturmining the answers you want to receive.


If they didn't pre-determine the results, who would pay them to take the polls? :)


RE: No pre-bias here...
By xmichaelx on 6/14/2010 4:22:54 PM , Rating: 3
You don't have to sign your posts -- your name already appears right there at the top!


RE: No pre-bias here...
By Suntan on 6/14/2010 9:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks. ...I never saw it up there.

-Suntan


RE: No pre-bias here...
By smitty3268 on 6/14/2010 11:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to regret replying to this...

"Low-trust individuals" doesn't have anything to do with the author's opinion. It refers to people who have a low level of trust in climate scientists, and accurately describes them as people who only trust what they see with their own eyes rather than trusting some distant scientist they don't know. Hence, they can be described as having "low-trust".


opinion polls
RE: opinion polls
By TSS on 6/15/2010 5:54:27 AM , Rating: 3
Well polls are about as accurate as the person who paid for them.


I did a poll too...
By AssBall on 6/14/2010 1:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
Here were my "results"

75% of Americans would like the government to solve all of their personal problems. 33% don't give a shit about anything anymore.

A minority of 10% Americans polled are actually trying to figure out this global warming shit instead of being politically polarized by it.

60% of Americans are found to have received more of their knowledge from the internet and TV than from books, parents, or schools.

An astounding 55% of participants asked labeled fox and nbc programs as actually informative. Only 18% thought they were just entertainment.

85% of people polled would much rather whine and get free money than figure anything out for themselves or do something useful.

90% of polls whose creators were polled, said that their polls where fair, controlled, and even scientific. However, only 22% of people asked who do the grunt work for polls like their jobs or expect and believe that their results are manipulated and unbiased.

39% of Americans polled were hoping that there would be a naked woman on it, and another 19% expected a fireman.




RE: I did a poll too...
By sleepeeg3 on 6/14/2010 2:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
Amazing! My polling matches those figures.


RE: I did a poll too...
By phantom505 on 6/14/2010 6:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
Odd, my all came out to 42. Oh well.


RE: I did a poll too...
By TSS on 6/15/2010 6:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
My poll showed that 101% of all polls are made out up out of thin air.


Managed Perception and Marketing Hype
By chunkymonster on 6/14/2010 2:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
Polls like this out of Stanford are useful for proving nothing. By their own charts, the number of "respondents who believe that world's temperatures have probably been going up slowly in the past 100 years" dropped form 85% in 2006 to 75% in 2009. As a matter of fact, all the other charts presented by the Stanford Poll seem to indicate overall that people's belief in global warming has declined.

According to the article posted on the Stanford website, Krosnick has only been tracking the public opinion portion of the poll since 2006; the same year that "An Inconvenient Truth" was released. Politically motivated or just timely polling?

Public opinion on the reality of global warming is merely a reflection of the hype and attention the media chooses to give the topic. Given that the Stanford numbers show a three year decline in the belief of global warming only seems to indicate that the marketing budget for promoting global warming has been reduced.




RE: Managed Perception and Marketing Hype
By jbartabas on 6/14/2010 2:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to the article posted on the Stanford website, Krosnick has only been tracking the public opinion portion of the poll since 2006; the same year that "An Inconvenient Truth" was released. Politically motivated or just timely polling?


[...] or the article actually says that Krosnick has asked similar questions while at Woods Institute since 2006, but he actually has analyzed similar surveys since at least 1998 while at Ohio State University ...


RE: Managed Perception and Marketing Hype
By chunkymonster on 6/14/2010 3:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
Krosnick stating that he analyzed similar surveys since 1998 is not the same as publishing survey results since 1998.

While analyzing survey results since 1998 gives credibility to Krosnick's ability to interpret and present survey results accurately it does not change the fact that he only added the public opinion portion to the Stanford survey in 2006.

Again, the same year that "An Inconvenient Truth" was released. Politically motivated or just timely polling?


By jbartabas on 6/14/2010 3:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
American Opinion on Global Warming The Impact of the Fall 1997 Debate (Krosnick, 1998): http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/Global-Warm...


Junk Science!
By JimboK29 on 6/14/2010 9:32:30 PM , Rating: 3
This post is ridiculous. How can the American public go from over 65% disapproving the theory (35% supporting it) to now 75% in a Stanford poll? Maybe because summer is here? Global warming died - let it go. It is insane to think man can control mother nature.

Climategate killed the debate. The resulting findings were made up, inflated and curved to meet a political agenda and they got caught! Look At Al Gore's twitter page - he has over 2 million followers yet he only allows 9 people to respond. Where is the debate Al?

The thing is this - if your job is to find warming trends and you do not find them you cannot put food on the table. Now read that a few times and think about it. The public is not stupid so stop feeding us garbage.

Icecap is a good source of factual info on this subject:
http://www.icecap.us

Threatcore picks up on some good info on this subject too:
http://www.threatcore.com

There is also ClimateChangeFraud:
http://www.climatechangefraud.com

We are years into the debate on if we're going to freeze to death or warm to death. We are a tiny spec in a huge solar system. If Earth wants to warm let it be. According to NASA, Mars warmed too and I bet they have less SUV's than we do. I think many of you have too much trust in Government. Go outside some clear night, look up at the sky and ask yourself if the government has the power to change the cycles we've been enduring for 5.5 billion years.




RE: Junk Science!
By ZachDontScare on 6/16/2010 5:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
In other polls 65% dont buy into the Global Warming scam. In this poll, only 30% attributed this supposed global warming solely to human activity. Thats approx the same. They just tweak the questions here to make it look otherwise.


o...m....g....
By Methal on 6/14/2010 12:50:12 PM , Rating: 1
Looks like 75% of Americans are pretty stupid and gullible. Political Science is almost always in contradiction to actual science. The reason 75% of Americans (according to stanford) believe global warming is true, is because 100% of the liberal media and idiot politicians push it on us like its scripture straight from God.

its all a tactic to take away more freedom. Displaced communists mascaraing as environmentalists see it as a way to take away the power from the people, and give it to the state in the name of saving the earth.




RE: o...m....g....
By Gungel on 6/14/2010 1:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, more people in Europe believe it is real. I guess they are even dumber than the Americans?


RE: o...m....g....
By YashBudini on 6/14/2010 6:41:16 PM , Rating: 1
"The reason 75% of Americans (according to stanford) believe global warming is true, is because 100% of the liberal media and idiot politicians push it on us like its scripture straight from God."

Apparently Adam & Eve's offspring are quite gullible.


1000 Random Adults...
By sleepeeg3 on 6/14/2010 1:50:11 PM , Rating: 4
Would those "random" numbers be in and around San Francisco where Stanford is? Shocking!

Is the Earth warming? Possibly. Will it kill all life on Earth in 50 years? Not a flipping chance. CO2 levels are 300ppm. During as recently as the Jurassic they were 3000ppm when life thrived. They have been as high as 7000ppm. http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

Even the environmental science coordinator of my university admits he only believes it will affect biodiversity. Alarmist shake the year 2050 at us, but rarely go into detail about WHAT will happen then. They attempt to scare people into action and people rarely question back, because they are scientist. Well I am on the path to becoming a scientist too and I question it.

Alarmist also gloss over that there is a lag of around 800 years between temperature increases and CO2 levels. Could that maybe just be caused by increased solar activity raising temperatures and a delay in plant/animal life reacting to the change? Wouldn't that make more sense?




Bias
By clovell on 6/14/2010 2:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "Our surveys reveal a small decline in the proportion of people who believe global warming has been happening, from 84 percent in 2007 to 74 percent today,"

You lost over 10% of your believers in only 3 years. If you were a church, many would consider you going extinct. But, you're not worried about it because you think it's small?

Biased, much?




RE: Bias
By rcc on 6/15/2010 3:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, we need to let the people know they still have 2 out of the 3 branches of government working for them, and that ain't bad!!

(paraphrased)


science is not popular opinion
By rsmech on 6/15/2010 12:59:22 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
three out of four Americans believe in global warming and want the government to establish laws to stop it.


How can the gov't stop nature? This isn't the 1st warming or cooling trend in Earths history, it certainly isn't the last.

1. Evidence- maps of Antarcticas coast without ice from the 1500's.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/25/science/new-anal...

2. Evidence- ancient forests 700 miles from the north pole.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171...

3. Evidence- I hear mans doing with co2 output is main cause. Look up for yourself but during one of the last ice ages there was extreme volcanic activity releasing mass amounts of co2 & we had an ice age. It can't work both ways.




Its all about the wording
By ZachDontScare on 6/14/2010 2:58:45 PM , Rating: 3
If you read the actual PDF of the results, you'll see that only 30% of respondents think that global warming is from human activity. The multiple choice questions sort of pidgeon hole the answers into only human made, not human made, and both equally. It doesnt even allow for 'mostly human caused' or 'mostly natural'. Its all, none, or equal.

Also, the survey does what a lot of surveys I've seen do in the past - it purposely tries to confuse the issue by asking peopel what they think about the government limiting 'air pollution'. Not CO2, but air pollution, which is a completely different issue. Anyone with even the slightest understanding about the world around them knows that CO2 is a naturally occurring gas and is not harmful except in massive quantities. It is not a pollutant (regardless what the 'law' says)... its the basic gas that all plants need to live. By equating it with pollution, they are push-polling. Who is going to tell a survey taker 'no, dont regulate air pollution'?

So... I'd say this poll borders on junk science, but may not cross over into it completely. The key is to note that in this poll, and all others like it, belief in the global warming hoax has been trending down for the past couple of years. So while the actual percentage of people who have fallen for it may be in question, that people are now waking up to what a giant scam this thing is pretty clear.




So what happens if.....
By JediJeb on 6/14/2010 3:56:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Krosnick believes that the decline in proportion of people is likely temporary, and the skeptics will probably join the majority who think global warming is real if the Earth's temperature begins to rise again.


But if the Earth's temperatures do not begin to rise again, will the this "majority" then change their minds and join the "minority"?

If temperatures continue to fall, will those who believe in global warming become the skeptics?

From that quote this guy is at least admitting that the global temperatures have fallen slightly recently, where others vehemently deny that fact. For me the fact that temperatures have warmed over the past 100 years is proven, but when mankind continues to increase their output of CO2 yet temperatures have not risen anywhere near as quickly as the models from the past 10-20 years have suggested they should, that leaves me a definite "skeptic" of AGW. No amount of taxes is going to correct natural warming, so we need to be investing in ways to adapt to, instead of control the climate.

Living on the Earth is like bull riding, forget controlling it, just learn how to stay on with out falling off.




Study has errors
By gnac on 6/15/2010 4:33:53 PM , Rating: 3
I was called as part of the study --- suprisingly, when I said I did not believe global warming was anthroprogenic....my call was dropped. Strange how you can get such a different result with a "random" sample from multiple other studies. Can anybody say AGENDA?




Evaporation
By Hans Gruber on 6/15/2010 6:54:08 PM , Rating: 3
The greatest discovery of environmental science was proving the earths climate is greatly influenced by the oceans current and sea temperature. Thus el nino and la nina were coined. Since this discovery which helps weather forcasters, water districts and ski resorts prepare for conditions based upon the strength of el nino or la nina.

Then Al Gore (An Inconveinient Truth)and his theory which was not his but created by scientists who were no longer relevant. Al was paid millions by those looking to capitalize financially on green technology. Forget the fact that Gore continues to fly private jets which deplete the ozone layer and SUV's which gulp gallons of gas at rates 2-3x that of fuel efficient vehicles. Or his vast homestead in Tennesee consumes enough energy to power over 1,000 homes, even with solar panels and water saving measures installed.

As has been previously mentioned here, science is largely driven by grants. Scientists holed up in liberal Universities across have every reason to find that global warming is indeed caused by man. Money corrupts absolutely. Today, fewer children aspire to be a scientist than any other time in modern history. Once thought of as the smartest people is an room, sciene has lost their status quo. With the myth of global warming, science has propelled itself to the forefront with many questioning the results obtained by flawed experiments.

The scientific method is best described by being able to duplicated results repeatedly by multiple 3rd parties who have no personal intestest in the results. This sounds like a legal claim but it seems that science has many reasons to manipulate results. Namely financial windfall (grants) and making science relevant again.

The unintended consequence of this seems to be those who loved science but chose other fields of intest crying foul. It seems many have not forgotten the scientific method needs to be duplicatable by 3rd parties. Instead users here are using what we were learned in high school and college to poke holes in fuzzy math and fuzzy theories.

I would like to cite two examples. The first can be found on youtube or CBS. Mike Wallace interviewed the CEO of Archer Daniels Midland (Interview was conducted in 90's well before global warming) with serious questions about the scientific validity of adding 10% of ethanol to gas. In the interview Wallce questions the lack of scientific evidence that supports the theory in which addind 10%ethonol to gas (Nov 1st-April 1st) decreases vehicle emissons. ADM to this days still adds 10% ethanol to gas which artificially increases fuel consuption by 10% during the winter months. In addition, it benefits corn farmers who grow more corn which is the main component of ethanol. Big oil also benefits from the use of ethanol by capturing more sales in fuel purchases during the slow winters months due to reduced fuel economy when ethanol is added.

I have serious doubts regarding the true cause of the glacier on Kilimanjaro. Al Gore An Inconveinient Truth) said glbal warming caused this. The freezing level rarely exceeds 15,000ft above sea level, well below Kilimanjaro's peak at 19,300ft. What has caused the depletion of the glacier? Evaporation... I suspect a combination of evaporation of ice which occurs when water turns to gaseous vapor mitigated by the lack of consistant rainfall. This can be caused by drought or a consistant drop in annual rainfall. The earths surface cannot exceed 32 degrees for prolonged periods of time above 15,000ft. which would cause the melting of the glacier on Kilimenjaro as suggested by Al Gore in his movie. Evaporation could have also caused the depletion in the polar ice caps with a significant reduction in annual percipitation.




and now we now
By tharik on 6/14/2010 12:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
the percentage of people who have been brain washed by the media
the percentage of people who do not have a clue
the percentage of people who choose to follow Al Gore instead of the over 10 thousand scientist who think it is just a big scam to get more money




Manufacturing consent
By stilltrying on 6/14/2010 2:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like manufacturing consent to me. Straight propoganda.




Hah
By Steve1981 on 6/14/2010 2:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Out of those respondents who believe global warming exists, 86 percent want the government to "limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit," 76 percent of respondents want government limitations on greenhouse gas emissions "generated by businesses"


I can't help but read that as "I think global warming is a problem, but I think someone else should bear the burden of dealing with it. Because I think businesses are evil for charging me so much money for everything, I think it should be their problem."




Your stats are misleading
By autoboy on 6/14/2010 3:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
The stats you quote are misleading. A cursory glance at the percentages you quoted tells an average person that 75% of the people polled thought the government should do something about global warming.

quote:
According to the June 2010 survey, 74 percent of Americans think the Earth's temperature probably has been heating up over the last 100 years, and 75 percent think human activity is the reason why.


So, 75% think the goverment should fix global warming but, only 74% of respondents actually think the earth is warming? That makes no sense. Why would more people want to fix global warming that those who believe the earth has warmed?

What the stats really show is that 75% of people who think the earth is warming think the government should do something about it. That's 75% of 74% which is just 55% of the total people polled who think the government should do something about global warming. 55% is much closer to other polls about the same question.

You've just fallen for the same trick they always pull. When 75% of people believe in something, it makes you think that only fringe lunatics make up the other 25%. They try to get you to take comfort in group think. Everyone else believes it so why shouldn't I? But the actual number is 55% and they just made you look dumb since you can't do stats. Welcome to the world. Make up your own damn mind about something. There are stats that support any position and they can be used in a way to manipulate you.




FAIL
By corduroygt on 6/14/2010 3:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
75% of 74% = 55% Americans belive in AGW.




sorry stanford but youre wrong
By shin0bi272 on 6/14/2010 5:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
By ThePooBurner on 6/14/2010 5:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our surveys reveal a small decline in the proportion of people who believe global warming has been happening, from 84 percent in 2007 to 74 percent today ," said Krosnick.

quote:
The survey also included questions concerning the "climategate" controversy, where thousands of e-mails and other documents were leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. Only nine percent of American's said they knew about this controversy and that it caused them to distrust climate scientists.

So we have a decline of 10%, and 9 of that percent is directly attributable to climategate. Can you imagine what these numbers would look like if Climategate hadn't been conveniently buried and forgotten and overlooked by almost all media after like 2 days? Basically what i take away from this is that if you show people the truth and they know what the truth is they don't believe the lies they are being fed. Which is why Al & Co. tried so hard to keep it from becoming general knowledge.




One word
By FITCamaro on 6/14/2010 8:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
Bullshit.




By TheEinstein on 6/15/2010 12:18:56 AM , Rating: 2
Statistics is my research field as an math scientist.

1000 is the pool which they would have you believe is 2^1000 possible variations, meaning 1024^4 as well or 1,048,576^2 which gives a theoretical number of a trillion possible outcomes, therefore they will say the math proves us right.

Lies

It's a thousand persons and a poll which can confuse.

It is to small a segment, to my math being a small pile of bits, not even a blip.

The problem is in the sampling (how many tries were done before this group was found), in the methodology, and in ignoring previous results.

In one for of sampling with multiple groups the two most extreme ends are eliminated to help balance the effort. This is clearly an extreme.




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki