An interesting poll on climate change from Yale University has been released. This poll, based on data collected in the USA, shows a number of things, perhaps the most interesting being that people who believe in climate change themselves is 63%, whilst those who believe there is scientific consensus on it is 41%.
Data shows responses to a number of climate related questions at the national, state, congressional district and county level.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:58AM
34% of people believe the climate is always the same?
/sarcasm off
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:34PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:39PM
I wonder what the p-values [soylentnews.org] are...
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:34PM
Watch out where the huskies go,
and don't you eat that yellow snow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by sudo rm -rf on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:39PM
...Save your money, don't go to the show
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rts008 on Thursday April 23 2015, @09:44PM
I miss Frank a lot. The man was quite a character. :-)
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:36AM
There seem to be some very odd numbers in that poll, with some of the results looking like they are at odds with others.
Here is how even reputable polls work. They call you at home, getting you while a) you are making dinner, b) taking a nap, or c) just about to head to the bathroom. They tease you by saying it will only take a few minutes, but you discover it is dragging on and on, a bunch of questions with options for answers of which none are what you would choose for a solution. If there is a "none of the above option", it is worded to make you sound like a a dullard or completely uncaring bastard should you choose it. Of course, choices for answers require black or white thinking, there are no shades of grey, and in the end you feel as if you totally screwed up, and your solace is thinking of a poll answered by Opus in a Bloom County strip: "What is your weight? 36 pounds. Height? 2'11". Pants size? I don't wear any pants. And sexual preference? Svelte, buoyant waterfowl. Thank you. My pleasure... They're either going to arrest me or fire her."
(Score: 1, Redundant) by AnonTechie on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:40PM
There are lies, damned lies and statistics ...
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:54PM
... and of course, the Ameritard public.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:09PM
Well, it seems like the poll used the term "global warming" rather than "climate change", so this snarky response doesn't quite apply.
The highlights for me:
- There is a strong public perception that there's actually a serious scientific debate about this. I think John Oliver was on to something when pointed out that in all TV news coverage on the issue, they tend to have 1 person for (usually Bill Nye), and 1 person against, when a correct representation would have about 99 people for and 1 person against.
- A strong majority, however, believe that global warming is happening and support a wide variety of government actions to do something about it. Which makes it very telling that politicians aren't willing to even consider doing something about it.
- About 1/4 of the population in all areas of the country think it's a myth. In a few places, mostly very rural, that's actually a majority.
- Almost nobody has no opinion about it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @07:30PM
When I go to the page with the article, I don't see anything of any value.
Putting content behind scripts is idiocy.
Not mentioning that point in the summary is pretty bad as well.
If the poll started off by using the religious word "believe" (as is indicated by everyone so far on this page), this poll is of zero value.
It's just an open door for ignorant denialists without noting that they are ignorant denialists.
The 1st thing they asked should have started with "Do you understand...".
They should have moved on to "Do you accept the conclusion by the professional climate science community that...".
An interesting question to have added to the packet:
When your doctor (who has a degree from a medical school and a state-issued license to practice medicine) tells you that you need x treatment, do you accept that or do you go home and concoct your own home remedy?
When a 2nd and 3rd and 4th doctor say the same thing as your 1st doctor, do you still go with your home remedy?
Maybe these should have been the first 2 questions.
.
1 person for (usually Bill Nye)
Wouldn't it be interesting if they instead invited, y'know, climate professionals to do that?
Lamestrem Media is useless as a reliable source of information.
Only the monumentally dense and the true believers still consume their "news".
(If you already know which part of what they're saying is true and which part is complete garbage, you don't need to consume their swill.)
Lamestream Media proves their complete uselessness hourly and have been doing that at an increasing rate for decades.
They are so near the complete-noise asymptote, however, that it's difficult to tell that the rate is still increasing.
.
About 1/4 [...] that's actually a majority
Huh??
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 23 2015, @11:14PM
If the poll started off by using the religious word "believe" (as is indicated by everyone so far on this page), this poll is of zero value.
I disagree. A scientifically minded person would presumably believe whatever the preponderance of evidence supports. If someone arrives at an actionable opinion (e.g. votes) via some other route we want to include that.
"Do you understand..."
"Do you accept the conclusion by the professional climate science community that..."
That's some pretty loaded wording there. Are we purposely designing this study to prove something?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @12:45AM
If you are going to ask someone's opinion on something, wouldn't it be useful to know that his knowledge of the topic is less than zero?
...but, since pollsters never publish the questions they ask (and only their interpretation of the questions and answers), that may be asking a lot.
...and to think that pollsters don't ask leading questions is pretty naive.
(There's a great episode of "Yes, Minister" where Sir Humphrey explains the subject to Jim using an example.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @12:47AM
>Not mentioning that point in the summary is pretty bad as well.
"pretty bad" really? Who gives a fuck, its the the fucking www, it runs javascript, deal with it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 24 2015, @02:03PM
Third, you don't ask leading or loaded questions because then you don't actually get information about the person.
"Do you accept the conclusion by the professional climate science community that..."
could be replaced with
"Do you accept the conclusion by the professional climate shill community that..."
You will get substantially different answer distributions when you lead the question differently. Everyone wants to agree with professional scientists. Nobody wants to agree with professional shills. That's why leading questions are undesirable in polls.
Moving on, the poll is time limited. It is rare that one gets the opportunity to ask hundreds of questions of people and fully scope out their beliefs, opinions, and knowledge base. And way too often, when one does have the opportunity, there are huge biases distorting the results of such polls just due to who has the opportunity to be in that sort of poll. So in general, the pollster can't just toss in questions willy nilly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:55PM
> 34% of people believe the climate is always the same?
In the pedantry race to the bottom, you have triumphed over wonkey_monkey!
That's the sporting event where the onlookers are the real losers.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday April 25 2015, @04:25PM
It's not me who's pedant, it's you who're* human.
(*) pronounced /ˈhuːə(r)/
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:57PM
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday April 24 2015, @08:24AM
There's something weird going on with some of the states too. For example, Wyoming
I believe I have expressed my strong opinion that this is normal. "Something weird going on . . . Wyoming." Almost always works.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @12:32PM
There's a big difference between using the phrasing 'believe in' and 'accept the current scientific consensus'. I think this matters when the question is asked.
With 'believe', you can have morons claiming that "well, I can believe whatever I want regardless of what you say and you can believe just what you want, okay...? Still friends?" just like they do with mental illness.
("I know it's true, because I can feel the lord in my heart")
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:56PM
The summary doesn't talk about people "accepting" the scientific consensus -- it talks about whether people believe the scientists have a consensus.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:38PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @02:08PM
I wonder what kind of numbers these guys would get...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @02:14PM
Public opinion of a very well-established science vs. public opinion of a very young science?
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:26PM
Public opinion of a very well-established science vs. public opinion of a very young science?
So you mean gravity being young science? Because we certainly know hell of a lot less about gravity than about global warming. Yes, I know what I'm talking about here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 24 2015, @03:44PM
So you mean gravity being young science? Because we certainly know hell of a lot less about gravity than about global warming. Yes, I know what I'm talking about here.
No, you don't. Currently, the most important parameter in climate research, the long term temperature forcing of a doubling of CO2 is unknown to about a factor of three difference between low and high estimates. I can set up a tabletop experiment with a long hallway to nail down the local force of gravity to a factor of ten better than that.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday April 23 2015, @03:33PM
Gravity science is a very young science?
What gave you that idea?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2015, @06:06PM
Science still hasn't figured out how gravity works.
"Unambiguous detection of individual gravitons, though not prohibited by any fundamental law, is impossible with any physically reasonable detector."
"However, experiments to detect gravitational waves, which may be viewed as coherent states of many gravitons, are underway"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton#Experimental_observation [wikipedia.org]