SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.