That Skewed Rasmussen Survey on Global Warming
In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some climate skeptics would buy into this poll, hook, line and sinker?
If you liked that question, you’ll love this one from Rasmussen Reports:
In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?
That’s one of the questions from a telephone survey that provides the results that Rasmussen, Anthony Watts and Bishop Hill are headlining.
And so a central meme of the Morano/Inhofe wing (e.g., global warming is one big fraud) gets reinforced by a skewed poll.
I don’t really see your point. The poll asked if people believed that scientists were cooking the books and 69% said yes. It is a clear answer to a clear question. I realize that you like to argue that it is not true but that does not change the fact that people feel that way. I would argue that 100% of the blame for this perception rests with scientists who remain silent while high profile invidiuals lie and engage in ad hom attacks when confronted with errors in their work.
It all depends on the sample. Who did they call and why?
Tom,
Do you beat your wife?
Hmm. I sense a trap.
Blogging about blogging about what some people think about what other people may have done.
Fresh air, anyone ?
It’s well known that how a question is framed can cause respondents to completely reverse their answers.
This question “poisons the well” with the premise of a justification, which in turn would lead people to overestimate the likelihood of the occurrence.
Oh, one more thing:
The use of the qualifier “some” means that if a responder believed that even one scientist falsified data one time, the question would be answered affirmatively.
It’s fairly obvious that the poll was either constructed by someone with no experience in polling, or by someone wanting to drive the answer(s) in a certain direction.
I don’t see how that, or the other 5 questions are leading.
1* How closely have you followed recent news stories about global warming?
2* Which of the following is most likely to occur to the planet Earth “¦ a period of dangerous global warming, a dangerous ice age or something in between?
3* Some people say we must take immediate action to stop global warming. Others say we should wait a few years to see if global warming is real before making major changes. What do you think?
4* Do scientists agree on global warming or is there significant disagreement within the scientific community?
5* In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?
6* Does the media make global warming appear to be worse than it really is, better than it really is or do they present an accurate picture?
They do differentiate their results by political affiliation as well.
The only objection I can see, is that question 5 makes no distinction between consensus scientists and skeptical scientists.
Keith,
My understanding is Rasmussen is considered a fairly well respected polling organization. They sampled 1000 adults and made the questions are available.
Unfortunately, payment is required to access the cross-tabs. Do you have them? If so, how about making them available to us?
If not, I don’t see how you can possibly determine the poll is skewed. Could it be a case of you passing judgment without investigating?
A similar poll funded by National Science Foundation found different results in 2010:
http://www.livescience.com/6567-majority-americans-global-warming.html
“Overall, we found no decline in Americans’ trust in environmental scientists,” Krosnick said. “Fully 71 percent of respondents said they trust scientists a moderate amount, a lot or completely.”
I don’t know which of the polls is skewed but seems that for some reason, certain parties swallowed this one hook, line and sinker:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100609131647.htm
http://scienceblog.com/34975/large-majority-of-americans-still-believe-in-global-warming-stanford-poll-finds/
http://infogreenglobal.com/americans-still-believe-in-global-warming/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/opinion/09krosnick.html
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/06/11/large-consistent-majority-of-americans-believe-climate-change-is-happening-want-government-to-act/
Good for the goose, good for the gander?
I think, congratulations are in order to Watts, McIntyre, Bishop Hill and others: Mission accomplished!
Jarmo,
That poll has results which are complete inconsistent with other polls.
For example:
“Only 14 percent said that the United States should not take action to combat global warming unless other major industrial countries like China and India do so as well.”
There is no way this is representative of American public as a whole. It sounds like they used the Greenpeace membership list to select who they called.
The questions are skewed.
2* Which of the following is most likely to occur to the planet Earth “¦ a period of dangerous global warming, a dangerous ice age or something in between? (People want to believe they are moderate and centered so this question leads people to take the middle ground.)
4* Do scientists agree on global warming or is there significant disagreement within the scientific community?
(There’s a qualifier ‘significant’ for the 2nd choice but not for the 1st. And on what aspect of global warming are scientists supposed to agree on, that it is taking place, that it is ‘primarily’, ‘mostly’ or ‘partially’ due to mankind. Do scientists agree on global warming – YES, is there significant disagreement within the scientific community also YES)
3* Some people say we must take immediate action to stop global warming. Others say we should wait a few years to see if global warming is real before making major changes. What do you think?
(Again asking people if they should impulsively act or take a more ‘reasoned’ wait and see attitude. People want to believe they are thoughtful not impulsive.)
5* In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?
(No one would take the position that ‘not one single scientist has ever falsified research data’ so there is only one way to answer this question.)
Horrible poll, did the writer even graduate high school?
John Q. Public will entertain lots of silliness in order to avoid information that conflicts with his/her world view.
They go down to Billy Joe Bob’s auto emporium looking for an efficient vehicle suitable for their needs.
The 5 passenger car gets 30 MPG, but the 6 passenger gets 26 MPG and only costs a few dollars more. Then the 6 passenger with the 5 star crash rating gets 22 MPG which is not that big a fuel price to pay for the added safety. Then the 6 passenger with the 4 wheel drive gets 18 which is almost as good as the 6 passenger with 2 wheel drive.
They end up buying a 6 passenger ,4 wheel drive car with a 5 star crash rating that gets 18 MPG when their original intent was a 5 passenger car that gets 30 MPG.
When the price of gasoline rises due to increased demand they blather on about the ‘conspiracy’ between the auto companies and the oil companies.
It is quite simple to understood how good decent, environmentally conscious people rationalize themselves into a big gas guzzling SUV.
They are then left with the additional problem of rationalizing why a big gas guzzling SUV isn’t a problem.
Humanity is what it is.
I still remember Carter’s ‘defend at any cost’ Persian Gulf speech like it was yesterday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine
It would seem to me that the potential for two nuclear superpowers fighting over ‘oil interests’ was a good way to ‘end the world’, not save it.
If the risk of an oil proxy war escalating into a nuclear conflagration wasn’t enough to curb our oil appetite, then the blathering’s of some scientists about a couple of degrees of warming isn’t going to make much difference either.
The science of Climate change doesn’t matter anymore then the possibility that the Iran-Iraq war(1980-1988…on the order of a million casualties) would spin out of control into something far more devastating.
Three things have become apparent.
1. The more deeply citizens (people who PAY taxes) become involved with the issue of Global Warming, oops. Anthropogenic Global Warming, oops, Catastrophic Global Warming, oops Climate Change, oops, Global Warming Causes Everything Bad, the more likely they are to be skeptical of the Climate Alarmists (people who TAKE tax money).
2. The Mainstream Media, abetted political “Progressives” and by quasi-governmental entities such as Google, are over time becoming less effective at squashing, hiding, or obfuscating the fact that there is a robust and growing, community of citizens, including many scientists in many disciplines who are, at least, skeptical of the Climate Alarmist agenda and research.
3. The Climate Alarmists are now attempting to ” hide the decline” in the belief in the Climate Alarmist Religion.
@15
And all this has what to do with the skewed Rasmussen poll?
And did you mean to put that global warming bogeyman mantra over at WUWT, where the amen corner will nod vigorously in assent.
Keith, maybe this poll, in and of itself signals a change? Usually when I see poll questions that SUCK, they’re not skewed towards the ‘deniers’ but against them. For instance:
1) Do most scientists believe that global warming is occurring? (Without qualifying between natural and anthropogenic causes obviously this is a stupid, uniformed pro AGW question- Gallup 2010)
I find it kind of refreshing for questions to be skewed away from AGW believers.
The idea that the questions are skewed is pretty meaningless complaint given this statistic from the poll:
“Sixty-seven percent (67%) are following news stories on global warming at least somewhat closely”
That, by the way, is huge. The warm camp caught the sustained (this has been going on for two decades) attention of better than 2/3rds of American adults and failed to make their case. Name another special interest that has attracted this much attention (AIDS, maybe, though when was the last time you read an AIDS blog?)
The folks answering this poll know what the pollster is asking. They know what they think of the issue. Their thoughts are accurately recorded in the poll.
Note also the simple fact that the pollster asked the same question in ’09- the story here is that alarmists are losing ground. So, by all means, whine about the wording.
jeffn
That 67% number does not sound right. On may 13 Gallup released a poll that said 57% of americans are somewhat closely or more following the debt ceiling fight. People often overstate thier knowledge or expertise in certain types of polling.
I with Bob Koss you need to see the details in order to evaluate this or any poll.
A poll is often considered skewed if it gives an answer one doesn’t like. Applies both sides of the debate. I wonder what the opinion might have been if nearly the same words had been used, but in a different order:
“Is it likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming?”
It’s quite possible that some on the sceptical side might have thought this was skewed.
@9 Bob Koss:
My understanding is Rasmussen is considered a fairly well respected polling organization.
Your understanding is wrong. See:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/rasmussen-poll-on-wisconsin-dispute-may-be-biased/
Etc.
I don’t know Keith, maybe “slanted” is when you are on track in 2011 for achieving 1990 CO2 emission levels in the US and nobody says a thing about it. Why are we not celebrating?
People may actually trust the climate scientists (remember, broad group) but not the science. Think of Einstein and quantum physics. I am sure that he trusted in Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and Wolfgang Pauli; but not their science.
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson
Thanks for the links to fivethirtyeight (thingsbreak). You could hardly do better on analysis of polling. Used to do baseball statistics, now NYTimes, and right most of the time.
Unfortunately, in our real world, what matters is what is true. It’s all around us:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/
http://www.climatecentral.org/
I think Keith might get it, but this post is a bit too subtle, not laying the reasons out clearly enough, leaving TimG (#1) confused. Matt C (#7) spells it out. Among the passive observer, it seems like there would be at least some bad behavior in any large scientific discipline. To add to that…
I might answer “very likely” to the question. Some hack scientists from science denier groups have conducted fraudulent work, even misleading Congress.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html
Or I might decide not to answer such an obvious junk question, possibly skewing their sample.
Rasmussen is different from most other polling organizations. Instead of making good faith efforts to genuinely ascertain public opinion, it instead exists to influence it.
It’s fairly obvious that the poll was either constructed by someone with no experience in polling, or by someone wanting to drive the answer(s) in a certain direction.
It’s fairly obvious that the poll was constructed by someone who knew exactly what they were doing.