Slashdot Mirror
Pew Survey Documents Gaps Between Public and Scientists
PvtVoid writes: A new Pew Research Study documents an alarming gap between public perception of scientific issues and the opinions of the scientists themselves, as measured by a poll of AAAS scientists. Even worse, the gap is partisan, with clear differences between Republicans and Democrats, and between conservatives and liberals. For example, while 98% of AAAS members agree with the statement that "Human beings and other living things have evolved over time", only 21% of conservatives agree, compared with 54% of liberals. Global warming, similarly, shows an ideological gap: 98% of AAAS scientists agreed with the statement that "the Earth is getting warmer mostly due to human activity", compared with 21% of conservatives and 54% of liberals. Encouragingly, almost everybody thinks childhood vaccines should be required (86% of AAAS members, 65% of conservatives, and 74% of liberals.) Go here for an interactive view of the data.
In order to succeed as a scientist, one must be of above-average intelligence.
The opinions of above-average people, on issues that require above-average intelligence to really understand, will naturally be at variance with the opinions of merely average and below-average people.
I am sure there are plenty of average people who would disagree with me on this, however.
The correct figures for the Global Warming question are: AAAS members 87%, conservatives 29%, liberals 76%.
A segment of the population has views that are different from the average of the entire population.
Do the same thing with investment bankers and you'll see lots of gaps as well.
Do it with politicians versus everyone else... gaps.
Do it with police officers versus everyone... gaps.
Look at our little community here on slashdot. Are our views analogous to the general population? Nope. Lots of gaps.
So... I don't quite get the point of the survey. There have always been gaps between scientists and the general public and always will be just as there are gaps between any sub group and the whole and ALWAYS will be.
Meaningless.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The question of anthropomorphic global warming and evolution can be studied and understood on a factual basis as can whether vaccines help. Whether vaccines should be required is not a question for science to answer. The summary conflates matters of fact and matters of judgement.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Isn't that kind of the point of living in a free country? We're all entitled to our own beliefs. Why is it "alarming" or "even worse" that one group doesn't agree with another on a particular topic?
I mean, it's not like this hasn't been discussed before... Ignorance is strength...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
An authoritative, expensive survey to affirm what we already know. What's remarkable is that few will argue the results. You might think that conservatives would be embarrassed to see that their kind don't believe in evolution, but since they are conservative they probably agree. It's difficult to see who benefits from this exhaustive study.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Aside from pointing out the glaringly obvious (people who identify themselves as Conservative gave responses consistent with what you would expect from people who identify themselves as conservative, same for LIberals), /. the summary ignores far more interesting points.
1) There is a much smaller difference between Republicans and Democrats than there is between Conservatives and Liberals, e.g. the Evolution question goes from 21% versus 54% (Ideology) to 57% versus 72% (Party Id).
2) Several of the questions show a fairly small difference between Republicans and Democrats (pesticides, animal research, world population, vaccines, manned space programs, bioengineered fuel, and space station).
Assholes as a Service
Take, for example, Global Cooling back in the 1970's. That was refuted with Global Warming in the 2000's
It was refuted in the 1970s, not the 200's. It was never a popular theory. No one should doubt Global Warming on the basis that the scientific community switched its stance. It never did: the majority of scientists were saying it was warming all along.
now it's simply Global Climate Change
It has been called "climate change" since before 1988, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed. Today, people act like the name is some kind of knee-jerk defense against the switch between "global cooling" and "global warming" when in fact, there was no name change at all, nor was there ever a switch.
What I see is people turning more and more away from learning, actual knowledge, and truth, and turning back towards religion
Where do you see that? Church membership per capita is way down in the US.
Also keep in mind the the Pew Trust is notoriously liberal, especially related to environmental issues. It isn't a surprise that their survey pushes their agenda. They're also known for sending their own employees (and having them claim to be from the general public) to attend congressional hearings so it appears there's more grass root support for their causes than there actually is.
Strange, but I'm finding I agree with this.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04...
Amazing how this sort of thing works.
Take another look at the numbers for Republican vs. Democrat. They are much closer than the summary (mis)led you to believe by quoting the Conservative vs. Liberal numbers.
Also notice the subtle wording of the AGW question: "The earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity". The word "mostly" is clearly there to bias the answers. They didn't ask "Is the earth getting warmer?", or "Is human activity contributing to the earth getting warmer?"
It's hard to trust anyone who's work is disseminated by the government or media today.
That's an assertion that's hard to challenge in the libertarian atmosphere of slashdot.
Research and reports are spun mercilessly for the gain of whoever needs it.
Indeed, it's always wise to track down the actual original data, and actually look at the data and see what we know, and how well we know it, rather than to trust the media interpretations.
It may not be scientist's fault but when you hear something like "the sky is falling" and then hear it refuted over and over, one starts to take things with a grain of salt.
The media does like to run doom and destruction stories-- they are more of a story than talking about things like "slow increase in temperature over a time scale of decades."
Take, for example, Global Cooling back in the 1970's.
OK, let's take it for an example. There was never a scientific consensus about global cooling in the 1970s. The American Meteorological Society did a review, trying to look for the origin of that. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... They summarize: "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.
That was refuted with Global Warming in the 2000's
It was not really "refuted" per se, since it was never a scientific consensus in the first place.
and now it's simply Global Climate Change which seems to be a catch-all.
"Global Climate Change" was the term coined by the (first) Bush administration.
I don't deny GCC but I certainly want to see the data.
Excellent! That's the difference between deniers and skeptics: deniers will make any possible excuse to avoid looking at data. As it turns out, there are literally terabytes of data.
I will suggest starting with the Working Group 1 report, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, which summarizes what is known and how we know it. I'm most familiar with the 4th report (www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html), from 2007, but you might want to go directly to the more recent update, the 5th: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...
From there, dive into the data from whichever source you prefer-- I'd suggest possibly the Berkeley Earth data, which does an interesting job of comparing alternative hypotheses against the temperature data: http://berkeleyearth.org/summa...
What's the old adage that Regan grabbed from the Russian's; "Trust but Verify" I think was it.
Excellent. Much better than the denier's motto: "Never trust, never verify, never look at the facts."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Assholes as a Service
Man, they're putting everything in the cloud these days!
not you, random internet guy.
The numbers above are from the IPCC (albeit from memory, correct some of they are wrong).
Its all nice and dandy to say the sky is falling, but which of the points above do you not agree with?
"anyone who's work is disseminated by the government or media today"
The only other category is "people I've never heard of". Hard to trust them either.
It must depend on what part of the country you live in, because most people I've ever known accept it.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I love stories like this one, which are proven conclusively in the comments section under them.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Thank you. This stupid phrase is promulgated by conservatives who are so afraid that everyone is always out to get them that they no longer know how civil society can work. Hint: It includes the ability to trust.
I love your post. It demostrates how much blind trust you have for infomation that is pro-climate change.
I'd be willing to bet that any anti-climate change info you read, you do the same lack of research and simply assume it's a lie from Big Oil.
You blindly believed and quoted (without any independent research) the summary of a slashdot article.
The article itself gives a different number and submitted mentioned that the 98% was a typo.
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
That number made sense to you because it agreed with your viewpoint so you did no research and blindly accepted the information you were told (and proudly changed the subject line.)
Look at the nuke issue. Scientists want to continue building new nuke plants. Why? Because we KNOW that global warming is a REAL ISSUE that needs REAL SOLUTIONS.
However, Liberals, like conservatives, put their head in the ground and ignore the fact that new gen IV reactors can NOT have the issues that we seen in these gen II and gen III reactors.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually, science came about after the world was determined to be round, and science has always been against witchcraft.
It was conservative religious nut jobs that push concepts of flat earth and witchcraft.
Scientific method came about in 17th century.
But hey, do not let facts get in your conservative religious nut job approach.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm sure there was a time when 9 out of 10 scientists would have said the world is flat
The earth as a sphere has been known for something between 2400 years and 2600 years. Its size was calculated about 2250 years ago, with amazing accuracy for the time. The only major publication whose words could be twisted to reference a flat earth would be the New Testament in Revelations 7:1 (four corners of the earth).
I don't deny GCC but I certainly want to see the data.
I suppose the big questions is: beings as you are here, writing about climate change, why the fuck haven't you ALREADY looked at the data as it's been available for a while now?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
The numbers above are from the IPCC (albeit from memory, correct some of they are wrong).
Correct in the last part: some of them are wrong.
The actual IPCC documents are here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
An interesting graphic comparing various sources of climate change is here: http://www.bloomberg.com/graph...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The difference is that the needle will protect everybody.
OTOH, rape does nothing of the kind.
And if you are opposed to it, please go to Somalia. They will not require it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Indeed, there also is a large gap between the viewpoint of the public and economists.
For example, few economists (11%) agree with the statement "'Buy American' has a positive impact on manufacturing employment", whereas 75% of the public feel that way.
94% of economists feel that NAFTA was a good idea, only 46% of the public agree.
It has been called "climate change" since before 1988, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed. Today, people act like the name is some kind of knee-jerk defense against the switch between "global cooling" and "global warming" when in fact, there was no name change at all, nor was there ever a switch.
Especially as the gist of the theory is: anthropogenic global warming leading to climate change. (And the shift is sensible. If the global average temperature increase didn't lead to climate change, we wouldn't be that concerned with it).
That we don't use that mouthful all the time is no different than you lot calling para-acetylaminophenol, acetaminophen, and we calling it paracetamol. The full thing is just too much. It's just basically a name. The underlying "thing" is still the same. In both cases.
Stefan Axelsson
opinion
[uh-pin-yuh n]
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
To most people, both supporters and opponents, evolution and global warming are a matter of opinion because they don't know enough for certainty. I suppose a lot of them could argue that it's actually a
fact
[fakt]
noun
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
While evolution and global warming are both definitely questions of fact rather than of preference, there are very few who could make that determination themselves rather than trust someone else's judgement.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
please share with us, where did you receive your advanced degrees in environmental science and climatology? it was probably somewhere really prestigious!
How ironic.
congratulations, you correctly identified that not everything in the list was a fact. here's your cookie.
the OPINIONS of the people on that list were ultimately formed based on facts, either real ones or fake ones doled out by alarmists, quacks, or fox news. my point stands.
I meant correct some IF they are wrong.
An infographic for children filled with lines that have no data points is useless.
Besides, it has been shown to be wrong.
The CO2 trend alone is below actual readings.
As for linking to the IPCC... well that was more than useless.
Point out what is wrong or dont bother posting.
This could be easily solved by having a single place (a web site and an app) where the scientific community at large shares with the public what's the current consensus, explained in the simplest terms possible, with links to credible resources to second level and third level of depth.
The site needs to be authoritative, and widely known as the single source from the community, so if anyone ever has a doubt, they know where to go to understand what the scientific community really think about a certain issue.
This does not mean by any means the absence of debate, or the constant change in views and information, but a place where the bulk of the community put their minor differences aside for the benefit of the common good and their own, by helping closing those gaps.
Besides, it has been shown to be wrong.
You seen to think that by just saying that you will make it true.
As for linking to the IPCC... well that was more than useless.
Since you said you were quoting numbers from the IPCC, I would suggest that linking to the IPCC reports would be relevant. Since you now say it is "more than useless" to link to the source that you claimed to have based your post on, I'd say that your post is "more than useless."
I haven't seen anything to make me think you have actually read any of the IPCC reports-- I suspect your poorly-remembered data is something you poorly-remembered from some political blog somewhere. Have you actually read anything from the IPCC, the work you claim to be quoting?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, but you heard this really neat meme, that, if it were true, would be a slam dunk for the opinion you hold. The problem of course is that the "98% of the scientific community" claim is not supported by any actual studies. The actual study said that 97% of papers on climatology published in peer reviewed journals supported anthropogenic global warming. The thing is that the study counted any paper on climatology which did not explicitly express the the position that anthropogenic global warming was NOT true as supporting the theory, even when the subject of the paper was not connected to that theory in any way.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
", with clear differences between Republicans and Democrats, and between conservatives and liberals. For example, while 98% of AAAS members agree with the statement that "Human beings and other living things have evolved over time", only 21% of conservatives agree, compared with 54% of liberals. "
I hope PEW wasn't equally sloppy about conflating the republican/democrat axis with the conservatives/liberal axis.
Ok let's say that only 60% of experts agree that man is the primary cause of the current trends. A number that I pulled out my anus, and is surely way too low.
I'm going to go with 60% of the experts.
Incidentally, those are the 60% that aren't on the payroll of the oil or coal industry.
AAAS = American Association for the Advancement of Science
Acquiring an education at university level (at a reputable university) requires one to be able to grasp a coherent set of ideas and techniques that together form the tissue of established science.
A student's grasp of the subject matter is (in reputable universities) not tested by measuring if people can regurgitate the material (achievable by rote learning), but if they can *apply* the tools to a new problem and if they can correctly assess and explain the impact and importance of e.g. changing one or two basic propositions of the theory.
That is how you test if a student has actually understood something they learned. And no, the questions that result from this line of approach can't be found in the books and can't easily be prepared for.
Correctly answering questions like that demands knowledge (a student must *know* (i.e. have memorised) enough of the subject matter) as well as intelligence (defined as sufficient grasp of the theory and an ability to use the theory to reason with it (i.e. apply it), and (this is how you recognise very good students) the ability to reason *about* the theory).
So by and large, someone who is educated in a reputable field at a reputable university and has better than minimum passing grades is intelligent. If they can grasp, apply, and reason about one theory, they will be able to do the same with other theories. Those tend to be the people that go into research by embarking on a PhD (at reputable universities).
So there's the causal link underlying the correlation between intelligence and education.
Of course there are a fair number of diploma mills that focus on testing memory. There you don't receive an education, you memorise a syllabus and learn how to avoid saying anything not covered by the text you learned.
The only significant group that doesn't approve of it are evangelical creationists and they're not numerous enough make that claim.
What is more the survey is conflating POLITICAL positions with scientific positions. What someone will "say" on a survey to show political affliation is not the same thing as "what I ACTUALLY believe".
The accuracy of these surveys is undermined by a long list of issues.
Sample selection. Sample size. Question phrasing. Whether people LIE to pollers... look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?
Its very hard to get accurate polling on politically charged issues.
This is why amongst other things we have secret ballots. Why is that? Think about it. People would feel pressured to vote otherwise if they were being personally identified by anyone when they voted. And the pollster is doing that... even if only the person collecting the data sees it.
This is why people at the DMV ask people in person if they want to sign up for organ donations. The government has figured out that if you ask people at that moment they're more inclined to say yes. Where as if people just fill out a form and hand it in... they don't check that box as often.
Think about that.
This all biases the results.
On issues of climate change... there are so many different positions on that... whether you're generally pro or anti... there is a lot of nuance... in science and outside of it. To abstract it all to one question with a yes or no answer is an over simplification of what are complicated questions.
The questions being asked are also cherry picked to put progressives in the best possible light. There are quite a few issues progressives believe in that are not backed by science. We could shift the questions to those issues and they'd likely do poorly by the same standard.
The obvious intention of what is effectively an editorial poll is to put progressives in a good light.
I'd like to know who paid for this poll... it wouldn't surprise me if the poll were designed and paid for by a lobbying group. Pew conducted the poll... sure... but you can control the outcome if you control the methodology.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yeah, right. Let's believe anonymous cowards on facebook as reliable sources; they know much more than actual scientists.
Citation needed.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Ah yes, the ability to trust. Tell that to my aging parents who live with me because social security is inadequate. Just another great promise of the government you feel I should trust implicitly. And certainly I should trust anyone who is looking for their next research grant and needs to prop up something as big as climate change too.
I have a suggestion: I suggest you try analyzing blogs that attack climate science with just as much skepticism as you are applying to the actual climate science. You're showing one-sided skepticism: skeptical of the science, but completely credulous of the attacks on the science.
That blog post you link is full of misdirection and not-quite-right analysis. The graph by Bloomberg cites that the data graphed comes from the GISS. In fact, it is from a 2005 paper, Hansen, et al. "Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS model E." Clim. Dyn., 29, 2007, pp. 661-696). The Watt's up post, though: what's up with that? He wrote a long and superficially detailed analysis... without linking a single reference. Why no references? It looks like he doesn't want you to check what he did. His motto is, apparently, "trust me... and don't verify".
Why does he not link to the source of all the data he is analyzing? Doesn't that even slightly make you wonder?
Then, he says it's "convenient" that the graphed data stops at 2005. Well, it's not terribly suspicious: since the paper referenced was published in 2005, it would be surprising if the data didn't stop in 2005). He then shows a graph that purportedly shows "the widening divergence between models and reality" that purportedly starts in 2005. No link to the actual source of that data, though it's easy enough to find. He prints that graph-- the largest graph in the criticism-- without mentioning that it's not even graphing the same thing as the article he's criticizing.
He leaves off any explanation of where the data comes from probably because the data points graphed are not surface temperature-- this is the temperature in the mid-troposphere: 8–15km in altitude (and, to boot, only in the tropics, not the global average under discussion.)
The graph Watts Up put in without explanation is charting something completely different than the subject being discussed! Now, you can argue (and Christy does) that tropical mid-troposphere temperate is something important to understand and model... but that's a change of subject from what the article being critiqued discusses.
Why doesn't he say that?
The answer is obvious: this is misdirection. He's not trying to spread understanding. He's trying to spread confusion.
Start reading the Watts Up with the same skepticism you are applying to the actual science. Check his references. Look for misdirection and changes of subject. There's a dozen places right in that post you link that you can find things that you ought to find suspicious.
...About the IPCC reports. Indeed I have read them.
No, you haven't.
Your posts show no knowledge of anything except the denier arguments. If you had read the actual work that the denier blogs are attacking, you'd be able to comment with some actual understanding, instead of the comments you are posting with weasel-wording of "I am quoting from memory, I may be wrong." What a great weasel wording! You already told me that you think you might be wrong!
As usual, your side doesn't debate anything, only appeals to authority.
I linked to the source that you stated you were getting your facts from. You were the one appealing to authority: I just posting the link.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I didn't say that.
In '58, the famous essayist CP Snow published an essay entitled, "On the Two Cultures". In it, he was talking about the cultures of the sciences vs. the liberal arts. He noted, for example, that he knew plenty of scientists who could quote Shakespeare chapter and verse, but not one liberal arts person who even knew the simplified three laws of thermodynamics.
It's gotten much worse, and spread, thanks to the GOP's explicit building a reliable base of yellow dog Republicans out of the extreme right, the conspiracyists, the group that wants their RIGHTS (but aren't interested in their responsibilities) andthe funnymentalists who think the world's only 6000 years old. Then the media whose owners want that legal and tax and spending agenda treat them as "equally valid", and dumb down the science in school, and this is what you get: the party adherents whose mind is made up, don't confuse them with facts.
mark "the RW trumps your opinion"
The only significant group that doesn't approve of it are evangelical creationists and they're not numerous enough make that claim.
What is more the survey is conflating POLITICAL positions with scientific positions. What someone will "say" on a survey to show political affliation is not the same thing as "what I ACTUALLY believe".
The accuracy of these surveys is undermined by a long list of issues.
Sample selection. Sample size. Question phrasing. Whether people LIE to pollers... look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?
Its very hard to get accurate polling on politically charged issues.
This is why amongst other things we have secret ballots. Why is that? Think about it. People would feel pressured to vote otherwise if they were being personally identified by anyone when they voted. And the pollster is doing that... even if only the person collecting the data sees it.
This is why people at the DMV ask people in person if they want to sign up for organ donations. The government has figured out that if you ask people at that moment they're more inclined to say yes. Where as if people just fill out a form and hand it in... they don't check that box as often.
Think about that.
This all biases the results.
On issues of climate change... there are so many different positions on that... whether you're generally pro or anti... there is a lot of nuance... in science and outside of it. To abstract it all to one question with a yes or no answer is an over simplification of what are complicated questions.
The questions being asked are also cherry picked to put progressives in the best possible light. There are quite a few issues progressives believe in that are not backed by science. We could shift the questions to those issues and they'd likely do poorly by the same standard.
The obvious intention of what is effectively an editorial poll is to put progressives in a good light.
I'd like to know who paid for this poll... it wouldn't surprise me if the poll were designed and paid for by a lobbying group. Pew conducted the poll... sure... but you can control the outcome if you control the methodology.
1) Pewe polls are paid for by the Pew Trust, whose mission is "Improving public policy, informing the public, and invigorating civic life" so, I imagine for you that's pretty far left.
2) It's not as if you could read the methodology and find out what they did wrong. Oh wait, http://www.pewresearch.org/top...
3) So, we see once again, that whenever something appears on the internet which may be interpreted as critical of the right, rightwingers will appear en masse to post comments demonstrating that it is correct. In this case, that rightwing opinions do not tend to be based on study of the facts involved, rather they are formed a priori and a bunch of hypothetical arguments as to why the opposing argument might not be true are produced in support. qed.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
On the web site, if I click (under Ideology) "Safe to eat foods grown with pesticides" and then "Humans and other living things have evolved over time", the percentages shown for the latter will match the former (31-27-25-68%). If I click "The earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity" and then "Humans and other living things have evolved over time" once again I see the statistics associated with the former (29-56-76-87%).
Perhaps the OP wrote incorrect figures due to this bug in the web site?
1. I didn't claim they were left wing. I claimed the poll was a progressive puff piece.
2. If you read their discussion on the methodology of that poll, they actually fucking say what I said in my post to a large extent about the findings not being indicative of a scientific position.
3. As to right versus left... are you implying that progressives don't complain when hit pieces are published about them? Who do you think you're fooling besides yourself?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
http://www.nature.com/news/why...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/a...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.mysterypollster.com...
http://www.examiner.com/articl...
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/general...
http://www.outsidethebeltway.c...
http://nautil.us/blog/why-were...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07...
http://articles.economictimes....
First few links from the search engine typing in "why are election polls often wrong"...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-pol...
http://time.com/3558932/pollin...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/...
http://www.kansas.com/news/loc...
Shut up. Just close your stupid mouth. Sit down. And don't speak again until addressed. You're an idiot. It has been officially noticed.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. I didn't claim they were left wing. I claimed the poll was a progressive puff piece.
2. If you read their discussion on the methodology of that poll, they actually fucking say what I said in my post to a large extent about the findings not being indicative of a scientific position.
3. As to right versus left... are you implying that progressives don't complain when hit pieces are published about them? Who do you think you're fooling besides yourself?
"I'd like to know who paid for this poll... it wouldn't surprise me if the poll were designed and paid for by a lobbying group. Pew conducted the poll... sure... but you can control the outcome if you control the methodology."
"1) Pewe [my typo] polls are paid for by the Pew Trust, whose mission is "Improving public policy, informing the public, and invigorating civic life" so, I imagine for you that's pretty far left."
"Its very hard to get accurate polling on politically charged issues. This is why amongst other things we have secret ballots. Why is that? Think about it. People would feel pressured to vote otherwise if they were being personally identified by anyone when they voted. And the pollster is doing that... even if only the person collecting the data sees it. This is why people at the DMV ask people in person if they want to sign up for organ donations. The government has figured out that if you ask people at that moment they're more inclined to say yes. Where as if people just fill out a form and hand it in... they don't check that box as often. Think about that. This all biases the results. On issues of climate change... there are so many different positions on that... whether you're generally pro or anti... there is a lot of nuance... in science and outside of it. To abstract it all to one question with a yes or no answer is an over simplification of what are complicated questions. The questions being asked are also cherry picked to put progressives in the best possible light. There are quite a few issues progressives believe in that are not backed by science. We could shift the questions to those issues and they'd likely do poorly by the same standard. The obvious intention of what is effectively an editorial poll is to put progressives in a good light."
"http://www.pewresearch.org/top... [pewresearch.org]"
sorry, but you have to point out exactly what part of that methodology, and/or the discussion of difficulties of accuracy, and all the things you pulled out of your hinders in your OP actually act to "bias" the survey in terms of the findings, i.e. that people's belief in science depends on how closely it matches their a priori beliefs. You suggest that people will fudge the truth, say, to make themselves look better; how exactly does that relate to liberals saying they agree with science regarding AGW more often than conservatives do? Are you saying the liberals are pretending they agree when they don't, and the conservatives are pretending they don't when they do? How exactly does is there anything at all resembling evidence behind all this musing?
"In this case, that rightwing opinions do not tend to be based on study of the facts involved, rather they are formed a priori and a bunch of hypothetical arguments as to why the opposing argument might not be true are produced in support"
" As to right versus left... are you implying that progressives don't complain when hit pieces are published about them? Who do you think you're fooling besides yourself?"
No, I'm saying the outstanding thing about your "skepticism" is that it emanates from wilful ignorance, literally; you could have found out the answers to your questions in seconds, but you didn't care to, as your arguments work better with innuendos based on things you dredge up from your pure dark imagination. FUD on the teacup scale. I provide answers to the questions you ask, and you decide that just proves that you were right the whole time. A posteriori justifying your conclusions, in that you pulled them out of your posterior.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Structure your comments better... decoding your babble isn't worth my time.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Structure your comments better... decoding your babble isn't worth my time.
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now go away, before I taunt you a second time!
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
So apparently you're a legit retard?
Okay then... sorry for upsetting you. Enjoy your pudding.
Explanation for people that aren't drooling all over themselves:
That polling data in relation to elections has problems has been well known. Exit polls especially are very unreliable. You ask someone that just voted how they voted and they often don't feel comfortable answering honestly.
papers have been written about and its a well known element of polling. As to the ease with which opinion polls can be biased by phrasing of questions is also very well known.
There are other issues like who even answers the polls. Many polls have fewer than 5 percent actually consent to have the poll taken which means that 95 percent are self selecting out of the polling. That means the sample is not random.
The issues are many and well known to anyone with any kind of education.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Interesting.
Most people (includign myself) tend to distrust in assertions that have been previosuly refuted, and further, to distrust organisations/groups who make those assertions repeatedly, after they have already been refuted. Take climate denialists for example. They claim that during the 1970's claims about Global Cooling dominated climate discussion, much as AGW has since the 1980's. But that claim ahs been shown to be ridiculous.
Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.
Then they claimed that the climate was not actually warming. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their observations were so wrong.
Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.
Then they claimed that the climate was actually warming, but due to solar variation. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their observations were so wrong.
Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.
Then they claimed that the climate was actually warming, but for reasons unknown, nobody knows why or could ever know, it's impossible to know. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their methodology got it so wrong.
Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.
Then they claimed that the climate was actually warming, but not warming as much as observation would tend to make us believe because mumble mumble CONSPIRACY. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their methodology got it so wrong.
Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.
Then they claimed that the climate was actually warming, but not warming as much as observation would tend to make us believe because models something something. This claim was refuted, but no retraction from the denialists was forthcoming, no explanation as to how their methodology got it so wrong.
Therefore we tend to distrust the claims of climate denialists.
Should I go on?
Actually, the oil industry IS paying for the global warming alarmists.
I would suggest that you learn something about science. You do not do science by consensus. You do science by facts. The facts are that, so far, all of the AGW models have FAILED to accurately predict future temperature changes and most of them have even failed to predict what has actually happened with temperatures when started with the data of a point in the past.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Your inability to make a coherent argument is noted... that leads to an automatic concession by default.
Your concession is accepted.
Take fewer drugs the next time you post and you'll likely do better.
Good day, sir.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
How about you stop grandstanding and discuss the post where I specifically mentioned where in the IPCC reports I got my info.
I would... except you didn't.
Possibly in some other thread somewhere, but in multiple replies to me in this thread you made no "specific mention" of where you claim to have gotten your data. Not only did you not "specifically mention where," you didn't even say which IPCC report you think you got your information from (in fact, this is the first post you've made that suggests that you know that there even is more than one IPCC report.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Your inability to make a coherent argument is noted... that leads to an automatic concession by default.
Your concession is accepted.
Take fewer drugs the next time you post and you'll likely do better.
Good day, sir.
We leave you to your own devices, for nothing properly suits you except hypocrisy, flattery, and lies. Thou reeky rump-fed malt-worm!
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I just took a look and you are correct, the stats do look pretty odd. The sets of stats pos and neg don't add up to 100 so they are including those who returned no answer - That's why only 98% of the AAAS 'believe' in evolution.. the other 2% didn't answer.
The proportion for conservative is still far lower than those for Republican, but the proportion for moderates is about the same as Republican. Probably a lot of the conservatives are Tea Party supporters.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
I cited many examples of people talking about poll inaccuracy. And really the entire issue is common knowledge. I'm not going to debate whether or not the Sun is hot with you. I've already cited more than I needed to cite.
As to opinion polls, actually the topic is about Pew Opinion poll. Kill yourself. No really. Put down the keyboard. Get up. And stop wasting oxygen.
I'll continue answering questions for posterity but we should assume that the poster has done the honorable thing and committed suicide.
As to ignorance regarding poll participation... You really did zero research in your short life didn't you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
What you can see there is that according to Pew... the same organization that did this poll that created this topic says... is that the response rate in 2012 was NINE PERCENT of people contacted. And from the previous years we can see a clear trend line DOWN.
Now when only 9 percent even respond to the call and that 9 percent is not randomly selected but in fact SELF selects that could very easily bias the results.
If someone has an opinion but doesn't want to talk to you for some reason then you won't record their opinion.
The world is better place now that you're gone. There is one less moron. :D
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I cited many examples of people talking about poll inaccuracy.
I don't give the smallest fuck over your many irrelevant citations. I'm simply telling you that your claim about how election polls "very rarely match up with the actual election" is complete horseshit.
Election polls in the US have a long track record of accuracy going back DECADES. The fact that you refuse to recognize this - even when you're pimp-slapped with actual data - just shows how utterly out of touch you are with reality.
As to opinion polls, actually the topic is about Pew Opinion poll.
No you pinhead, the topic at hand is your statement:
Why do you have to constantly be reminded of your dimwitted remark? I guess if I were you, I would want to forget about it too. After all, the only thing dumber than saying it would be defending it...oh wait.
Kill yourself. No really. Put down the keyboard. Get up. And stop wasting oxygen.
What a childish little twat you are.
As to ignorance regarding poll participation... You really did zero research in your short life didn't you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Yes, poll response rates are falling. Yes, declining rates can introduce selection bias. I guess it's a good thing I didn't claim otherwise.
But declining response rates don't automatically cause a poll to be inaccurate. How do I know that? Because the SECOND FUCKING PARAGRAPH of your huffpo article reads:
"Yet the study also finds evidence that on most of the wide variety of measures tested, the declining response rates alone are not causing surveys to yield inaccurate results."
Talk about doing ZERO research. Protip: read through an article BEFORE claiming it supports your position.
What a pitiful display. Your ability to embarrass yourself with a constant flow of ignorant, self-contradictory statements is simply breathtaking. And your multiple sorry ass attempts to move the discussion away from your original statement isn't going well for you. Apparently you are oblivious to that fact.
The world is better place now that you're gone. There is one less moron. :D
I'm not going anywhere, nimrod. I've got lots of free time to help you continue to humiliate yourself.
Are you channeling more of your stupidity from beyond the grave? Alright... I'll link hands with some people and I'll invite you into our circle, spirit... ... Ooooommm.... *meditates on your idioicy* :p
If you don't care about my citations then I'm not going to care about yours either. Okay... moving forward where all citations are invalid... this should be fun!
As to poll response rates not making them less accurate... it does make them less precise though. It has to increase your margin of error pretty dramatically when your total sample size is small and then you're introducing 91% non response rates on top of that. Can you even claim one significant digit at that point?
And lets talk further about how these are telephone polls and they don't poll cellphones. Do you want to know the last time I owned a land line phone? NEVER. I've never had one. I got a cellphone as a kid and have kept the same number ever since. I don't see the point in landlines... people that want them... that's fine... I won't judge but I'll probably never have one. And that's a demographic and socio economic figure as well. Because the people that tend to have land lines tend to be older or richer. I personally do quite well but i'm younger. I grew up with a cell phone. I'm happy with it. And because of that, telephone polls don't touch me.
The thing is that in these opinion polls, you have no way of determining empirically how accurate any of it is.. there's no way to actually know. So any of a billion things could bias a result and who is to say?
You're basically using sloppy telephone statistics as a device to create the news story you want. And I'm supposed to respect any of it? Sorry... I'm not one of the peasants your lot bamboozles with this stupidity.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Person/organization X is Y Ideology
VS
Specific Poll R is biased to support Y ideology.
Is this not obvious?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Are you channeling more of your stupidity from beyond the grave? Alright... I'll link hands with some people and I'll invite you into our circle, spirit... ... Ooooommm.... *meditates on your idioicy* :p
First you'll have to find some people who as out of touch with reality as you are. You can't make a circle when you're alone.
As to poll response rates not making them less accurate... it does make them less precise though.
You've completely lost it. Synonyms...have you heard of them?
But go ahead and waste more time trying to split hairs with semantics. Poll response rates aren't the issue here. The track record of election polls is what's under debate. Since you are yet again trying to divert attention away from your initial position, let me remind you of it ONE MORE TIME:
"...look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?"
Why do you continually try to avoid addressing this claim directly? Oh yeah, it's an indefensible position.
And lets talk further about how these are telephone polls and they don't poll cellphones.
O boy, can we?!? I SO want to talk further about something that has zip zilch squat to do with your original position. Your obvious and clumsy attempts at misdirection are becoming tiresome.
Do you want to know the last time I owned a land line phone?
No.
And I'm supposed to respect any of it? Sorry... I'm not one of the peasants your lot bamboozles with this stupidity.
The only thing people around here expect you to respect are facts. Here's a fun fact: Gallup has successfully predicted the results of 17 of the last 20 presidential elections. Pew has a similar track record. If you want to continue to argue that an 85% success rate equals "very rarely" matching up "with the actual election", I'm here for you. I am more than happy for you to continue to embarrass yourself in front of anyone reading this exchange.
As to circles... sure I can... right hand holds the left... no? :D
As to the notion that you can retain accuracy and precision with 9 percent response rates, ignoring people that only have cellphones, really just a tediously long list of reasons you're wrong... believe what you like. They can make up whatever they want with that system and dupes like you will drop to their knees,close their eyes, and suck their rewards out of a "hose"...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to the notion that you can retain accuracy with 9 percent response rates [blah blah blah]...
What a sad sad person your are. I don't have any notions about accuracy/response rates.
What I do have is polling DATA from every fucking national election since 1936. You claim election polls "very rarely match up with the actual election". I show you a 85% success rate, and you still cling to your ridiculous position.
I guess the fact that conducting polls is an activity of *every* *single* *election* campaign (that can afford them) in the US and elsewhere escapes you. All these politicians spending campaign resources conducting polls are just fooling themselves, because, according to you, polls are worthless.
In your next response, you might consider avoiding yet another attempt at misdirection. Seriously. Using this tactic once is bad enough. Using it over and over and over just makes you look even more brainless.
But hey, continue dancing around in a circle with one hand clasped to the other. Isn't that what retards do?
Really... and all the election polls were accurate?
http://www.yourememberthat.com...
Election polls are frequently wrong. The republicans in 2012 thought they were going to win as I remember.
There is so much evidence that you're choking on stupidity:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
Your argument would require that the polls all agree with each other... but they don't. Every election cycle we have polls that are all over the place.
Are some of them going to be right? Sure... will a shotgun hit a target with some pellets?... easy to do when you blast out bird shot.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Really... and all the election polls were accurate? http://www.yourememberthat.com...
Nobody said ALL the election polls were accurate. YOU are the one who said:
"...look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?"
How many times are you going to point to a SINGLE instance where the polls were wrong? Do you honestly think anyone reading this exchange is is as retarded as you are? The fact is, polls very rarely get elections results wrong. Exactly the opposite of your unbelievably ignorant claim.
Election polls are frequently wrong.
What the fuck does "frequently" mean? Your position is that polls "very rarely match up with the actual election." FACTS disagree with you.
The republicans in 2012 thought they were going to win as I remember.
What the Republicans thought in 2012 has shit to do with the historic accuracy of polls. That Gallup got it wrong in the 2012 presidential election doesn't change the fact that Gallup got it right 85% of the time.
There is so much evidence that you're choking on stupidity: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
I thought you eschewed the validity of citations. Are you sure you want to bring them back into the argument? Why don't you show me some historical data confirming polls "very rarely match up with the actual election."
Your argument would require that the polls all agree with each other... but they don't.
Uh, yeah, more often than not they do. Your argument is that polls are rarely accurate. I have provided DATA nullifying your claim. The best you can do is shit out cherry-picked data.
Continue to make a fool out of yourself. I'd say it's giving me a hard-on, but homo-eroticism is your specialty.