Poll - most Americans and scientists disconnected

[billvon 3,132]

From Inquisitr:
=========================
Americans Dismiss Climate Change And Reject Theory Of Evolution In New Survey

http://www.inquisitr.com/1805771/americans-dismiss-climate-change-reject-theory-evolution-survey/#cldm4mULXdy3DOQB.99

February 1, 2015
Americans Dismiss Climate Change And Reject Theory Of Evolution In New Survey

A new survey in the U.S. has revealed that huge numbers of Americans reject the theory of evolution and don’t believe that human activity is in any way responsible for climate change. Although 79 percent of Americans say that scientists are invaluable, a significant number of people do not use science to inform their views on important topics such as climate change.

The report by the Pew Research Center in Washington D.C., sought to compare the opinions of the U.S. public with those held by scientists at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

While a reported 97 percent of the scientists agreed climate change is caused by humans, just 50 percent of U.S. adults believe that humans may be responsible for global warming. Indeed, most participants said there wasn’t enough good evidence for global warming, and that climate changes were due to natural climate variability.

Perhaps most controversial is the finding that 31 percent of Americans believe humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time, with a further 24 percent believing humans have evolved with help from God. In contrast, only 2 percent of the scientists said humans had not evolved in their time on Earth. Only 35 percent of the surveyed public believed that evolution had progressed via natural processes as described by Charles Darwin.

Scientists and the public also disagreed strongly about the safety of GM foods. Fifty-seven percent of the public believed that GM foods were unsafe to eat, in contrast to the scientists, of whom 88 percent had no qualms about eating GM food.

“There is a disconnect between the way in which the public perceives the state of science and science’s position on a variety of issues. And that’s a cause of concern.”

Unlike the issues of climate change, GM, and evolution, in some areas of the survey, scientists and the public were in agreement. Both slammed the standards of U.S. science education and the secondary school system. Among the general public, 68 percent considered U.S. science education average or below average, and 84 percent of scientists agreed.

Alan Leshner, the chief executive of the AAAS, believes that a poor science education and other influencing factors, such as religious beliefs, are responsible for the contrasting opinions.

“Sometimes it’s simply a lack of understanding, sometimes it’s an economic or a political issue, and sometimes it’s a conflict between, say, core religious belief, or core values, and what science is showing. It’s not about whether the public is dumb or not. It’s partly a function of the American educational system that does a terrible job… at educating young people in science, math and technology.”

In response to the survey, Leshner is asking scientists to strike up “respectful dialogues” with community groups and religious institutions, saying “the opinion gap must not be allowed to swell into an unbridgeable chasm.”
====================

[normiss 905]

Reminds me of a piece on NPR I heard yesterday regarding the Disconnect.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Thankfully huge numbers of Americans are smarter than those 97% of alarmist scientists!

Those scientist must have all qualified for free Obama cellphones.

[yoink 321]

Well that makes for depressing reading.

Oh, and this thread will get moved to Speakers Corner in about 2 minutes, where it'll be forever consigned to the trash argument of faith vs science.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Thankfully huge numbers of Americans are smarter than those 97% of alarmist scientists!

Those scientist must have all qualified for free Obama cellphones.

I love it when you guys keep using the 97 percent lie
Keeps your opinions in perspective

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

***Thankfully huge numbers of Americans are smarter than those 97% of alarmist scientists!

Those scientist must have all qualified for free Obama cellphones.

I love it when you guys keep using the 97 percent lie
Keeps your opinions in perspective



It isn't my lie, it is the Pew Research Center lie.

If you want to debunk the lie, please show where their research was faulty.

[billvon 3,132]

>It isn't my lie, it is the Pew Research Center lie.

In fact it's four 'lies' -

Oreskes, 2004
Doran, 2009
Anderegg, 2010
Cook, 2013

All studies demonstrate that at least 97% of scientists agree.

In fact, there are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that will agree with Rush's truthiness. Not one. Perhaps FOX News could publish one?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Rush's assertion can't be wrong...he even had smiley faces with it.

[billvon 3,132]

>Rush's assertion can't be wrong...he even had smiley faces with it.

But no angry misspellings or exclamation points or ALL CAPS words, so perhaps there was some room for error.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I stand corrected....

[jclalor 12]

rushmc

***Thankfully huge numbers of Americans are smarter than those 97% of alarmist scientists!

Those scientist must have all qualified for free Obama cellphones.

I love it when you guys keep using the 97 percent lie
Keeps your opinions in perspective



Could you please enlighten us with what the true percentage is?

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>It isn't my lie, it is the Pew Research Center lie.

In fact it's four 'lies' -

Oreskes, 2004
Doran, 2009
Anderegg, 2010
Cook, 2013

All studies demonstrate that at least 97% of scientists agree.

In fact, there are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that will agree with Rush's truthiness. Not one. Perhaps FOX News could publish one?

that myth has been debunked so many ways it is now funny to see you and others use it
This has been posted on this sight many times
But you ingore it because you like it

God I do love you guys

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

SkyDekker

******Thankfully huge numbers of Americans are smarter than those 97% of alarmist scientists!

Those scientist must have all qualified for free Obama cellphones.

I love it when you guys keep using the 97 percent lie
Keeps your opinions in perspective



It isn't my lie, it is the Pew Research Center lie.

If you want to debunk the lie, please show where their research was faulty.

And again shows that you are either with them or against them. Because assuming the 97% number is totally true, science is all about popularity. I'd suggest it isn't. I'd suggest that the advancement of science depends on the 3% who are out there asking questions.

As to the 97%, I want somebody here to tell me EXACTLY what the 97% believe. Seriously. Tell me the exact definition of climate change that Nuccitelli and Cook (yes, non climate scientist but big time climate blogger/alarmist rhetorician Dana Nutticelli) used. Because as I po it's out, there are two definitions of climate change. One of them is the facial "climate change" definition which nobody doubts. Climate changes

And then there is the political definition of climate change. You know, take "climate change" and give it a new definition that used to be "anthropogenic global warming" but they stopped using when warming wasn't being demonstrated by observations.

There's the challenge. What exactly does the 97% agree upon? Because Nuccitelli believes that there isn't a cloudless day that isn't the fault of climate change, whatever the fuck "climate change" means now.

Dear scientific community: quit changing the definitions of things to fit some political purpose. Climate change means AGW. Climate has always changed.

And a question for any climate scientist or any 97% member. What weather effect can we not expect to see with climate change? Seriously.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

I don't want to go down the conspiracy theory path and get all tin-foil hat, but if I were, it would be pretty compelling to say this is one of the reasons those in the 1% actively promote religion and want to cut public school funding.

It helps sway the vote to the 1% side of things.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Shotgun 1]

These phone survey "statistics" always bug me, no matter what the subject. I'd be willing to bet that there is a different mindset from the type of person who answers his phone and agrees to take the survey vs. the type of person (like myself) who wouldn't be bothered to take the survey or likely wouldn't answer a call from an unfamiliar number anyway. A different mindset that might extend to other areas such as religious, political, scientific beliefs, etc.

Makes it hard to put much significance on the numbers they come up with.

[kallend 2,175]

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.


Also:
www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_letter1.pdf


Seems to indicate a pretty good consensus.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

>that myth has been debunked so many ways it is now funny to see you and others use it

No, no, it really hasn't. Every serious study done on the subject has agreed.

[Shotgun 1]

kallend

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.


Also:
www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_letter1.pdf


Seems to indicate a pretty good consensus.

I was referring to the "general public" (non-scientists) whose opinions were sought through a phone survey.

[billvon 3,132]

>These phone survey "statistics" always bug me, no matter what the subject. I'd be
>willing to bet that there is a different mindset from the type of person who answers his
>phone and agrees to take the survey vs. the type of person (like myself) who wouldn't
>be bothered to take the survey or likely wouldn't answer a call from an unfamiliar
>number anyway.

Agreed.

Four studies were listed above. Three were metastudies of published peer reviewed scientific work. One was an on-line survey sent out to climate researchers who have published in the field. No phone surveys.

[billvon 3,132]

>As to the 97%, I want somebody here to tell me EXACTLY what the 97% believe.

For the first two studies you'd have to read their papers, since the papers, not a poll, were used as the starting point. They are over a very wide variety of topics and all use different language.

For the Doran study the specific question was "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

>I'd suggest that the advancement of science depends on the 3% who are out there
>asking questions.

Asking questions does not equal denying climate change. I assume you ask questions all the time in your field, although you do not deny the rule of law.

[lawrocket 3]

Bill - what is the definition of "climate change?"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Shotgun 1]

billvon

>These phone survey "statistics" always bug me, no matter what the subject. I'd be
>willing to bet that there is a different mindset from the type of person who answers his
>phone and agrees to take the survey vs. the type of person (like myself) who wouldn't
>be bothered to take the survey or likely wouldn't answer a call from an unfamiliar
>number anyway.

Agreed.

Four studies were listed above. Three were metastudies of published peer reviewed scientific work. One was an on-line survey sent out to climate researchers who have published in the field. No phone surveys.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm referring to the survey of the general public.

"The survey of the general public was conducted by landline and cellular telephone August 15-25, 2014 with a representative sample of 2,002 adults nationwide."

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/ (Link from the page you posted.)

[billvon 3,132]

>Bill - what is the definition of "climate change?"

A change in climate, which is basically weather averaged over a long time.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

there is a different mindset from the type of person who answers his phone and agrees to take the survey vs. the type of person (like myself) who wouldn't be bothered to take the survey or likely wouldn't answer a call from an unfamiliar number anyway.

Which enunciates a good tangential point: phone surveys/polls have been around for decades, but since caller-ID has become so universal, and increasingly so many people don't answer the phone if they don't know who it is, the control-sampling reliability of phone surveys may very well be measurably less today than it used to be...

ETA: I really should tell the Gallup company about this. I'm sure it's never occurred to them.

[billvon 3,132]

>Which enunciates a good tangential point: phone surveys/polls have been around for
>decades, but since caller-ID has become so universal, and increasingly so many people
>don't answer the phone if they don't know who it is, the control-sampling reliability of
>phone surveys may very well be measurably less today than it used to be...

Agreed, and they weren't 100% accurate to begin with. Still, they are accurate enough to predict things like elections, referendums and consumer trends with a fair degree of accuracy.