Another One Hides Decline
Stanford University’s Jon Krosnick (Krosnick@Stanford.edu) has either been distorting climate polling to suit his ideological position for years or he is an utterly incompetent pollster. The solid bet is on the former.
Professor Krosnick’s polling results are so woeful that both Pew Research Center Survey and Gallup polling recently took the time to harshly reprimand him for his shoddy work.
Krosnick has been skewing polling results on global warming for years and has been getting caught every time.
See: Flashback 2008: Krosnick’s long history of climate propaganda: ‘Krosnick invents a consensus position: climate change is occurring. But this is a meaningless assertion, devoid of any scientific value the public can expect psychologists to be engaged in brainwashing them into accepting political propaganda’ — ‘Krosnick conducted a poll amongst the public, to see if their beliefs match those of the scientists, but neglected to poll scientists to establish their views’
The latest Krosnick academic embarrassment started with his June 8, 2010 oped in the New York Times. (See: Huh? Stanford U. Prof. Krosnick: ‘Huge majorities of Americans still believe earth has been gradually warming as result of humans & want gov’t regs to stop it’)
Krosnick’s apparent eagerness to skew, propagandize and present intellectually dishonest and shallow polling analysis, simply stuns anyone with even a rudimentary familiarity with recent global warming polls.
The Financial Post’s Lawrence Solomon reveals some of Krosnick’s tactics in a June 21, 2010 article. According to the Financial Post, Krosnick did not release his full report for public scrutiny nor did he show the public the context for his questions.
The Financial Post reports that Krosnick lumped the phrase “global warming” in with “the environment.” Here is the question Krosnick asked: “What do you think will be the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it?” According to the paper, when put this way, 25% of the public responded with “Global warming/the environment.” But Krosnick doesn’t tell us how many of that 25% choose global warming versus the myriad of other environmental issues.
What is most shocking about this point is that for two years running, all major polling has consistently revealed that not only is global warming/climate change the issue of least concern, but it is the lowest concern among all ENVIRONMENTAL issues!
See: 1) March 2010: How could Americans show less concern?! Gallup Poll: Americans rank global warming DEAD LAST (8 out of 8) among ENVIRONMENTAL issues — Not all issues! — Only 28% of Americans worry ‘a great deal’ about global warming — Water and air pollution, extinctions, deforestation, toxic waste, all rank among higher concerns;
5) Gallup: Environmental concerns hit 20-year low in U.S – March 2010
7) Gallup Poll: ‘48% of Americans believe ‘global warming is generally exaggerated’ — ‘Americans now less convinced than at any time since 1997!’ – March 2010 — Gallup: Concern is ‘reverting to levels recorded when Gallup began tracking global warming measures more than a decade ago’ — ‘In 1997, 31% said global warming’s effects had been exaggerated; last year, 41% said the same, and this year the number is 48%’
8) I’m a free fallin, I’m a free fallin: Rasmussen Poll: ‘Only the Democrat base (35%) now thinks climate change is man-made’ – Feb. 2010 — ‘47% now think global warming is naturally-occurring, cyclical phenomenon’ — ‘Belief that human activity is the primary cause of global warming has declined significantly’
9) Zogby Poll: More Americans Have Little or No Concern About Climate Change
(Note: The above are a very, very small sample of recent polling. For a more complete list see below)
For Krosnick to try to pull this low-brow tactic of combining climate and environment as though the public treats them identical, reveals that he is either ignorant of wealth of recent polls or he is deliberately trying to con the public and his own Stanford University.
The Financial Post further explains some of the sleazy polling tactics Krosnick regularly employs:
“Krosnick gets different results than other pollsters do by asking questions that some might consider bizarre. For example, when people told him that they didn’t believe global warming was happening, he asked them to pretend they did by asking them, “Assuming that global warming is happening, do you think a rise in the world’s temperature would be caused mostly by things people do, mostly by natural causes, or about equally by things people do and by natural causes? He then lumped the pretend response from people who don’t believe in global warming with a similar question asked of people who weren’t pretending about their belief in global warming. The result of the merger of these two groups was: 30% blame global warming on humans, 25% blame global warming on natural causes, and 45% believe humans and natural causes are about equally to blame. In the New York Times oped, Krosnick summarized this finding by pretenders and believers as “75% of respondents said that human behavior was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred,” even though many of those 75% didn’t believe that global warming was happening at all. [End excerpt]
Poor Professor Krosnick. One headline last week said it all: Krosnick’s Polling Con Job: ‘When you don’t like the poll numbers, make up your own poll’
The poor professor has not only been caught apparently manipulating data, but his methods have now been exposed for the entire world to see. Krosnick’s academic integrity has now been elevated to the level of the “used car salesman” tactics of the UN IPCC and the Climategate professors.
Shame on you, Mr. Krosnick.
Krosnick has to be given credit for one thing — the man was ambitious to even think he could hoodwink his colleagues, Stanford University, other polling organizations, the blogosphere, and the public. But Krosnic has failed – utterly and embarrassingly failed.
The Financial Post also revealed: “[Krosnick] also chastises the press for interviewing global warming skeptics along with global warming advocates, saying this creates in the public mind the impression that the science is not settled on global warming. 6% of articles on global warming last year included the views of skeptics, a percentage Krosnick evidently views as too high.”
Krosnick’s ideology has sadly clouded his academic integrity.
Roger Pielke Jr. Duped By Krosnick?
The one surprise out of all of this is the only man Krosnick appears to have duped is Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado in Boulder. Pielke Jr. approvingly cited Krosnick’s “faulty” polling in a June 9, 2010 blog titled “The Battle for Public Opinion has Been Over.”
Pielke Jr., agreeing with Krosnick wrote: “As I have said for many years, and documented in The Climate Fix, the battle for public opinion on climate change has been won by those who argue that there is a profound human influence on climate and action is warranted.”
Pielke Jr. has cited Krosnick’s work at other times as well. In a March 15, 2010 blog he wrote: “Jon Krosnick of Stanford University argues that the recent issues in climate science have done very little to alter public opinion in the United States on climate change…Those wanting to continue to argue politics through science will find Krosnick’s analysis unwelcome. However, the fact of the matter is that the battle over public opinion on climate change has long been won by those arguing for a human influence and a need for action.”
What say you now of Krosnick’s exposed “faulty” polling rubbish, Professor Pielke Jr.? (Update: Pielke Jr. Responds to Climate Depot: “The Climate Fix will help set to you straight on this Marc, I conclude: “Political will for action is and has been plenty strong enough for action to occur” (from p. 43). You can see the full analysis when the book is released shortly.” — Morano Response: “Thanks Roger. “Political will” is “plenty strong” for climate “action?” Hardly. Sen. Kerry is afraid to even utter phrase “global warming.” That “plenty strong” sentiment appears to be hiding very well. But the main point is: Are you willing to defend Prof. Krosnick? He really does appear to be somewhat of a polling charlatan.”)
Marc Morano is the executive editor and chief correspondent for ClimateDepot.com, from which this article is republished.
marcmorano
