Washington post survey, including AGW questions

[nigelfr]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/poll...

The questions relevant to AGW seem to be 33-37.

You'll have to look for yourself as I can't be bothered to sort out the formatting of a cut'n'paste.

[Funk Odyssey]

you're really selling this thread

[nigelfr]

Well, it ain't easy to sort out the formatting. Would you like to try please?

[Bing o]

Since when did the opinions of 1,001 Americans have any bearing on the actual science???????

[Einion Yrth]

Bing o said:

Since when did the opinions of 1,001 Americans have any bearing on the actual science???????

None. It was interesting to see however that, despite years of scaremongering propaganda, they only think it's worth between 10 and 25 bucks per month to them.

[nigelfr]

Er, and your point is? I didn't realise this was a science thread.

It's a survey... it's just opinion. But it is interesting to see that apparently the anti-AGW propaganda isn't being swallowed wholesale in the US.

[Nick_F]

What anti-AGW propaganda? Anything even remotely comparable in terms of coverage and effect with the output of Al Gore Inc.?

[Einion Yrth]

Nick_F said:

What anti-AGW propaganda? Anything even remotely comparable in terms of coverage and effect with the output of Al Gore Inc.?

Indeed. I don't think nige quite understands irony.

[nigelfr]

Einion Yrth said:

Bing o said:

Since when did the opinions of 1,001 Americans have any bearing on the actual science???????

None. It was interesting to see however that, despite years of scaremongering propaganda, they only think it's worth between 10 and 25 bucks per month to them.

I'm not sure that that is supported by the survey, as the figures shown for those questions (35 and 36) may also include the people who were against Cap and Trade in the first place. (Q 34)

[Einion Yrth]

nigelfr said:

Einion Yrth said:

Bing o said:

Since when did the opinions of 1,001 Americans have any bearing on the actual science???????

None. It was interesting to see however that, despite years of scaremongering propaganda, they only think it's worth between 10 and 25 bucks per month to them.

I'm not sure that that is supported by the survey, as the figures shown for those questions (35 and 36) may also include the people who were against Cap and Trade in the first place. (Q 34)

10 bucks - clear majority for
25 bucks - clear majority against

Inconclusive, yes, but I draw a not unreasonable inference.

[nigelfr]

Nick_F said:

What anti-AGW propaganda? Anything even remotely comparable in terms of coverage and effect with the output of Al Gore Inc.?

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=712005&mid=126166&nmt=Denial%20Machine%20(CBC%20-%20Fifth%20Estate)

[esselte]

I may be reading it wrongly but it appears that more people are against doing stuff that is said to mitigate CO2 than at this time last year...?

[nigelfr]

Einion Yrth said:

nigelfr said:

Einion Yrth said:

It was interesting to see however that, despite years of scaremongering propaganda, they only think it's worth between 10 and 25 bucks per month to them.

I'm not sure that that is supported by the survey, as the figures shown for those questions (35 and 36) may also include the people who were against Cap and Trade in the first place. (Q 34)

10 bucks - clear majority for
25 bucks - clear majority against

Inconclusive, yes, but I draw a not unreasonable inference.

Yes, I agree your inference is not unreasonable as far as the costs of C'n'T (No that is not an attempt to bypass the swear filter) go. But it doesn't address the total cost of combatting AGW that they may be prepared to pay, as C'n'T is only part of the story.

And of course, the survey is biased in that it only mentions the costs, not the long term potential gains.

[Einion Yrth]

nigelfr said:

And of course, the survey is biased in that it only mentions the costs, not the long term potential gains.

Stern and his efforts vis a vis the 'cost' of 'AGW' with no considferation of potential benefits springs rather rapidly to mind.

[nigelfr]

esselte said:

I may be reading it wrongly but it appears that more people are against doing stuff that is said to mitigate CO2 than at this time last year...?

Well actually, you're right. Support for C'n'T is slightly down and so is support for US action.

[jeff m]

It was probably a survey or 10,000 but 9,000 hung up before the end.

A survey of a thousand is quite small.

I did one of these once, I answered "somewhat impartial" and they hung up on me.