The L.A. Times appears hellbent on overstating the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is man-made. Having corrected a recent article in apparent response to a blog post of mine, they are still materially overstating the percentage, and owe readers yet another correction. The paper originally reported that 62% of Americans believe global warming is a man-made phenomenon. The paper has now corrected that number to 46.5%. But my reporting shows that the true number of Americans who blame human activity is actually less than 25%. Time for a correction to the correction! Click “more” for the details. The paper recently reported that 62% of Americans surveyed believed that global warming was man-made. Reported Dean Kuipers linked a study that showed that percentage represented people who believed in climate change — not necessarily in man-made climate change. I wrote this blog post highlighting the error, and reader Mike K. wrote an e-mail to complain, which I will publish soon. Shortly thereafter, the paper corrected the article — but the correction is still wrong. Kuiarticle revised article states: When participants in the Brookings study said they believed in climate change, they were asked a follow-up question about what they believed to be the cause. Borick noted that about 75% of participants said they believed that climate change was human-caused, about 20% thought it was part of a natural cycle, and about 5% didn’t know. I asked Borick to send me the information regarding these follow-up questions, since it has not been published and was not part of the original study linked by Kuipers. The information Borick sent indicates that 40% (not 75%) of those surveyed believed climate change is “human-caused” (as Kuipers puts it), 21% believed it was part of a natural cycle, and 35% believe it is due to a combination of the two. Kuipers takes the entire percentage of people who attribute it to a combination, lumps that percentage together with those who attribute it to human activity solely, and says (without qualification) that the sum of the two groups “believed that climate change was human-caused.” That is substantially misleading. He could have said 75% attribute those changes at least in part to human actions — but that’s not what he said. Instead, his verbiage implies that 75% attribute the change to human activity . . . period. Which is not true. I could just as easily say that 56% of the people surveyed attributed the change to natural cycles, and only 40% attributed it to human activity. I could reach that number by adding the percentage who attribute the change to natural cycles (21%) and adding it to the 35% who attribute it to natural cycles in part. But that would be misleading, because it would attribute to the 35% a view that there is only one cause for warming (natural cycles), when they actually see it as a combination of factors. That would simply be the mirror image of what Kuipers did: he attributed to the 35% a view that there is only one cause for warming (human activity) when their view was more nuanced. Borick seemed reluctant to criticize the author (as you might expect, since the paper did publicize his survey), but he did agree that the article’s new wording should have read differently: The Times also should have placed in the words “that 75% of individuals attributed climate change at least partially to human activity” in the explanation. I may not have been as clear as I should have been when Dean called me with the follow-up question so blame can come in my direction too. I asked if Kuipers had requested to see the hard data which I have presented here, and he said no. So it’s not necessarily the case that Kuipers was intentionally distorting the data. There could have been a miscommunication. But it’s funny how the errors keep over-representing the percentage of people who believe that warming is attributable to human activity. The paper started at 62%. Then, in apparent response to my post, they changed that to 75% of 62%, or 46.5%. But the true percentage of people who believe warming is solely attributable to human activity is actually 24.5%. While 46.5% see human activity as contributing to the problem, almost half of those believe natural cycles play a role. From 62% to less than 25%. Yeah, I’d say they owe a correction.
Here is the original post:
L.A. Times Still Overstating Percentage Who Believe Global Warming Is Man-Made
The Los Angeles Times recently opened a story on climate change opinion in the following manner : After several years of finding that fewer and fewer Americans believed in man-made climate change , pollsters are now finding that belief is on the uptick. The newest study from the National Survey of American Public Opinion on Climate Change, which is a biannual survey taken since fall 2008 and organized by the Brookings Institute, shows that 62% of Americans now believe that man-made climate change is occurring , and 26% do not. The others are unsure. There’s one slight problem with those opening paragraphs: they are absolutely 100% false . The survey in question reported on public opinion regarding global warming . . . not man-made global warming. Click on the link above to the word “study.” It goes to a short description of the survey. The description is titled “Belief in Global Warming on the Rebound: National Survey of American Public Opinion on Climate Change.” There is a link to a .pdf of the report on the survey. I have gone ahead and uploaded it to my site, so you can read it here . Feel free to search for any evidence that the survey deals with man-made global warming. You won’t find it. The opening paragraph of the report states: After a period of declining levels of belief in global warming there appears to be a modest rebound in the percentage of Americans that believe temperatures on the planet are increasing . . . . The survey, which was fielded in December of 2011, found 62% of Americans agreeing that there is solid evidence that average temperatures on earth have been getting warmer over the past four decades , with 26% of U.S. residents maintaining an opposing view on the matter. These statistics are the same ones mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the L.A. Times article. The problem is that there is no reference to the concept that the survey relates to man-made global warming — the claim made by the L.A. Times . The questions asked in the survey included questions like: “Is there solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer over the past four decades?” and “What is the primary factor that has caused you to believe that temperatures on earth are increasing?” (The latter question does not address what people thought was the cause of warmer temperatures, but what was the cause of their change in beliefs. Answers included factors like melting ice caps, Al Gore’s documentary, and the like.) The difference is huge. The evidence that the planet has been warming, while disputed by some, seems to me be quite strong. Whether that warming is man-made; whether humans significantly contribute to the warming trend; whether the evidence backs up the scientists’ contentions . . . these are questions that are far more subject to dispute. Ironically, the study observes: While Americans who think the planet is warming largely disagree with the premise that the media and climate scientists are overstating evidence about global warming, most citizens who do not see evidence of increasing temperatures on Earth believe that the scientists and the press are distorting evidence about the matter. And they’re right . . . as evidenced by the distortions in this article regarding their opinions! This comes to us via reader G.H., who says he has brought the matter to the attention of the Readers’ Representative. Apparently in vain, since there is no correction appended to the article. I believe this is a black-and-white factual error. The article claims that the survey measures changes in beliefs on man-made global warming, and it just doesn’t. So I’ll make this another of my quixotic battles. This post is the opening salvo. It would be nice if it were the only shot I have to fire, as my time and energy are short. If any of you want to take up the next step and write a letter to the Readers’ Rep , that would be fantastic. I will publish every single one you write, together with any response you receive.
See original here:
Los Angeles Times Distorts Evidence on Public Opinion Regarding Global Warming
Climategate, Fake-gate, and climate data itself have combined to cause the public to view with a skeptical eye claims by climate alarmists that the end is nigh. Every once in a while, the desperation of the alarmists, including, sadly, of scientists who see their incomes at risk from losing the ability to find funding for studies aiming to prove substantial human impact on climate, is laid bare. After all, there isn’t a lot of money to be made by proving that there isn’t a major problem, or even that there is a problem but the cost of “solving” it far outweighs the possible risks. Sometimes the alarmists’ desperation is truly amusing. If you were trying to convince Canadians that the world might come to a horrific end, what would be the first thing you’d claim was threatened by climate change? A gold star for you if you said hockey. Thus it offered a good chuckle when I saw an article in Canada’s National Post ( a publication which is one of the best in allowing climate “skeptics” to express their data and opinions) entitled “Global warming could spell the end of Canada’s outdoor hockey rink.” Seriously, the article starts with this: “A team of Canadian climate scientists is predicting the widespread disappearance of outdoor hockey rinks across the country in the next 50 years due to global warming — with some regions of the sport’s spiritual birthplace likely to witness an even earlier eclipse of old-time shinny on natural ice.” What the authors did was to accept the standard and fatally flawed UN climate projections, and then to say these predictions suggest a threat to Canada’s national sport — indeed to Canada’s national identity. I trust that Canadians, who have demonstrated some wisdom in recent years by electing, and re-electing, a center-right government which has embarked on reductions in the size and cost of government, will not be fooled by this obvious, almost pathetic, desperation.
Continue reading here:
You Know They’re Getting Desperate When…
This is pretty good stuff of Megan McArdle , re Peter Gleick’s own-goal sabotage of climate change advocates by disseminating/allegedly creating a fake Heartland memo on its global warming strategies (not to mention his confessed identity theft): When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right . …but it must be said: Gleick really doesn’t deserve much benefit of the doubt at this point with regard to his probable authorship of the original, blatantly fake, Heartland memo. There is a credible case to be made at this point that Gleick stole the original documents, then created the memo himself; and, given that he’s a self-confessed liar, it’s going to take more than I’m not lying about this for Gleick to get out of it. By the way, I know that a lot of reasonable people are wondering why it is that a scientist – which is to say, somebody whose worldview is theoretically utterly dependent on Truth as an absolute ideal – would lie. For this, let us go to our old Cold War acronym friend: MICE. Which stands for, of course, Money, Ideology, Conscience, and Ego*; it purported to describe why people commit treason, but I think that it works for other motivations as well. In order: Money . If there is no climate change crisis, there is no climate change crisis money from the government. And remember that quote from Ghostbusters? “I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results.” True, it’s not very much money by private industry’s standards – but then, neither is the cash in prison economies, and people get killed over that all the time. Ideology . Alas, there has been a certain, ah, politicization of this issue in Western society. And scientists are not really any more armored against letting their partisan politics color their job performance than are lawyers, doctors, and political bloggers. Conscience . “Well, I know that this is true. I know it! I just… can’t prove it. Yet! But I will! And, until then, I can just… nudge things along. Nobody will ever know, because this is how the numbers are supposed to look; we’ve just had a bit of bad luck with these specific test runs.” – This attitude, by the way, is the one that scientists and engineers dread . When they’re not the ones doing it, that is. Also: this is different from Ideology in that the researcher is motivated by his or her irrational devotion to a scientific theory and not a political entity. Ego . “DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? I created this field of study! It belongs to me and my peers! – and you do not qualify as a peer, sirrah!” This is also a notable drag on the scientific process, and a primary reason why Arthur C Clarke created his First Law (“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong”). Or, to put it more simply: scientists are human beings, with human motivations. Some of those motivations can lead them down paths of stupidity, or even malice. Moe Lane ( crosspost ) *I understand that they’ve added Sex to that since then, but let’s just pass that to one side for right now.
Read the original:
More on the Peter Gleick Fakegate Memo.
[UPDATE: The preliminary steps of removing Peter Gleick from positions of authority and respect have begun: he's 'resigned' from his position with the National Center for Science Education, and his scientific ethics task force chairmanship(!) for the American Geophysical Union. One wonders whether groups like the MacArthur Fellows Program and NAS will insist that Gleick cut all ties from them , as well. Nobody's really expecting the Pacific Institute to join in, of course: it's a well-known reliable quote machine for the American Left .] OK, quick background: last week there was a bit of fuss when a variety of documents appeared that purported to show that there was some sort of nefarious global warming ‘denialist’ (that’s what a Lefty calls somebody who has noticed that, hey, the temperature’s not actually rising the way that people told us it would) conspiracy centered around the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute was not amused by this, and has been making it clear that at least one document was a pathetic forgery. This latter point has generally been conceded by all the players, if tacitly, and the great walkback is beginning. I recommend Watts Up With That for those looking to monitor further developments: that site has been all over this story. But let’s go back to what got revealed, for a moment. The documents can be grouped into two categories: a variety of materials that global warming advocate ( and lecturer on ethics *) Peter Gleick admitted stealing from Heartland **; and the aforementioned pathetically faked document . Since we now know that not even Gleick is standing by the provenance of said document, let us ignore it completely. What it says is irrelevant. It has no bearing. I did not even read it before my summary below of the documents that Gleick stole, solely to keep it from contaminating my assessment. So, what’s in those documents? Fundraising plan – confidential budget and fundraising information that has nothing to do with Heartland’s positions on climate change policy (thus, not germane). Also, this was a general fundraising plan, not one specifically concentrating on climate change. 2012 Budget -…Umm, it’s their general budget. No line items for Sooper Sekret Globeal Wharming Projekt here. Just salary/line item information that’s nobody’s business except Heartland’s. January 17, 2012 Director’s Agenda – They read a bunch of reports at that one. Which happens at every meeting, everywhere, and will continue to do so until the end of time, amen. Notice of January 17, 2012 – I assume that it’s here to get more phone numbers into the internet stream. IRS Tax forms – Man, I hope that whoever is hosting these documents has a good lawyer. October 18, 2011 Director’s meeting – See the entry for the January 17, 2012 Director’s agenda. Board of Directors contact list – Hey, let’s make sure that Heartland staffers get a lot of personalized hate mail/stalkers/harassment! Smooth move there, Peter Gleick. …In other words? Nothing. No conspiracies, no nefarious plans, nothing really of particular interest to outsiders – except, of course, for contact information for Heartland’s top staff, which is provided in handy-dandy format for the Left’s near-psychopaths to use to try to make a bunch of climate “denialists’” lives miserable. Which is really the point to this sort of thing; it’s not actually about the climate, and it’s not even really about the politics. It’s about shutting people up. What makes it even more annoying, of course, is that the people that want to do the shutting up in this case aren’t, well, very bright. Megan McArdle took this memo apart , and effectively concluded that it was written after the fact by somebody who was under the mistaken belief that they could successfully reproduce the tone of global warming skeptics and conservative/libertarian activists. Speaking in a semi-professional manner; no, most people can’t. The ability to successfully imitate people that you despise – truly imitate them, and not just lampoon them – is exceptionally difficult, because in order to think like somebody you have to empathize with them. The problem there is that it’s hard to be empathic toward somebody whom you hate. Well. That’s the generic problem. The specific problem for wayward ethicist Peter Gleick – not to mention the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences , given that Gleick’s unethical behavior directly reflects on both groups – is that he’s claiming that he got the original document before he stole the other ones. Which should be easy to check; he kept the email, right? And it’s on a server that can be checked, right? – And, given that Gleick is so cavalier with other people’s property rights, surely he’ll make it very easy for investigators to see whether or not he’s guilty of libel, as well as identity and intellectual property theft… Moe Lane ( crosspost ) *You know. Ethics. It’s the meta-concept under which we categorize thoughts and precepts like, oh, Thou shalt not steal . **I quote Gleick: “…I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.” The organization would have apparently not provided that information to this particular… researcher… voluntarily; and, given what Gleick did with that information once he illicitly acquired it, you can hardly blame Heartland.
Follow this link:
What are the depths of Peter Gleick’s depravity in the Heartland global warming smear attack? [UPDATED]
