From: Steven Kull <pipa at his.com> Subject: Misleading ABC release on gobal warming poll
The ABC News release of the new ABC/Washington Post poll on global warming presents a highly misleading depiction of public opinion, demonstrating the dangers of ignoring existing polling. The release makes the statement that "like the Bush administration - most [Americans] part company with scientists' calls for prompt government action" that the majority "overwhelmingly prefer more study to immediate action" and "aligns in this respect with the Bush administration, which has focused on uncertainties in climate science, urged further study and supported only voluntary steps through 2012 to slow greenhouse gas emissions."
Polls from other organizations paint a very different picture. Majorities have consistently favored taking action. Gallup has found 75% favoring "imposing mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases." The Chicago Council found 71% in favor of the US participating in the Kyoto Treaty. PIPA found 81% supporting legislation that puts "limits on how much greenhouse gases large companies can emit" with 67% saying they would favor it if doing so resulted in increases of in energy costs of $15 a month.
The public has not aligned itself with the Bush Administration over and against the scientific community. When Gallup asked whether they believe scientists who have "charged that the Bush Administration is ignoring and distorting scientific evidence concerning the seriousness of environmental problems such as global warming" or the Bush administration, 59% said they believed the scientists. When CBS News told respondents that the US government says that international agreements to reduce global warming "are not based on sound research and would damage the American economy" only 37% said they thought the US is right, 49% said it is wrong and 15% said they did not know.
So how is the ABC release coming to such contrary conclusions? The question that they base their conclusions on asks, "Do you think global warming is an urgent problem that requires immediate government action, or a longer-term problem that requires more study before government action is taken?" Fifty-eight percent (which ABC describes as overwhelming) chose the second option while 38% chose the first. The question forces the respondent to choose between two statements both of which consist of two assertions that do not inherently go together. An assessment that the problem is "urgent" is coupled with "immediate action," while the assessment that the problem is "longer-term" is coupled with "study before government action is taken." What if someone believes that the problem is longer-term but some action is needed now? How do they answer?
When PIPA offered three options a plurality chose that position. Forty-five percent chose, "The problem of global warming should be addressed, but its effects will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost."
Only 23% chose the option, "Until we are sure that global warming, is really a problem we should not take any steps that would have economic costs." While 31% chose, "Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs."
One can quarrel over whether the two or three option form is superior. Three options are not intrinsically better. But when it is easy to imagine how someone could feel boxed in by the two options offered then the result needs to be interpreted with great care.
More importantly, I think that when a major polling outlet conducts a poll they have some obligation to review the existing research that has been done. This is a cardinal principle of all scientific research. An abundance of evidence from numerous sources shows that a clear majority does favor imposing some limits on greenhouse gas emissions. If one produces a finding that is at odds with these findings one should look closely and try to determine why. It is irresponsible to simply ignore these other findings and blithely assert that, based on one finding that the public "overwhelmingly" rejects "immediate action." It creates false impressions of public attitudes and undermines the entire polling profession by adding to the public's incorrect impression that the polls regularly produce results that are grossly and unexplainably contradictory.