The Huffington Post--this weeks target--has a headline blaring:
Poll: 73% Of Americans Say US Should "Participate" In Kyoto...
The headline links to an article describing a poll that indicates that yes, 73% of Americans think the US should sign on to Kyoto. But who conducted the poll you ask? An organization named the Program on International Policy Attitudes (Pipa).
They sound like a legit organization, or as my Mom would say "they have a website and everything". Well who are the main supporters of this organization? Let's have a look:
Rockefeller Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Tides Foundation
Ford Foundation
German Marshall Fund of the United States
Compton Foundation
Carnegie Corporation Benton Foundation
Ben and Jerry's Foundation
Americans Talk Issues Foundation
Circle Foundation
I'll pick a few out at random and see what they're all about. We'll start with the Tides Foundation.
The Tides Foundation has on their site the following:
Tides Foundation works with individuals, families and institutions to strengthen community-based nonprofit organizations and the progressive movement through innovative grantmaking.
Hmmm, "progressive movement", they must be conservatives.
Next we'll take a look at the Ford Foundation created by the admirable Henry Ford:
Peace is a precondition for the full achievement of the foundation’s mission to strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation and advance human achievement. Armed con?ict destroys not only human lives but also livelihoods, governments, civil institutions, trust— in short, everything in its wake.
Damn, sounds like another Republican group. Let's see, I know this organization that conducted the poll is liberal, perhaps if I just poke around a little more.
How about ice cream salesguys Ben and Jerry. I know they were capitalists at one time but maybe they've strayed over to the liberal side. Here's what they have to say:
The Ben & Jerry's Foundation offers competitive grants to not-for-profit, grassroots organizations throughout the United States which facilitate progressive social change by addressing the underlying conditions of societal and environmental problems.
There's that word "progressive" again. Man, I've searched the entire site and all I can find are conservative groups.
Oh well, the whole point of this post was to prove that the poll was conducted by a group that leaned toward the left. I guess I'll just have show hard, "reality based" data to prove my point:
The cost of a Government Kyoto Protocol botch-up could soar as high as $1.2 billion – more than double that estimated by the Treasury last month – a new report claims.
The Government last month admitted that it had miscalculated New Zealand's greenhouse gas growth, for which it is liable under the Kyoto Protocol, resulting in an embarrassing $500 million bill rather than a $500m credit.
But the situation could be even worse, accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) says.
The PWC analysis shows the company believes the $500m bill estimate is also wrong. It believes the liability will be more like $1.2b to $1.7b above the original estimate.
Do you think the "poll" findings will change if American's saw that a country that produces 0.2% of all the world emissions got slammed with a $1.2b bill, they would support a treaty that would cost the US tens of trillions of dollars? I think not.
The Huffington Post is going to give the Internet a bad name if it keeps linking to phony polls by partisan groups.
Hat Tip--The indispensible Tim Blair
Friday, July 08, 2005
A Slanted Poll
Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
a) Does the fact that a poll is conducted by an organization backed by "liberal" companies invalidate said poll out of hand? Not sure I follow this line of reasoning.
b) "Phony poll?" Was a poll not conducted, or is that you just don't like the results of it?
c) I think Americans would be for the Kyoto Protocols at any expense if they knew the alternative is international cataclysm by mid-century. 10 tril would be cheap for averting that. Oh yeah, I forgot, "the science is inconclusive," right?
You should read the New Yorker's three part installment on global warming, if you haven't.
Indeed - as any good man of rhetoric will tell you, if a crazy man tells you the sun is shining, it doesnt make it dark outside.
I happen to work in the environmental business and can tell you that you can manipulate data to say whatever you want.
Point by point:
a) If Rove came out with a poll saying that 75% of Americans support Bush and the Iraq War, would you look at that as 100% truthful or take the source into account? The organization is a liberal organization and therefore the validity of their results is called into question.
b) Yes a poll was conducted, and it has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. Look at what happened during the last presidential race with regard to polls. They were all wrong. 800+ people is not the opinion of America.
c) The international cataclysm you speak of is not a certainty. As I said, I work in the business and know damn well what you can spin data into.
As for the New Yorker piece, I have read it and question some of the analyses.
The USA is at the forefront of reducing emissions, more so that nay other nation. Can we do more? Yes we can. Is Kyoto the answer? Ask the New Zealanders how they like ponying up billions.
a) If Rove came out with a poll saying 75 percent of Americans support the war, we'd both know it was a lie.
b) Gallup's numbers in the 2000 race were off by around 10 points. Still, that didn't make it a "phony" poll. That made it a "crappy" poll. There's a distinction somewhere in there...
c) Every piece of reputable scientific thought that I've been able to dig up on the subject supports the notion that, one, there is a so-called "greenhouse effect" taking place, and that, two, in the next thirty to forty years, it will have caused major climate change. Estimates vary as to how cataclysmic the change will be, but not as to the basic cataclysmic nature of the change. The administration's disingenuousness and casuistry on the topic is shameful. More studies, indeed.
I'd be interested to hear what analyses you question. And personally, I'd be willing to pay an extra percentage point or two in taxes if it would keep Amsterdam from becoming the next Atlantis.
Okay, anonymous, you go right ahead and pay the extra tax. Does it make any difference if there's every chance your contribution won't matter beans to whether or not the newest dance craze in Amsterdam is the backstroke?
Point (b): ever head of a push poll?
As far as point (c) is concerned...straw man. The estimates I've seen is that Kyoto is worth something like a tenth of a degree in 2100. If cataclysm is coming at mid-century, Kyoto won't do a blessed thing about it.
Thanks for playing, though.
Kyoto would be a step in the right direction. Certainly better than sitting in the corner with our fingers in our ears, singing "la la la," which seems to be the current administration's approach. I mean, we can argue about approaches, but most scientists agree that GW is a reality; something GWB won't even admit.
And, yes, I've heard of push polls. Do you or the author have evidence that the poll cited was a push poll? Or is your point that only non-partisan polls are credible? Gallup, ahem...
My point is that polls for the most part are not a fair assessment of American thought. 800 or a 1,000 people can never truly show the thoughts of 250-million.
They are even less of an example when they are done by a partisan group.
Kyoto is a sham as the world is about to find out. Nations will always act in their self-interest whether it's within the UN or an environmental treaty.
Wake up my friend. The world has had numerous temperature swings throughout its history and this is just another.
Oh, okay. I thought your point was that this was somehow a more egregious example of partisan polling than, y'know, all those other polls. It seems you're now saying all polls are bullshit, which I would agree with 1000 percent.
I have to 1000 percent disagree with you, however, about this being a "normal temperature swing." Some facts:
2000 years ago, CO2 levels were at about 280 parts per million, and remained at the same level until the invention of the steam engine. 150 years later, CO2 levels were at 315 ppm; 1970 - 330 ppm; 1995 - 360 ppm. Current projections put CO2 levels at 500 ppm during the middle of the 21st century. Paraphrasing an article in Nature, the last time CO2 levels were at 500 ppm was during the Eocene period when there were no polar icecaps and sea levels were 250-300 feet higher than today.
Other fact - The year 1998 is the hottest on record, followed by 2002, 2003, 2001, and 2004.
I could go on and on, but I'm sure you'd have a casual dismissal waiting for me. Is there any hard science to back up claims that there's no GW, or that it's not man-made? If so, please provide. The bulk of prominent scientific thought on the matter disagrees with you and the other Pollyannas.
Since I have to go to work, I don't have time to rebut your stats at this time. Just one question; how are you powering your computer? Are you generating the power by hooking it up to a bike and pedaling furiously?
I know the Netherlands has wind power, is that what you're using?
Get off the self-righteous Europe is not responsible for emissions bullshit. The US is the #1 country for emitting the so called Greenhouse Gases, but is also on the cutting edge of clean technology. The Fiats, and Saabs of the world are behind the times.
...and there's the casual dismissal I was waiting for!
Also: On the totally irrelevant topic of whether I'm energy-conscious, actually, I don't drive a car. Onward...
What "self-righteous Europe is not responsible for emissions bullshit" are you talking about? Read back over my posts and show me where I absolve Europe of responsibility. I hardly think it's self-righteous to point out that European nations are signatories of the Kyoto protocol and are willing to admit there's a problem.
Still looking forward to a refutation involving more than a blanket dismissal of my posts and the accumulated consensus of world scientific opinion.
Post a Comment