I'm quite sceptical about these US results, especially because
responding to climate change affects you wallet and lifestyle, while the
percentage of the US public trusting scientists about evolution is below
or close to 50%, although Darwinian evolution does not affect your
wallet or (material) lifestyle. 

Alexander Hellemans

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:37 +0100, "Bob Ward" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> That is interesting - I wonder if, as Mike Kenward suggest, a follow-up
> survey could be carried out to see if these percentages have changed.
> 
> There is another interesting US poll that was published last week: 
> http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/ClimateBeliefsJun
> e2010(1).pdf
> 
> It shows that in June 2010, 81% of the public strongly or somewhat trust
> scientists as a source of information about global warming, compared
> with 74% in January and 82% in November 2008. In other words, the trust
> of the US public appears to have been restored to its previous very high
> level.
> 
> However, I am a bit cautious about extrapolating these results to the
> UK. According to the Stanford poll that was mentioned in my first
> message, only 32% remembered reports of the media coverage of the
> problems surounding the UEA, and only 24% remembered the problems
> relating to the IPCC. However, the media coverage about these issues was
> far greater in the UK than in the US, so I think it likely that more
> people here remember the problems and may have had their views affected.
> 
> It will also be interesting to see if the controversies surrounding
> climate science have any effect on scientists' ranking in the annual
> MORI survey of trust in the professions, which I think is due to be
> published in October.
> 
> 
> Bob Ward
> 
> Policy and Communications Director
> Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
> London School of Economics and Political Science
> Houghton Street
> London WC2A 2AE
> 
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham
> 
> Tel. +44 (0) 20 7106 1236
> Mob. +44 (0) 7811 320346
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of dee rawsthorne (TOC)
> Sent: 15 June 2010 11:59
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Complacency about public trust in climate change
> science?
> 
> During a small (about 100 people) public engagement event organised by
> the John Innes Centre in Norwich in May 2009 we asked the audience which
> source of information about climate change did they trust the most. 55%
> said scientists, 41% said they didn't know who to trust, 3% the internet
> and nobody trusted information received from friends, government or the
> media.
> 
> The audience were predominantly (70%) over 60 and well educated, if
> anyone wants a copy of the full results let me know off list.
> Dee
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Ward
> Sent: 14 June 2010 18:33
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PSCI-COM] Complacency about public trust in climate change
> science?
> 
> I would be interested in hearing thoughts from psci-commers on a couple
> of new surveys of public opinion about climate change science.
> 
> A very interesting report was published last Friday by Cardiff
> University on 'Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures
> in Britain': http://www.understanding-risk.org/
> 
> Among its key findings is that while an overwhelming majority (78%) of
> the public think that the climate is changing, this is markedly less
> than the 91% who agreed with this statement in 2005. Only 24% agree that
> climate change is mainly caused by human activity, and 20% disagree or
> strongly disagree with the statement that "most scientists agree that
> humans are causing climate change".
> 
> While this is informative research, I have one criticism - although it
> notes that 40% believe the seriousness of climate change is exaggerated,
> it does not explore to what extent scientists are trusted as a source of
> information, even though there has been a lot of negative media coverage
> over the past six months about the controversies involving the
> University of East Anglia and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change.
> 
> This is in contrast with a new poll published last week by Stanford
> University which includes an examination of whether trust has been
> affected by these controversies:
> http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/Global-Warming-Survey-Selected-Re
> sults-June2010.pdf
> 
> Among its findings are that 32% of the US public remember hearing about
> the controversy over the UEA e-mails, and a small but detectable
> minority (9%) now believe as a result that scientists who study the
> world's climate should not be trusted. Similarly, 24% of the US public
> remember hearing about the controversy over mistakes in the last report
> by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and 13% now believe as
> a result that the report should not be trusted.
> 
> I have not seen a single poll of the UK public that has asked about
> trust in climate scientists, even though the UEA controversy is much
> closer to home and the volume of media coverage has been much greater
> here. Surely this is worth investigation by researchers? Or maybe there
> is a perception in the UK that public opinion hasn't been affected? Or
> we think it doesn't matter? Are we being complacent?
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Ward
> 
> Policy and Communications Director
> Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment London
> School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2A
> 2AE
> 
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham
> 
> Tel. +44 (0) 20 7106 1236
> Mob. +44 (0) 7811 320346
> 
> 
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer:
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/planningAndCorporatePolicy/legalandComp
> lianceTeam/legal/disclaimer.htm
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, send
> an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:
> 
> set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]
> 
> 2. To resume email from the list, send an email to
> [log in to unmask] with the message:
> 
> set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]
> 
> 3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the
> message:
> 
> leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]
> 
> 4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including
> list archive, can be found at the list web site:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
> 
> 5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication
> and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
> 
> 6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> **********************************************************************
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, send
> an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:
> 
> set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]
> 
> 2. To resume email from the list, send an email to
> [log in to unmask] with the message:
> 
> set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]
> 
> 3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the
> message:
> 
> leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]
> 
> 4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including
> list archive, can be found at the list web site:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
> 
> 5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication
> and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
> 
> 6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> **********************************************************************
> 
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer:
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/planningAndCorporatePolicy/legalandComplianceTeam/legal/disclaimer.htm
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
> send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following
> message:
> 
> set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]
> 
> 2. To resume email from the list, send an email to
> [log in to unmask] with the message:
> 
> set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]
> 
> 3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the
> message:
> 
> leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]
> 
> 4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list
> archive, can be found at the list web site:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
> 
> 5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication
> and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
> 
> 6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> **********************************************************************
> 

**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:

set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]

2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:

set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]

3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:

leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]

4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html

5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk

6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************