A quick favour?
- Thread starter Nix
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Done although I would note a few points, question 6 seems to assume that question 5 has been answered in the positive (i.e. that you do believe in global warming as a phenomena). Question 12 - is there a scientific consensus? I thought it varied according to who was funding the research but maybe that is just me being cynical. Question 15 - is it careful use of the information available in relation to environmental decisions or just careful use of information generally?
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 655
- Location
- Leeds / Newcastle Uni
done 
done but i don't get q12
As I think it's about the global warming issue where I'm not actually sure what the consensus is, because most of the people who signed the IPCC(or whetever it is) where completely unqualified ie most where scientists in completely unrelated fields to climate change and hardly any where climatologists or sea level experts where as the ones who went contrary where generally related fields ie geology atmospheric scientists and sea level experts.
Also Q 19 is very leading, and should probably be reworded.
Edit: nvm **** it I can't be arsed with that sign up thing at the end get enough spam as it is.
As I think it's about the global warming issue where I'm not actually sure what the consensus is, because most of the people who signed the IPCC(or whetever it is) where completely unqualified ie most where scientists in completely unrelated fields to climate change and hardly any where climatologists or sea level experts where as the ones who went contrary where generally related fields ie geology atmospheric scientists and sea level experts.
Also Q 19 is very leading, and should probably be reworded.
Edit: nvm **** it I can't be arsed with that sign up thing at the end get enough spam as it is.
Last edited:
Sorry for the thread revival, but I thought that some of you would be interested in what this was all actually for. If you've forgotten or don't care anymore, no worries. 
My dissertation was on "Pro-Environmental Behaviour and Mass-Media Representation"
Essentially, I was trying to ascertain the overall consensus of differing groups to test current models around environmental altruism and also explore how, and where the media manage to influence us.
My abstract was as follows:
I used three separate groups for my testing; you lot, the pretentious sods over at TSR, and a focus group of university students.
From the results I obtained, basically you lot contradicted a fair few grounded theories which blew any uniform answer out of the water.
The results showed that you're a sceptical lot when it comes to governance, and strangely enough as it goes against most theories -- the trends showed that as your particular income increased, you became less environmentally friendly. Yet, by and large most of you were both interested and concerned about the environment. Most theories assume that when your income increases, you'll have more opportunity to mobilise, but most of you displayed the opposite.
I found that both education and 'direct experience' were crucial in forming altruistic tendencies towards the environment.
If anyone would like a copy of the results, and/or a copy of my work, feel free to drop me an e-mail and I'll be happy to pass it on if you have an active interest. I will warn you though, it's over 15k words.
My dissertation was on "Pro-Environmental Behaviour and Mass-Media Representation"
Essentially, I was trying to ascertain the overall consensus of differing groups to test current models around environmental altruism and also explore how, and where the media manage to influence us.
My abstract was as follows:
I used three separate groups for my testing; you lot, the pretentious sods over at TSR, and a focus group of university students.
From the results I obtained, basically you lot contradicted a fair few grounded theories which blew any uniform answer out of the water.
The results showed that you're a sceptical lot when it comes to governance, and strangely enough as it goes against most theories -- the trends showed that as your particular income increased, you became less environmentally friendly. Yet, by and large most of you were both interested and concerned about the environment. Most theories assume that when your income increases, you'll have more opportunity to mobilise, but most of you displayed the opposite.
I found that both education and 'direct experience' were crucial in forming altruistic tendencies towards the environment.
If anyone would like a copy of the results, and/or a copy of my work, feel free to drop me an e-mail and I'll be happy to pass it on if you have an active interest. I will warn you though, it's over 15k words.
Last edited: