Finally, Americans are waking up and smelling reality, dropping this whole environmental b.s. scare-tactic surrounding nuclear energy. They finally understand it for the absolutely integral function it serves in providing abundant energy relatively easily.

Over 67% of Americans now support funding the development of new nuclear power plants.

Godless bless America. It's about time they woke up.

Zogby International

__________________

"But attitudes are more positive toward proposals that would actively promote energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources. In the February, 2006 Pew poll where 85 percent agreed that America was “addicted” to oil, the public strongly supported the following proposals to address America’s energy supply: requiring better auto fuel efficiency (86 percent for/12 percent against); increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar and hydrogen technology (82/14); tax cuts for companies to develop these alternative energy sources (78/18); spending more on subway, rail and bus systems (68/27); and increasing federal funding for research on ethanol (67/22).

In contrast, in that same poll the public leaned negative on promoting the increased use of nuclear power, by a 44 percent for to 49 percent against margin and disapproved of tax cuts to encourage energy companies to do more exploration for oil, by a margin of 44 percent to 52 percent."

What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the Environment

By Ruy Teixeira | March 5, 2007

What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the Environment

At best, we have conflicting polling results. However, Gallup and Pew have much more credibility than Zobgy.

__________________
National Debt =

Sure they do. Because you say so, of course.


Edit: Reading the article you provided, it doesn't actually refute mine or do much to negate it. Mine indicates that a large number of people are waking up and beginning to support new nuclear investment. Your poll indicates that they are less enthusiastic about that than about conservation. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can be less enthusiastic about X than Y, but still be more enthused about X as a whole than you were before. You can support both, yet favour one MORE.


Moreover, from what I have seen so far, the data from your polls is--well--out of date. Yours is from March of 2007, wherein mine is from June 2008. Logically, the source you used is older, since the article dates from last year BEFORE the spring. Now, it is almost Summer of 2008. The poll data taken in your source can't logically be older than the date of the article unless they used time travel, zipped to the future, took the poll ahead of time, and then went back to the past to publish it. You can't use old data to challenge new data. That would be absurd.

Wait, it actually gets worse: many of the polls cited by your article are not actually from 2007, but BEFORE that.

Your argument only works if we seriously believe peoples' opinions remained the same, despite the vastly increased cost of living, fuel, and the hyped energy crisis that was virtually ignored years ago.

The article also cites a Fox News poll several times. And you're talking about credibility?

__________________

As long as the energy is cheap, I don't care all that much about how it's produced. In my part of the country we produce hydroelectric power.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Tech:

So you have a creditable poll in 2006 in contrast to a poll with possible questionable credibility from 2008. So I know you will put a big positive on the poll you cited and a big negative spin on the polls I cited.



http://www.cesame-nm.org/download/standards/zogby.pdf

John Zogby's Creative Polls


Whomever you blame for this small propaganda coup, it's hardly unique. Media coverage of polling results often neglects to mention the self-interestedness of the sponsor, and John Zogby is a leading enabler. Today, Zogby International's polling reputation may be second only to that of the hallowed Gallup Organization, which makes having a Zogby Poll extremely desirable for advocacy groups across the political spectrum. Animal rights is a lefty cause, but one recent Zogby Poll conducted for the libertarian Cato Institute found that "two-thirds of likely voters support personal Social Security accounts" -- i.e., partial privatization. Another, conducted in 1997 for the anti-tort group New Yorkers for Civil Justice Reform, found that Empire State citizens "overwhelmingly believe that the cost of lawsuit awards is too high." And a Newsmax.com/Zogby International Poll, conducted for the right-wing Newsmax Web site, found in late 1999 that two-thirds of Americans wanted Congress to consider a second impeachment proceeding against then-President Clinton. It helped that the poll primed respondents with speculative allegations that the president traded nuclear technology to the Chinese in exchange for campaign cash. What these polls have in common is that they reveal "findings" that their sponsors wish the public to believe as facts. And Zogby's standing as a reputable pollster buys instant credibility. There's nothing new about dubious surveys: An infamous Roper Poll released in 1992 came to the wild conclusion that 3.7 million Americans had likely been abducted by aliens. And Zogby International isn't the only firm available for advocacy groups, candidates and corporations in need of creatively framed findings and message testing. But among high-profile pollsters, Zogby is unusual in the extent to which he has blended partisan and interest-group polling with credibility-enhancing contracts for media outlets such as Reuters, NBC News, MSNBC, and numerous newspapers and television stations. As Zogby himself acknowledges, the repute he derives from media polling helps him sell his services to more self-interested clients. The lucky groups end up with the Zogby brand name attached to findings that advance their agendas. "Media organizations should have people who absolutely aren't polling for interest groups," observes Robert Blendon, who directs Harvard University's Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy. Blendon notes that most major media polling conglomerates, such as the ABC News/Washington Post Poll, maintain firewalls between their work and outside interests.

__________________
National Debt =

You should know better than to make such broad assertions without any evidence to back you up. Zogby is a reliable poller. The 'source' you provided likes to try to poison the well, making equally dubious assertions of its credibility. Why should anyone believe the "American Prospect" and some guy's assertions named Mooney?

The American Spectator too makes stuff up all the time like this to attack groups that give conclusions it doesn't like. Given I got this poll from Scientists and E Engineers for America, I am inclined to believe it. They aren't stupid.

Regardless, instead of attacking the source, you can try substantiating the claim that this poll is wrong, biased, or anything. You are simply attacking character and then automatically dismissing it. Provide evidence this poll is bad. The methodology used isn't hidden. It's not a secret. CHeck it out and post it. Also, show a current poll from a "reliable" poller (lolz people don't like Gallup either, and it showed similar results to the ID Zogby poll) that contradicts what I posted. Then I will change my mind.

Again, yours is old. Opinion changes. I am not even saying yours is wrong. It's probably correct. Just old. Both can be correct, you know.

__________________

Which avoids the main point that Zogby is a for hire polling company to special interest groups. For example, nuclear energy? Gallup is connected to the major news media sources. When Zogby does polls, they frequently skip any explanations of their methodology. Gallup always states the methodology. That is important as Zogby in the past has relied up phone or e-mail feedback, which is notoriously unreliable.

__________________
National Debt =

Which avoids the point that I asked you to show evidence THIS poll is wrong or that you have a current poll that contradicts it. You are unable to do that. You are only able to appeal to vague speculation and ad hominem attacks against the organization, implying the poll is wrong by default, and the only thing you got is an "obviously unbiased" progressive magazine with an ax to grind.

Zogby methodology isn't hidden. This methodology is open, not secret, as you are asserting is often the case with Zogby polls. The margin for error is well within standard limits: +-1.8%, also. Did you even click on the link? It says "click here for methodology." Apparently, scientists and engineers for america saw the methodology and approved. I trust their judgment over yours, sorry.


I looked at the poll questions myself. It's very simple, straightforward. There are no trick questions. It is a "yes" or "no" to "do you support the construct of new nuclear power plants." Are you telling me there's some hidden agenda in the question? Some clever, tricky wording that will fool the sheeple?

__________________

We disagree again.

I have had a few trillion disagreements in my life, so .... oh well.

This is getting tedious in reiterating positions.

Most the people I talk to have little interest in Nuclear Energy for or against. They are fixated on the price of gas at the pumps.

__________________
National Debt =