Americans' Climate Change Knowledge: Fossil Fuels Are Fossilized Dinosaurs, Global Warming Is Beneficial And 12 Other Ridiculous Beliefs (PHOTOS)

A new report released by Yale, "Americans' Knowledge Of Climate Change," reveals an extremely alarming absence of accurate information when it comes to what Americans know about the climate and energy. The report's findings are based on a survey of 2,030 American adults and include some shocking results, such as a large belief that fossil fuels are the fossilized remains of dinosaurs, rockets punching holes in the ozone contribute to global warming, and that some actually believe global warming is beneficial.

Yale's researchers found that 52% of those surveyed would receive a failing grade for their knowledge of the climate change and energy issues they were surveyed on, while only 8% got an A or B.

In a time rife with so many intentional efforts to obscure the reality about climate change, it's understandable that many Americans would be confused and misinformed about vital issues relating to energy and the climate. That's why we're presenting The Huffington Post Spotlight series on energy, where we bring together leading experts to debate controversial topics like nuclear power, natural gas and our energy future.

GO HERE to submit your questions for the debates, and read on to see some of the most shocking misconceptions Americans have about climate change and energy.

Captions are from Yale's "Americans' Knowledge Of Climate Change" report.

1 of 14

Fossil Fuels = Dinosaurs & Uranium?

1 of 15

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

Americans have a limited understanding of where the energy in fossil fuels originally came from. Just over half (52%) correctly understand that the energy in fossil fuels comes from photosynthesis by plants over millions of years, while 29 percent correctly understand that the sun was the ultimate source of energy in these fuels. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly say that fossil fuels are the fossilized remains of dinosaurs. Twenty percent of Americans say fossil fuels come from uranium in the Earth.

gadgets/slideshows/298735/slide_298735_2482900_small.jpg

Oklahoma Tornado Coverage

Turtles!

Shell Drill Ship

Keystone XL Protests

gadgets/slideshows/298353/slide_298353_2481215_small.jpg

May Tornadoes 2013

Moore Oklahoma Tornado Victims

Americans have a limited understanding of where the energy in fossil fuels originally came from. Just over half (52%) correctly understand that the energy in fossil fuels comes from photosynthesis by plants over millions of years, while 29 percent correctly understand that the sun was the ultimate source of energy in these fuels. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly say that fossil fuels are the fossilized remains of dinosaurs. Twenty percent of Americans say fossil fuels come from uranium in the Earth.

comments(395)

Total comments: 395 | Post a Comment

1 of 15

Rate This Slide

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Not Too Surprising That's Ridiculous

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Top 5 Shocking Beliefs

loading...

Top 5 Shocking Beliefs

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[Katmandu01]

11:30 AM on 12/10/2010

With a Pew Research poll indicating that about 47% of Americans are convinced that that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and humans and indeed all live was created over a 6 day period, is it any wonder that so much of the US population holds to such delusions about global warming. This is a country where so much the agenda concerning the environment is driven by people who believe in fantasies and are proud of their rejection of science and scientific inquiry.

[xdiesp]

04:21 PM on 12/09/2010

Many of these are kind of dubious...

[krummlaw]

04:19 PM on 12/09/2010

I'll grant you that way too many Americans are ignorant of facts and are then susceptible to manipulation by ideologues and fraudulent claims. But, ignorance can be overcome through education and publicity and public service ads. Whose fault is it that these things are not happening? Don't blame the ignorant for being ignorant but don't stand by idly, either

[jhabvala]

05:27 PM on 11/04/2010

On the question of more than 2,000 respondents being a tiny fraction of the US population, and so being unworthy representatives of the results, I would point out:
1) With that many respondents, the results are almost certainly valid (95% of the time) within a range of 1.2% to 2% around the sample answers. So, if 40% say this or that, around 38% to 42% of the US population as a whole would give the same answers, of course if standard statistical procedures for sampling are complied with.
2) If you want absolute certainty (99.7% of the time), the error band around the sample answer has to be widened somewhat more, but not much more, only to say 36% to 44%.
Sampling is a valid statistical technique. Actually the 2,000+ sample is quite large, since small samples in statistics are generally understood to mean 30 or fewer elements in the sample. But then you get sample widths of around 20% or so, and they are just to wide for most people. So, most national samples get around to about 1,000 or 2,000 respondents. If they are carefully selected, you essentially have national representation. It is a quick and relatively cheap method of getting closer to the truth.

[MikeWebster]

03:38 AM on 10/26/2010

I too believe that climate changes (localised climate changes) have had the effect of destroying older civilisations.

The rest are pretty similar to what I get time and again from people who think they know more than they actually do.

[sj user1]

01:36 PM on 10/25/2010

"Climate Change Doomsday? A majority (63%) believes that climate changes have played an important role in the advance or collapse of some past human civilizations."

The majority is correct. Read Collapse by Jared Diamond. Many societies throughout history has destroyed themselves because of the devestating effect they had on the environment.

[MikeWebster]

03:39 AM on 10/26/2010

Generally the effects of human's on climate haven't been all that noticeable until recently though. So deforestation and other environmental impacts were a big part of Jared Diamond's book.

[austerlitz1805]

02:14 PM on 10/23/2010

Oil is such a terrible resource, polluting the environment and forcing us to be dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia. Nuclear power is our current best option along with wind and solar energy (And any other viable alternative energy sources).

Cold fusion would be nice too.

[dougscott]

04:43 PM on 10/23/2010

Nuclear isn't going to put one drop of liquid fuel into your gas tank. Within 2-5 years global oil production is going into decline (it's in a plateau). The Volt only averages 30-35 miles per charge (40 max) so believing in electric cars replacing gasoline is a fantasy.

But what if you could use nuclear for auto fuels what do you intend to replace asphalt with for roads? Asphalt is less than 2% of a barrel yet that low percent paved the 4 million miles of highways and city streets across the US...alone.

So while all the greenbugs are so worried about global warming they are completely ignoring the reality that world spare capacity in oil will entirely disappear with 2 years that will collapse global economies. The French think they have austerity issues now? They ain't seen nothing yet. Welcome to your new reality, Joint Forces Command JOE Report 2010: http://oildepletiondebate.blogspot.com/2010/04/united-states-joint-forces-command-us.html

[austerlitz1805]

08:54 PM on 10/24/2010

You are very short-sighted. If we supplied all of our electricity from nuclear power we could free up oil for other uses. And there is this thing called technological innovation and it basically means that things can be improved, especially regarding electric cars. I like how you oppose attempts to fix the oil problem, instead just complaining about the end of civilization.

[StephenBP]

10:14 AM on 12/10/2010

Thanks for posting. You can be today's poster child for unimaginative and rude nonsense posts.

I suggest that you buy a Dolt. It gets 3 mph, is perfect for parrots, and will fit your blog style like a glove.

Have a nice day. :)

[Exusian]

11:44 AM on 10/24/2010

"Nuclear isn't going to put one drop of liquid fuel into your gas tank"

True, but you could use nuclear (or solar or wind) generated electricity to produce hydrogen, and use the hydrogen as a transport fuel in hybrid electric vehicles.

If we stop wasting petroleum by burning it as a transport fuel there will be plenty available for all other uses.

[dougscott]

09:15 PM on 10/24/2010

Hydrogen is not viable because it suffers many flaws. 1. it's such a light element it takes large volumes to transport anything of much value. For example, to get any good distance from a hydrogen auto you'd need a tank big enough to take up the space of your trunk and back seat. And even then your tank would have to be expensive stainless steal because hydrogen is highly reactive. The tank would also have to be capable of holding 10,000psi. Now you're talking about an extra heavy tank or wrapping the tank with carbon fiber to keep the weight down. How would you like to be rear ended with such a tank in your back seat?

2. Hydrogen is reactive with the tank seals. It will actually leak through the seals so that there is a daily loss of hydrogen from the tank even while sitting in the garage. That brings up yet another problem, if you leave your hydrogen car in a closed garage while on vacation with no ventilation using an electric door opener could cause an explosion.

If you think I'm making this all up I assure you I've research this on the internet. Fore example: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax

[Exusian]

11:20 AM on 10/25/2010

Doug, I didn't say that using hydrogen as a transport fuel is without serious technical challenges or even a good idea, just that nuclear generated electricity could be used to generate a transport fuel. It may or may not prove practical, but it is possible.

No, cadacabezaunmundo, our cities would not be covered with steam since steam can not persist in Earth's atmosphere. Perhaps you meant water vapour, which would be the exhaust from burning hydrogen?

The amount of water vapour air can hold is limited by the temperature of that air. When you add more water vapour without first warming the air the water vapour just condenses and falls as rain or snow.

[Jim Krow]

11:31 AM on 10/23/2010

The lowering of the educational status of America directly coincides with the rise in power of the right wing.

[RunningBecky]

09:11 PM on 10/22/2010

One little mistake the article makes. It suggested that people who believe that past civilizations collapsed because of climate change were wrong. Actually they are right. Climate change does not have to mean global warming. It means, well, it means climate change. An example. The Anazai of the Southwest had a remarkably advance civilization and they disappeared without a trace. (dispersed probably). Why? Most scientist believe that rain patters changed causing a desertification of their land. No water equals no civilization. That was a very localized change. It wasn't global warming but it WAS climate change. What we have now is just on a much more massive scale. Huggs Becky

[dougscott]

04:47 PM on 10/23/2010

No, Becky. We are in collapse but this collapse will be from fiscal irresponsibility and depleting oil supplies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD8viQ_DhS4

http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/in-depth/joseph-tainter-phd/the-collapse-of-complex-societies

http://oildepletiondebate.blogspot.com/2008/11/iea-world-energy-outlook-2008.html

[RunningBecky]

08:55 PM on 10/24/2010

No argument from me on either point. (was just pointing out a historical point about "climate change".) But don't underestimate the dangers that global warming can pose. In short, there are plenty of sharks in the water. Sharks which I may add we nurtured and grew. Which one of those sharks or all of them together bites us doesn't matter as the wounds will be just as severe.
Personally, I think the oil shortage may just well be the biggest, baddest shark in the water. I think that is what the middle east conflicts are all about. Planning for the future. Huggs Becky

[Jesse SteinwegWoods]

07:34 PM on 10/22/2010

The sun technically can cause some warming depending upon changes in the earth's orbit around it, but it isn't much.

I already explained the space program problem.

Volcanoes do emit GHGs during eruptions, but the vast amount of aerosols that are put into the atmosphere tend to actually cool the planet, at least until the aerosols have fully dispersed. So technically, overall in the long run, they do contribute a very small amount long term, and actually cool a good amount short-term (say over a decade or so).

Other than that, I can't really find any other major problems with the study. It seemed pretty accurate to me.

[gallon]

10:52 AM on 10/29/2010

Need a clarification about your first statement. 'The Sund technically can cause some warming ...' What else is there to cause warming?

[Jesse SteinwegWoods]

07:29 PM on 10/22/2010

I'm actually an atmospheric scientist myself (about to get my Master's in three weeks) and also have a degree regarding the energy industry.

I don't have a PhD or anything, but I know quite a lot about this.

If you look at the question regarding civilizations, HuffPo actually misidentified that as a misconcpetion. The own Yale states that this is actually true, so everyone being confused about this can relax now (I was confused myself on why they thought this was wrong).

The space program question also was poorly phrased. Does it contribute much? No, but the hydrogen for the rocket fuel had to be processed from burning most likely natural gas and separating the hydrogen gas from the carbon dioxide. That CO2 has to go somewhere . . . Not to mention the building of all of those facilities also most definitely emits GHGs.

The dinosaur question actually states where did the energy in fossil fuels ORIGINALLY COME FROM. So technically, it didn't ORIGINALLY come from fossilized remains and actually came from the sun. All energy on this planet originally comes from the sun. So it was simply semantics regarding the word ORIGINALLY. Yes, a VERY small portion of the fossil fuels come from fossilized dinosaurs, but not ORIGINALLY.

The global warming question (number twenty-six) also has a couple very minor problems. Three items on there (sun, space program, and volcanic eruptions) probably should have had more explanation.

[Olofio]

06:22 PM on 10/22/2010

I guess I must be the old guy here who does remember a lot of this stuff. Photo #6: Here's a link from Newsweek stating that many scientist DID believe the earth was cooling.

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Photo #9: Here's a link from the BLM stating that climate change DID play a role in the (near) collapse of a civilization.

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/ahc/who_were_the_anasazi.html

As I've said before, do some research on your own before you believe everything you read.

[Z0mbieJesus]

04:25 PM on 10/24/2010

I was just about to say something about #6 and then I read your comment. There Are many articles stating that some scientists believed the earth was cooling.
Nice try to Yale or whomever wrote this article. Even though when trying to rid Americans of disinformation they are themselves giving people bad/short sighted information.

[HowthCastle]

05:10 PM on 10/22/2010

Remember those Sinclair ads from a few decades ago, with the underground dinosaur dodging the oil prospectors and their seismometers? Sometimes the public just learns too well!

[angryangel]

03:23 PM on 10/22/2010

Google search with quotation marks these reports on 21010 published science: "Global Warming: Future Temperatures Could Exceed Livable Limits, Researchers Find" and "Report: Climate change could render much of world uninhabitable" (2010) and "Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature" (2010) and "Sun's Impact on Climate Change Overestimated?" (2010) ----------- The first two articles report on National Academy of Sciences published research showing that a minimum 21 degree F average global temperature increase makes the peak wet-bulb temperature (a particular combination of heat and humidity) so deadly high on at least half of Earth that Earth would see the destruction of essentially all warm-blooded wildlife - and by resulting food chain destruction essentially all wildlife - and the destruction of human civilization. (The then available inhabitable land mass would support only a minority of the human population, which would have to become much smaller; national boundaries and what nations exist would have to drastically change.) The last two studies above finally definitively show both that non-condensing greenhouse gases are the main cause of global warming and that scientists have been underestimating their contribution to global warming, meaning it will be much easier than previously thought for humanity to drive the average global temperature up to that deadly threshold over the next few centuries or so - it is now very humanly doable. It's no longer just about big hurricanes and rising sea levels - it's now about the very survival of all wildlife and human civilization.

[General Public]

02:35 PM on 10/22/2010

Wow, OK, I did not do at all as well as I thought I would on this quiz. Yes, I know that coal, petroleum, and natural gas are the 3 fossil fuels, and yes, I know that burning them creates CO2 and results in global warming, and I know global warming is bad and China is the biggest polluter and nuclear power and space rockets and aerosol cans don't produce global warming, but the rest of the stuff on that quiz... let's just say that I would have completely flunked that test. For instance, the dinosaur part... I totally got that one wrong. I guess you learn something new every day. I didn't know fossil fuels came from PLANT remains... and I got a bunch of other questions wrong, too, like I have never heard of "coral bleaching" or "ocean acidification" before. I thought mainly global warming would melt the polar ice caps and cause the ocean levels to rise and flood coastal areas, but I didn't know global warming would affect stuff IN the ocean like coral reefs. I thought the problems with coral reefs were caused by scuba divers swimming down there and breaking off pieces of them as souvenirs. And I thought climate change ended the Mayan civilization and that Earth is warmer than it's ever been. I really feel dumb after taking this test. I don't see anyone else here admitting they got anything wrong. When you are wrong you should admit it.

[Connor Alexander]

04:16 PM on 10/22/2010

I'm with you. I knew quite a few things, but had this been a test I probably would have gotten a D. Which is a bit embarrassing considering that I try to keep up on science related issues.