From a press release by George Mason University:
American Opinion Cools on Global Warming
FAIRFAX, Va., January 27, 2010—Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to the results of a national survey released today by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.
The survey found:
• Only 50 percent of Americans now say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” about global warming, a 13-point decrease.
• The percentage of Americans who think global warming is happening has declined 14 points, to 57 percent.
• The percentage of Americans who think global warming is caused mostly by human activities dropped 10 points, to 47 percent.
In line with these shifting beliefs, there has been an increase in the number of Americans who think global warming will never harm people in the United States or elsewhere or other species.
“Despite growing scientific evidence that global warming will have serious impacts worldwide, public opinion is moving in the opposite direction,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change. “Over the past year the United States has experienced rising unemployment, public frustration with Washington and a divisive health care debate, largely pushing climate change out of the news. Meanwhile, a set of emails stolen from climate scientists and used by critics to allege scientific misconduct may have contributed to an erosion of public trust in climate science.”
The survey also found lower public trust in a variety of institutions and leaders, including scientists. For example, Americans’ trust in the mainstream news media as a reliable source of information about global warming declined by 11 percentage points, television weather reporters by 10 points and scientists by 8 points. They also distrust leaders on both sides of the political fence. Sixty-five percent distrust Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sarah Palin as sources of information, while 53 percent distrust former Democratic Vice President Al Gore and 49 percent distrust President Barack Obama.
Finally, Americans who believe that most scientists think global warming is happening decreased 13 points, to 34 percent, while 40 percent of the public now believes there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is happening or not.
“The scientific evidence is clear that climate change is real, human-caused and a serious threat to communities across America,” said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. “The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to educate the public about this important issue.”
The results come from a nationally representative survey of 1,001 American adults, age 18 and older. The sample was weighted to correspond with U.S. Census Bureau parameters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence. The survey was designed by researchers at Yale and George Mason Universities and conducted from December 23, 2009, to January 3, 2010 by Knowledge Networks using an online research panel of American adults.
A copy of the report can be downloaded from:
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/CC_in_the_American_Mind_Jan_2010.pdf
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
CO2 is only dangerous when you put a plastic bag on your head.
… but the science is “settled” .. like solids in a cesspool
Ahhh, it’s a new day in the culture wars.
How refreshing to read the online front page of the Australian this morning. Editorial suggesting the IPCC has run its course, Bjorn Lomborg suggesting the same and that Rudd drop his ETS, The British Chief Scientist critical of the whole process and 64% of 5000 respondents to a poll stating that they do not believe in climate science at all!
it doesn’t get much better but it looks like it probably will 🙂
Cheers
Michael
“Despite growing scientific evidence that global warming will have serious impacts worldwide, public opinion is moving in the opposite direction,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate.
despite an obvious bias in the project director’s opinion, public opinion is moving in the other direction.
At the rate the IPCC is imploding, the progressives better get cracking on the scam … It’s freezing right before our eyes.
It will officially be over when Ruddles gives up.
Director of Center for Climate Change Communication
Director, Yale Project for Climate Change
Wow. Bonfire of the Quangos required. Still both adopting the science is settled riposte, I see. Mind you, over here, we have outreach climate change diversity officers, of course, all on $75k a year.
\rant over
“Finally, Americans who believe that most scientists think global warming is happening decreased 13 points, to 34 percent, while 40 percent of the public now believes there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is happening or not.”
Fantastic! Now I have a new retort for the “scientific consensus” zealots:
The consensus among American citizens is that there is no scientific consensus on AGW. Since a larger consensus always trumps a smaller consensus, your alleged scientific consensus has been effectively smacked down.
The world has grown up: 11th Century dogmatic edicts won’t do anymore.
Neo (11:31:09) :
… but the science is “settled” .. like solids in a cesspool
and despite the loudspeaker blaring “Come on in, the water’s fine”, the public isn’t buying it.
Ya think it could be the smell of rotting scam?
They are correct on one point: The public should be educated on this very important issue.
Somehow, watching the poll numbers drop, I think that is happening.
“53 percent distrust former Democratic Vice President Al Gore”. Wow, that means 47% trust him? Yikes, that’s amazing.
“The scientific evidence is clear that climate change is real, human-caused and a serious threat to communities across America”. Has anybody here seen such clear evidence, or have any idea what specifically this guy is talking about?
The opinion of the government in India is shifting as well.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_pachauri-unlikely-to-head-pm-s-solar-mission_1340055
New Delhi: RK Pachauri became the head of the United Nations’ intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) in 2002 after India put him up as its official candidate. But after seven years and many bloopers by the IPCC, New Delhi now seems to be distancing itself from its once favourite climate ambassador.
Sources say that the embarrassment over Pachauri is so acute in Delhi’s power corridors that he is no more on the list of hopefuls likely to head the prime minister’s national solar mission. Until a few weeks ago, government sources say, Pachauri was leading the race to head the mission to produce 20,000 MW electricity by 2022.
What is assured for now is the fact that the Centre is formally distancing itself from Pachauri. The government of India had nominated Pachauri’s name for the post of IPCC chairman in March 2002 through its permanent mission in the US. But now, the government is not ready to comment on the recent controversies that have surrounded the climate expert.
Environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh said: “I was dismissed for peddling voodoo science, but the ministry was right on the report on Himalayan glaciers. The claims of IPCC don’t have an iota of scientific evidence.” Ramesh, however, said the government was not demanding Pachauri’s resignation.
All the people who were saying Global Warming was going to catastrophically disrupt lives and livelihoods (aka the media, the ‘scientists’, and the politicians) were telling the truth.
Its just that it’s disrupting their lives and livelihoods, not ours.
That survey was completed early January. Surely opinion has shifted considerably since then.
Great, but this is also the nation which allegedly hardly believes in evulution. How do we know it’s not kidding this time too?
The most important fact for the scientific community:
“The survey also found lower public trust in a variety of institutions and leaders, including scientists.”
That’s my opinion,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
“Despite growing scientific evidence that global warming will have serious impacts worldwide”
Just exactly where is this evidence, please, Mr Leiserowitz? They just can’t let go, can they?
It looks like the UN is ready to give up its campaign to get big bucks from a global transaction tax to improve the global climate. Now the UN has started a campaign to get big bucks from a global transaction tax to improve global health.
That’s different right? I know that the same people are to be taxed the same way by the same corrupt organization, but if we won’t save the climate surely we will save the children.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583127,00.html
They could call the new group the Intergovernmental Panel for Children’s Change and reuse the old stationary.
Folk wisdom: Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas
After institutional science, as represented by the AAAS, the APS and publications such as Science, Nature
or, on a more popular plane New Scientist and Scientific American chose to drink the AGW Kool Aid,
it should not expect any continued special status or deference from the general public it has helped mislead.
This is probably a tragedy for everyone, because science is still the best tool we have to ensure a decent future for mankind.
@Michael In Sydney
“it doesn’t get much better but it looks like it probably will :)”
I’m afraid I’m not so sure, though there’s undoubtedly plenty of room for optimism at the moment. I have several highly intelligent, long-term friends, who from time to time I try to cajole to become more sceptical about AGW. It’s a deeply demoralising experience most of the time. Any attempt to get them seriously to consider the science or the financial and political ramifications of the problem seems well-nigh impossible. Their usual response tends to be: sceptics are all in the pay of big bad businesses; what they tell you is lies; what we have been told by the experts is true and it’s truth that matters, so you must realise how wrong you are; you’ve fallen for the right-wing propaganda etc. etc.. I’m sure so many of you will know the routine so I shan’t go on at length on that point.
They would be horrified to be told that they are unthinking believers; they are decent men who think and read and talk about the environment, politics and the world (though not usually in that order). They would see themselves as, and they emphatically are, serious men who seek knowledge and enlightenment. However, they seem unable to see that AGW is diverting so many resources away from making the world a nicer place to be just through good stewardship and housekeeping and, besides, has the clear hallmarks of an Extraordinary Popular Delusion stamped all over it, a perfect time for sociopaths and the power-hungry to take even more to themselves.
I don’t actually differ from them on many social and “straight” environmental issues, seeing no contradiction between being sceptical of the AGW dogma and its flawed scientific basis and having an interest in the overall welfare of the planet and its inhabitants.
I realise that this reminds me greatly of being 14, the only professed atheist in the class (a long time ago now) – and the amusement, anxiety and patronising disdain that that would generate. Most people simply thought I was a bit touched to be bothering about such things and ought to spend more time playing rugby or some other useful, preferably physical, occupation. But these are my oldest friends and I wouldn’t want to lose them through becoming importunate. A dilemma and sometimes a cause for self-questioning as to my own views and how I try to communicate them.
Sorry for the length – WUWT, I think you’ve become my agony aunt for tonight. Thanks for that and also for doing such important work. I envy you your courage and tenacity.
Soren:
So true! What I fear, and I tried warning such sanctimonious bloggers as PG mYers about several years ago, is that by linking evolution deniers to climate ‘deniers’ they are setting themselves up for a fall when the climate house of cards collapses. I have been composing my not too arrogant “I warned you” e-mail to send him as soon as I feel our momentum is irrevocable and I see the first links from the Discovery INstitute stating that scientists as a class can’t be trusted and evolution is just more fabricated nonsense.
Too many believers yet. AGW church still considering “Al Baby” as their Saint.
debreuil (12:01:47) :
“All the people who were saying Global Warming was going to catastrophically disrupt lives and livelihoods were telling the truth.
Its just that it’s disrupting their lives and livelihoods, not ours.”
Sorry, but I had to laugh! hehe.
And that “Carbon Dioxide Information Agency” ? Or what was it?
Will it change its name?
-Nitrogen Information Agency? NIA?
-Methane Information Agency ? MIA?
-Soot Information Agency ? SIA?
-Gas Information Agency? GIA?
-Baloney Information Agency? BIA?
No, I got it!
-Plant Food Information Agency ! PFIA.
I hope I’m not alone, but I keep getting a feeling that the whole AGW schtick is a “happy face” painted on an otherwise unhappy scenario. Sure, fossil fuels will run out one day, global oil production will (or has) peak(ed), and we are sending bucket loads of cash overseas to countries that don’t like us, but if this is the underlying story why can’t policymakers be square with us ?
Did the 1975 film, “Three Days of the Condor” so scare policymakers that they believe that they can’t level with the American people, or is it that their current strategy requires fooling the current OPEC countries until they exhaust their supplies ? The latter would explain the failure to develop domestic oil sources and concentrate on “renewables” like bio-fuels, that are carbon based and would add to AGW sources (an AGW paradox).
Or is this all merely a plot by politicians to raise taxes out of thin air ?