Q50. Assuming global warming is happening, do you think it is…
2010 2008
Caused mostly by human activities 47 57
Caused mostly by natural changes in the environment 36 33
None of the above because global warming isn’t happening 9 3
Caused by both human activities and natural changes (volunteered) 6 5
Other 1 1
Don’t know (volunteered) 1 1.)

But Rasmussen disagrees:

Its Jan. 2010 poll survey respondents say global warming is: 37% man-made; 50% planetary trends (natural variability).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update

The two survey questions are nearly identical, both surveys of US adults, Rasmussen using likely voters. To have to diametrically opposed results from basically the same question for two contemporaneous polls seems highly, highly unlikely.

Either Rasmussen is wrong, or George Mason is wrong. It’s as simple as that.
The two surveys are largely contemporaneous, both appear US-adult based. They cannot both be right, even allowing for all the statistical variation one might want.

Now I know the dam is breaking.
Read the last sentence.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/25/renewable-energy-%E2%80%93-our-downfall/

I found this about the economics:
The problem is that Copenhagen is so highly orchestrated that any such inconvenient information will be buried: such as a recent report, Economic Impacts from the Promotion of Renewable Energies: the German Experience. This thorough study of German electricity production found that its promotion of renewable energy is “a tale of a massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits”.
The total cost of German subsidies for wind power, which produces 6.8 per cent of the nation’s electricity, is estimated at 20.5 billion euros between 2000 and 2010. But that is peanuts compared to solar power, which will have swallowed 53.3 billion euros while producing only 0.6 per cent of Germany’s power. Colossal amounts have been wasted, without much benefit to the environment or the country’s energy security.
The real “elephant at the summit”, however, is population growth. …………. And if this problem is not confronted, all those hours spent agonising over reducing greenhouse gases and setting carbon emission levels will have been superfluous.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6781985/Copenhagen-climate-conference-Who-will-dare-mention-population-growth.html

It’s a little like saying “I know some of you don’t believe that organized crime has benefits – but it’s the best way to go.”

You might like to employ, somewhere, the mocking phrase, “organized clime.”

“….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….”

RichieP, Tell your friends Global warming propaganda is a CIA plot! The ultra rich are transferring the wealth, factories and industry of the USA, EU and Canada to the south because we are at the end of this interglacial and they are preparing for the coming Ice age. Global warming and Cap and trade are diversionary tactics to prevent the unwashed masses from having the money, means or motivation to migrate to the tropics.

Media propaganda about “Global Warming” started in the seventies after the 1974 CIA report. The report stated interglacial periods last ” 10,000 to 12,500 years” and “never extend beyond 12,500 years…climate change at the end of these interglacial time periods is rather sharp and dramatic…Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate the northern regions such as Canada, the European part of the Soviet Union and Major areas of northern China will again be covered with 100 to200 feet of ice and snow. That this will occur within the next 2,500 years they are quite positive, that it will occur sooner is open to speculation.”
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

This is recognized by both sides of the Global Warming question:
Validation of Milankovitch theory of Ice Ages:http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html

Research by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution shows the transition ti and Ice Age can occur within ten years. http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046

An interesting graph superimposing all the Volstok interglacials including the current interglacial can be seen at this blog : http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2008/04/20/worlds-oldest-tree-discovered/

I do not think this is actually true but It might get them interested in reading something besides Al Gore’s tall tales. An Ice Age Cometh, the only question is how soon that fact has been completely over looked thanks to the AGW hysteria.

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/climategate-how-did-climate-change-come-to-this/

I did run across a detailed analysis of Germany’s “savings” from alt en but I didn’t save it.

I like Plant Food Understanding Institution! PFUI

His advisers have not been honest with him. While providing incentives for energy INDEPENDENCE will produce jobs, security, cleaner air, etc. – painting with the climate change brush is no longer viable. Not only because the science is flimsy, but further association with climate change will lead to embarrassing if not criminal connections.

It’s a little like saying “I know some of you don’t believe that organized crime has benefits – but it’s the best way to go.”

Looks like the “consensus about there being a consensus” is taking a big hit. But the poll was probably somewhat weighted against interviewing only those delivering the MSM “news”.

“Thus you can clearly see the need for extreme global vigilance with constant monitoring and strict controls, as we must ensure we never go above 20,000 ppm to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences. 10,000 ppm to stay on the safe side.”

*Snicker* Since the best estimate of CO2 during the Cambrian peaks at 7,000 ppm, and that’s twenty times the current level, the “strict controls” are totally unnecessary.

Pamela Gray (21:00:24) :

Loved the republican spin on the State of the Union address. They complain that the promises are just filled with hot air. Are you kidding me? They are complaining because he hasn’t fulfilled his promises??? I don’t want those promises kept! No! Nyet! Nada! . . .

I agree. I don’t want Obambi to fulfill any of his promises, made or implied, especially any having to do with ‘climate change’.

“That government is best which governs least”—Henry David Thoreau

/Mr Lynn

I note that one of the CRU emails attempts to justify going ahead with the project even if the science is wrong because the same measures will be required to manage the dwindling availability of fossil fuels. I do not think it makes any moral sense to invent a false crisis to scare the public into doing what you think is a correct action.

I did a riff on the comment section at:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/01/two-new-reports-say.html

and my response to the comment you liked went as follows:

Hamish Redux on Jan 27th, 2010 at 5:40 pm

I’ve heard that by 2035, or possibly 2350, there will be no polar bears in the Himalayas.

Hamish, it is worse than we thought. They are already gone.