CBS News – New York Times Poll shows the public has mostly given up on global warming and the environment

Got some vikes, AB, and a nap for my ear infection, decided to check email, found a link to this poll so figured I’d better pass it on. I was surprised.

Here’s question 88:

88. Which statement comes closest to your view about global warming? 1. Global warming is caused mostly by human activity such as burning fossil fuels or 2. Global warming is caused mostly by natural patterns in the earth’s environment. or 3. Global warming does not exist.

And here’s the results:

12 percent don’t think global warming exists. 42 percent say it’s man-made and 33 percent say it’s natural. 7 percent say it is a mixture of both, and 6 percent are in the “I dunno” or didn’t answer category. With only 42 percent saying it is human caused, that puts it in the minority view.

But what I think is even more telling is the fact that it didn’t even show up on the radar in question 3, which asks:

I’m sure “global warming” was in there somewhere, perhaps in the 14 percent of “other” responses seen near the end, but even with Al Gore’s recent media event to try to bring it to the forefront again, it appears to have had zero effect. Also telling: “Environment” gets less than 1 percent.

It’s jobs and economy which get the lions share of concern, which just goes to show that if people are poor, out of work, and hungry, they don’t have time to worry about elitist causes like Al Gore’s global warming crusade.

The poll with all questions is here: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/250094/new-york-times-cbs-poll-results.pdf

The NYT news story on it is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/us/politics/obamas-support-is-slipping-poll-finds-but-his-jobs-plan-is-well-received.html?_r=1

About these ads

123 thoughts on “CBS News – New York Times Poll shows the public has mostly given up on global warming and the environment

  1. I’d rather see a survey where problems are ranked by the respondents rather than allowing the respondents to name only one problem.

  2. Eh up cloth ears! Well that is what they used to say to me!

    Go get sorted, whether or not you like it, or expected it, there is a lot of society that benefits from your wellbeing, not the least youf family.

    Please do whatever is needed to get well and be able to enjoy life.

    Regards and many thanks for what you have achieved so far, it is significant and will in future, be seen as such.

    I lost the top range in my left ear a long time ago, but she always sits on that side.

  3. Kind of hard to spin these results. I wonder what the consequences for the team and their sycophants will be as the continue to goad the funding cow though ever greater efforts to manufacture evidence and alarm? They have been adamant that there must be consequences for violating consensus.

  4. Al Gore covertly buying waterfront property at Montecito probably did more damage than all the various eco-gates combined. When future historians look back on this (to them) inexplicable craze, they will mark the moment Al Gore turned his back on the movement as the moment it truly died.

  5. If they ask “do you think global warming is important enough to put yourself in the poor house”…..
    ……/snark

    #3…global warming was right below little green men

  6. The TEAM will simply say that “big oil” has paid millions to people to poison the perceptions of the people and that they need even more government money to combat the evil of … Exxon.

    Note: I don’t love Exxon much myself, nor BP, but they are not the ones handing out billions of dollars in grant money as I understand it.

  7. 7% didn’t say it was a mixture of both.
    7% objected to the question, and gave an answer that wasn’t even on the list.

    Maybe they could re-run the survey with that as a choice, and see how many people change their votes when a non-extreme choice is available.

  8. I would love to see a survey where for once, one of the question is “Do you think human activity is going to or may lead to dangerous global warming?”
    But, I don’t think they dare to make such a question.
    They might not get the answer they want.

  9. At the rate the NY Times is losing circulation, a better question would be “Do you believe in the NY Times?”

    Hide the decline.

  10. If a poll existed that showed that a majority of people believed that global warming was a significant problem, would that make the SCIENCE stronger?

  11. Viva Climate Family Feud! *) Long live to polls!

    Sure! It is extremely interesting what morons on the street think about climate!

    Mr. Watts, how long yet will you feed WUWT pages with this sh** of polls and what for?

    Regards
    *) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Feud

    [REPLY: Przemysław, you’re right, science is not conducted by polls or consensus, but note the banner at the top of the page “…and recent news…” – the poll is news. Further, CAGW is a political and social issue as well as a science issue. The poll, and its results, are relevant. A data-point, if you will. You aren’t required to read it. -REP, mod]

  12. Doug says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    If a poll existed that showed that a majority of people believed that global warming was a significant problem, would that make the SCIENCE stronger?
    =======================================
    No, just the political advocacy.

  13. Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    “Sure! It is extremely interesting what morons on the street think about climate!”

    For politicians, these are voters…

  14. Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    > [REPLY: Przemysław, you’re right, science is not conducted by polls or consensus,
    > (…)
    > Further, CAGW is a political and social issue as well as a science issue. The poll, and its results, are relevant.

    Tell me then how much relevant they are, the polls? Do the participants know the subject from schools or WUWT pages or what they have learned from MSM (mainstream media)? Polls’ results are relevant? C’mon! Do not soap my eyes, please.

    Regards

  15. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/09/16/lawrence-solomon-warmed-right-over/

    The global-warming theory is nearing its end as evidence against it mounts
    Why do a majority of Canadians — 52% according to the latest Angus Reid poll — still hold the belief that humans are mainly responsible for global warming?

    I think I know, based on the feedback I’ve received from literally thousands of Canadians who have commented in recent years on my articles dealing with global warming. Most of that 52% have so often been told that the science is settled on global warming, and so rarely that there is any credible dissent, that they have not yet twigged to straightforward information, such as the rejection by most top scientists of the global-warming dogma.

    Just this week, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned as a fellow from the American Physical Society, saying he could not live with its nonsensical endorsement of global-warming alarmism. Dr. Giaever joins a host of other eminent scientists who have dismissed concerns over global warming, including Freeman Dyson, a Princeton physicist and America’s best known scientist, Antonino Zichichi, the president of the World Federation of Scientists and Italy’s best known scientist, Claude Allegre, a former socialist Minister of National Education, Research and Technology and France’s best-known scientist, and America’s Reid Bryson, known as the “father of scientific climatology” and judged “the world’s most cited climatologist” by the journal of the Institute of British Geographers.

    In contrast to this Who’s Who of the scientific world, the list of top global-warming scientists falls far short. No scientist has been awarded a Nobel Prize in a science field for his work on global warming because no piece of science in the field has achieved a major scientific breakthrough. This despite the global-warming issue’s dominance of the scientific world for more than two decades, garnering the lion’s share of scientific funding and an inordinate amount of coverage in scientific publications. The only Nobel Prize conferred on global-warming advocates came from the political wing of the Nobel Prize establishment, which awarded them a prize for peace in consolation for their failure to merit a prize for science.

  16. All of the arguments for the environmental movement, from Love Canal up to today, have amounted to crying wolf again and again. The public has finally figured out that the only real wolf threatening us is the environmental movement, which pushes us toward economic ruin and civil disorder for the personal profit of its leaders.

  17. Marks Powers says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:28 pm
    > No scientist has been awarded a Nobel Prize in a science field for his work on global warming because no piece of science in the field has achieved a major scientific breakthrough.

    Not only. Also, because we should, no, we must live at least 1000 years to be able to say frankly that someone’s work on climate has been proven beyond doubt (on that level of knowledge) or brought in significant issues in understanding of it. In my view of course. In this context only Peace Prize was “safe” for the “Nobel Prize establishment”.

    Regards

  18. Members of society who are the staunchest supporters of the AGW meme are the under 25s, many of whom are members of activist groups such as WWF Greenpeace and Get Up (In Australia).
    We need to remember that the origins of this scam goes back to the 80s. The Rio Earth Summit was in 1992. These naive young ‘uns have had the AGW meme pounded into them for their whole lives. They are not old enough to have personally experienced a 30 year climate.
    Exclude this group from surveys, then see what the real feelings of the citizenry are regards this scam.

  19. DirkH says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:22 pm
    Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    “Sure! It is extremely interesting what morons on the street think about climate!”
    > For politicians, these are voters…

    :-) Thanks DirkH for the quiet reminder! I calming down. Yep, Voters *), I crammed it to my mind. ;-)

    Regards
    *) Written from big letter means highest respect (in Polish for sure).

  20. Eric Worrall says:
    September 17, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    Al Gore covertly buying waterfront property at Montecito probably did more damage than all the various eco-gates combined. When future historians look back on this (to them) inexplicable craze, they will mark the moment Al Gore turned his back on the movement as the moment it truly died.

    I couldn’t find an address for Al’s Montecito property but judging from the pictures @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html#s91252 I think I found a match on Google Earth @ 34 degrees 26 minutes 51.81 seconds North 119 degrees 37 minutes 42.82 seconds West @ an elevation of 509 feet; not even Al has exaggerated sea level rise to that level.

    Al’s too heavily invested in CAGW to abandon it IMO.

  21. The only way to fix the economy and create more jobs is to start using out own energy resources: instead of pissing our money away on toys and foreign oil.

  22. In San Diego, I’m pointing out that the supposedly accelerating rise in sea level just isn’t shown in the observed data. And I’m taking my info from NOAA, not some evil “denialist” group.

    Supposedly, San Diego’s sea level will rise by 12 to 18 inches by 2050, from its 2000 level. We’re 11 years into the projection, and sea level as measured off the coast of La Jolla has risen less than 1 inch. That’s a pro-rated rise of less than 5 inches by 2050.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/17/cbs-news-new-york-times-poll-shows-the-public-has-mostly-given-up-on-global-warming-and-the-environment/#comment-form-load-service:Facebook

  23. Also, watch for a verrrrrry interesting new AGW study. It’s under embargo until 10 am PDT Sunday, or I’d say more. Anthony will have fun with it.

    Best wishes for ear health, Anthony.

  24. Przemysław Pawełczyk
    Tell me then how much relevant they are, the polls?
    Very relevant, because it’s difficult to pass “draconian” regulations without support from the voters.

    Do the participants know the subject from schools or WUWT pages or what they have learned from MSM (mainstream media)?

    Don’t know, but I would like to.

    Polls’ results are relevant?
    Again, yes, the science is settled that we must act now scare tactic is failing to incite the public to “force” politicians into economically disastrous regulations and that is GOOD.

    C’mon! Do not soap my eyes, please.
    Well, I wouldn’t.

  25. This means that they will have to find a new crisis.

    I suspect it will be: CO2 is causing the Anthropogenic Global Financial Crisis.

  26. Those of us who pan catastrophic global warming are actually smart enough to keep worrying about clean water in undeveloped countries, clean air in developing countries, and homelessness now becoming evident even on Rodeo Drive. The mass of lemings following the likes of Hansen are not even close to being true environmentalists.

  27. Richard Sharpe said

    “This means that they will have to find a new crisis.

    I suspect it will be: CO2 is causing the Anthropogenic Global Financial Crisis.”

    Close. Anthropogenic CO2 vilification has caused Global Financial Crisis.

  28. What those silly fools on the left just don’t understand is that their environmental concerns are a narcissistic luxury of the rich. A person who cannot feed, house, or cloth his family doesn’t give a damn about little reptiles in the oil fields of west Texas. If they (the Eco-Nazis) destroy the economy, the environment will become as bad as it was in the Communist countries. Wealth leads to a better environment.

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  29. BigWaveDave says:
    September 17, 2011 at 7:56 pm
    Richard Sharpe said
    “This means that they will have to find a new crisis.
    I suspect it will be: CO2 is causing the Anthropogenic Global Financial Crisis.”
    Close. Anthropogenic CO2 vilification has caused Global Financial Crisis.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Oh, just wait for it! Can’t you just see the analysis pieces on the news?

    “…since the government cancelled funding for AGW research, tens of thousands of people have been thrown out of work world wide. the community of XXXXX has been hard hit in particular. Over 25% of the jobs in XXXXX were directly or indirectly related to AGW research… Wannabe Ananchor reports from XXXXX…”

    “Yes Tom, I’m here with Dr Worser Thanwethought, whose entire career has been in climate research. Now he’s trying to feed a family of four by ecking out a living as a taxi driver. Worser, this must be very hard on you and your family…”

    “You have no idea Wannabe. Its like suddenly I’m not qualified for anything. Just today I got chewed out by a client who refused to pay the $86.00 fair. They claimed the meter said $22.00 and that’s all they owed me. What is it with these people? Are they professional taxi drivers? Do they have any training? Don’t they understand how specialized taxi meter reading is? Do they think they can just get in a cab and interpret the meter themselves? I’m a PhD professor for crying out loud, what right do they have to question me like that? And then they wanted to see the rate card. The rate card! That’s DATA! You can’t just give a rate card to someone with no training and let them calculate the fair themselves, that’s ridiculous. They’ll just try and prove my numbers wrong, so why should I let them have it? ”

    “Well uhm……..uhm….. back to you Tom.”

  30. Doug says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    If a poll existed that showed that a majority of people believed that global warming was a significant problem, would that make the SCIENCE stronger?

    You heathen, everyone knows it’s spelled “SCIENCE!”‘.

    Get with the program, why don’t you?

  31. Back in the Carter years when inflation, unemployement and interest rates were all in double digits, and the environmentalists were screaming about the next ice age that they said was coming soon, the saying among the working class was, “if you are poor, out of work, tired and hungry, eat an environmentalist”.

  32. When the global warming fans started their campaign the US was riding high and perhaps it looked like price was no object. Now 20 or 30 years later the country has gone bust. Growth of one percent not six and unemployment officially over nine percent. This poll, while not at all surprising should send a message to the politicians that the time to bleed the public in the name of saving the planet has passed and won’t be back soon.

  33. Hopefully the poll will highlight to the editors of the NY Times that many readers aren’t swallowing the CAGW line that the NY Times and its relatives like to push…and the other readers don’t really care. Perhaps the NY Times might look at the evidence for and against CAGW with a more critical eye and not devote space to obviously crap alarmist press releases that support a policy argument rather than a scientific determination.

    Did anyone see that pig just fly past my window?

  34. For those who wish to use their view of the “science” to move the political football one way or another for their team, the results of such public polls must be encouraging or discouraging, depending in which team you’re on. For others, perhaps its all too depressing and sign of the sad state of America and the pending dark ages…

  35. Canadians still believe in the global warming lies. They’ve swallowed the koolaid big time. Saint Suzuki has brainwashed the country into economic suicide. Canadians have trouble thinking for themselves and believe what the media tells them to believe. It’s all quite pathetic. The only bright spot is we have a Prime Minister who – while not having the balls to call global warming the hoax it is – behind the scenes at least scuttles the waco environmentalist plans to destroy the Canadian economy.

  36. R. Gates says:
    September 17, 2011 at 9:05 pm
    For those who wish to use their view of the “science” to move the political football one way or another for their team>>>

    You crack me up. Coming from you, that comment is positively hilarious.

  37. R. Gates…

    Are you using quotes from another source or just only allowed to have one theme each day? Your football comment is very similar to your comment on another thread. Struck me as humourous.

    As far as the dark ages, it will exist as soon as we allow a small group to control the masses. It doesn’t much matter if it is a group of self-important scientists, A religious council, A dictator or a “for the people” socialist party. When a small group demands obidience without question, thats the dark ages.

  38. davidmhoffer says:
    September 17, 2011 at 9:43 pm
    R. Gates says:
    September 17, 2011 at 9:05 pm
    For those who wish to use their view of the “science” to move the political football one way or another for their team>>>

    You crack me up. Coming from you, that comment is positively hilarious.

    _____
    Your comment would imply that you know anything about me, which you don’t, so your comment falls into the meaningless category.

  39. Brandon Caswell says:
    September 17, 2011 at 10:06 pm
    R. Gates…

    Are you using quotes from another source or just only allowed to have one theme each day? Your football comment is very similar to your comment on another thread. Struck me as humourous.

    As far as the dark ages, it will exist as soon as we allow a small group to control the masses. It doesn’t much matter if it is a group of self-important scientists, A religious council, A dictator or a “for the people” socialist party. When a small group demands obidience without question, thats the dark ages.

    _____

    I would suggest that “dark ages” mean just that…an age in which the light of reason is dimmed by the darkness of anti-reason, whatever the source. No group is needed to “control the masses”, as they are quite capable of finding their own paths to dim their light of reason. The “dark ages” are not a political process, but a psychological and sociological one that may in turn be manifested in a politcal and/or religious environment.

  40. “Rosy’s dad says:
    September 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm
    When the global warming fans started their campaign the US was riding high and perhaps it looked like price was no object. Now 20 or 30 years later the country has gone bust. ”

    At that time the OPEC nations needed $$, so they started pumping more oil, and as they did the price fell, so they had to pump more oil, and the price feel even more, until it ended up at $12.50 a barrel in the Clinton years. Those were boom years. Then oil went up and as it did, the economy went into the tank.

    Want to solve unemployment in the US, take steps to drive down energy prices. Want to reward loyal cronies while pretending to create jobs, announce a stimulus package.

  41. R. Gates says:
    September 17, 2011 at 9:05 pm

    That’s exactly what they said in the 70′s, the 50′s, the 30′s, the Teens, and the 1890′s.
    Except we won’t be going just to the Dark Ages, we will be going to the Dark Ice Ages.
    Back in the Little Ice Age, we actually had science.
    Where did it all go wrong? #1, the Thermometer became widespread, then the Satellites, then the Computer Models, and finally the Anomalymometer was born. It’s like your car when something goes haywire and you can’t put your finger on the cause….and the mechanic at the garage promises to tear up the bill if you will please just go away.
    42% of some fraction of the Other 14% are worried about global warming, and the science mechanics want Big Al and Co. to take thier Carbonic Phobia someplace else.

  42. @R. Gates says:
    September 17, 2011 at 10:18 pm
    “Your comment would imply that you know anything about me, which you don’t, so your comment falls into the meaningless category.”

    You have exposed yourself on this site for many months. You are judged by your words. pg

  43. The good news is that we have survived the Little Ice Age, the Modern Warming and cyclic hysteria that comes with each uptick/downtick in the climate ever since.
    The bad news is that the hysteria cycles are outswinging the climactic uptick/downticks.

  44. The New York Times slogan isn’t “All the News That Fits We Print” for nothing. I’d check the internals of any poll of theirs before giving it any serious thought. And then I’d think twice anyway.

  45. Doesn’t matter what the public thinks or cares about – it’s what the gov’t elites want. They think it’s hip slick and cool to prance about flaunting their ecosanctimony. The pope of global warming may not have as many supplicants kissing his ring these days, but they have achieved sainthood in their own minds – why would they give that up?

  46. P.G. Sharrow says:
    September 17, 2011 at 10:47 pm
    @R. Gates says:
    September 17, 2011 at 10:18 pm
    “Your comment would imply that you know anything about me, which you don’t, so your comment falls into the meaningless category.”

    You have exposed yourself on this site for many months. You are judged by your words. pg

    ______

    Yes, I know my strong grounding in the facts and the science behind AGW don’t sit well with the overwhelming numbers of skeptics here. It’s a tough job, but someone’s got to do it…

  47. Human activity leads to a lot of global pollution, NOT global warming.
    Current western government policy is going to lead to a very high global
    death rate. This will impact the developing nations as well.
    I am beginning to suspect this is deliberate.
    Our “leaders” can’t be that stupid!?!?!
    Must be me. I’m preparing anyway.

  48. Strong grounding in science and facts? That’s a real larff, Gates. One could write a book about how many times you have been shown up here to have no knowledge of science or facts or common sense and just possessing a blind, slave like allegiance to the AGW Church.

    You have been consistently spanked here and proven wrong about anything you post WRT climate science and AGW.

  49. Pete H says:
    September 17, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:27 pm
    “Tell me then how much relevant they are, the polls? ”

    Extremely relevant! Simply see…..

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903927204576573113505308544.html

    …….and then maybe you will wise up!

    I hoped my rant was read as a sort of sneer. Now I am dumbfounded. ;-) I know well why the polls are so popular. They serves two Masters – politicians, and “the elites”, both of which like to brainwash prospective voters!

    Regards

  50. And R. Rates, the below comment was given by Jeff ID in his blog, in response to another similar troll about AGW

    ” As a class exercise, which will take the next ten years of your life, prove warming measurements are accurate AND caused by anthropogenic CO2. Even better, prove that they are unprecedented. ”

    This fits your case also very well. So the same challenge applies to you also.

  51. To verify the NYT findings why not ask WUWT readers the same questions, the results could then be analysed and conclusions extracted from the data.

    /sarc

  52. In the UK for the last few years there has been a large build up with off people following moral crusades about many things, not just environment but health issues and ethical food supplies. Now that money is drying up for everyone all these groovy ideas are being abondoned faster that the Titanic. Trendy liberals will shout and scream until it actually costs them something then they scatter but unfortunately they never get brought to book for the damage inflicted.

  53. From another poll this week http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/15/us-usa-poll-ipsos-idUSTRE78D5B220110915

    “The percentage of Americans who believe the Earth has been warming rose to 83 percent from 75 percent last year in the poll conducted Sept 8-12.”

    and

    “Some 71 percent of the Americans who believe warming is happening think that it is caused either partly or mostly by humans, while 27 percent believe its is the result of natural causes, the poll found.”

  54. I should add a point here that wattsupwiththat.com thought to be not very important viz. the poll was conducted only among Republican voters.

    Convenient, eh?

  55. Climate change? Yes.
    Global Warming? Yes.
    Man caused? No.

    The Earth has experienced at least 7 Ice Ages and subsequent thaws.

    I like to call that Global Winter follow by Global Spring. The Global Spring brings the melting of the ice which causes flooding.

    As a child I walked the desert floor. I looked down at my feet and next to them I saw…sea shells…on the desert floor. Approximately 135 million years ago there was an inland sea stretching from Canada to the southwestern part of the U.S. Florida was also under water at that time too.

    We don’t need the blusterous Al Gore telling us that he, a weatherman and some hiker have discover Global Warming/Climate Change and since humans are producing green house gases at an alarming rate it must be man cause. Well that and Al figure how to make a ton of money off of Global Warming/Climate Change if only you Global Warming “Deniers” would just fall into line.

    According to Mr. Gore all of the world’s scientists — who are getting grants tied to their unscientific acceptance of Man Caused Global Warming — are on board with his junk theory. Their’s is the superior science…forget about geological proof that climate change was happening before man walk upon the Earth, passed gas or [gasp] exhaled.

  56. R. Gates says:
    September 17, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    ”Yes, I know my strong grounding in the facts and the science behind AGW don’t sit well with the overwhelming numbers of skeptics here. It’s a tough job, but someone’s got to do it…”

    Well that statement suggests that you are:
    1) insufficiently knowledgeable to be definitive – a ‘grounding’ in facts is hardly expertise, is it?
    2) Likely only interested in trolling rather than actually learning or teaching anything, as the indicative bias is clear to see. I.e., you are here as a faith administrator rather than a scientist! It is hardly a job, either – is it?
    3) Unlikely to be from a true science background, (and therefore potentially even less knowledgeable?) as a true scientist would be unlikely make such a statement. A true scientist is interested in only the science, not the surrounding BS or ideology.
    4) Perhaps Ideologically based – as indicated by the ‘someone has to do it’ element…as that clearly begs the question, why? – if the theory and evidence is so clear – we would all ‘get it’!!!
    5) Perhaps needing to feel some self importance ? – clearly, the majority here are skeptics and so what possible benefit do you think you are having?

    Many here seek answers, or are querying the ‘concensus’. That Sir, is the real essence of the science. Your (AGW) facts are largely unproven – if they were proven, we wouldn’t be here. (I accept there would always be diehards regarding any theory – but in this case there are an awful lot of folk who cannot and don’t buy into the AGW theory, and even less who buy into the CAGW aspect!) You must accept that you are in the minority and therefore must be absolutely clear in your ‘proofs’ in order to persuade the majority. Alleged Concensus is not proof! Peer review – is not proof! Models are not proof!

  57. And I wonder how many of the 42% who think global warming is caused by human activity think it is dangerous.

  58. OT or…

    It’s the sun, stupid!

    “NASA spokeswoman Beth Dickey confirmed with SPACE.com earlier today that the reason UARS is expected to fall early in its re-entry window is because of the sharp uptick in solar activity. Solar effects from the sun can create an extra drag on satellites in space because they can heat the Earth’s atmosphere, causing it to expand, agency officials have said.”

  59. The number of believers still needs to be much smaller. It’s only a few points away from being a majority. Which leads me to the problem of democracy: a system where 51% tells the other 49% what to do.

  60. Rawneck says:
    September 18, 2011 at 1:28 am

    Not political convenience at all if you bother to look at what is most important to the respondents:
    “It’s jobs and the economy, stupid”.
    More like political mass exodus away from the label of a floundering Administration.

  61. The 1 to 0 percent for “environment” may reflect a backlash against extreme environmental and CAGW propaganda over the last fifty years. It is unfortunate because the world human population and human use of energy is growing. Humans are changing the landscape in ways not seen before. Dr. Pielke, Sr. has some interesting information on this at his blog.

    I share the concern many here have about the tyranny of the extreme greens. But I hope we will not neglect good science related to the environment in the process.

    It will be a difficult continuing effort to sort out the good science from the extreme. WUWT is a valuable resource in that process.

  62. There are obviously a lot of biases in a poll like this but given the readership base of the NYT this is a very interesting result. For each individual respondent their belief is partly driven by the rational and partly by the irrational. Many of the respondents may well be trained scientists others not so. Some will be driven by the politics of the right, others by the left and some only barely able to raise the energy to vote at all. If we assume that the irrational is idiosyncratic prejudice with respect to the underlying reality of this issue then the polling process will mostly cancel the irrational revealing where the rational element of belief is located. This is the wisdom of the crowds effect of course and although nothing is perfect this strongly suggests that the rational consensus has given due weight to the AGW proposition but on the balance is skeptical. That is my sense of where this debate is at.

    ps: to Anthony Watts – along with many others here I am sure I do hope you are well on the mend.

  63. Louise says:
    September 18, 2011 at 1:03 am

    Great. Now go back and check who among pollsters gets the general population mood right, and who doesn’t.
    The one you cited was a political response to the positions taken by the majority of the GOP candidates.
    The taker of the poll had no intention of representing anything but a party line, and made no bones about it. The piece of information you don’t have is how the general population aligns itself, whether Dem, GOP, Independent, Tea Party, etc. That takes a lot of work, and there be few who will go to that length.

  64. Its not a surprise in times of plenty people can indulge in flights of fancy , in times of stress people revert to what they really care about .

    Allanj that is the house of cards problem crated by the extreme greens and the silence of others in the scientific/environmental area to what was going on in climate science. A rod they very much created for their own back.

  65. Allanj says September 18, 2011 at 2:51 am: “It is unfortunate because the world human population and human use of energy is growing.”

    Yes, it is unfortunate because there are a host of environmental, energy, and population issues that should garner serious attention, but the insane anti-CO2 cult is sucking the life out of every other issue.

  66. Surely the 7% who attribute some human causation to AGW must be added to the 42%, making 49% who follow the “concensus”? The half-and-half split is still a lot better for the scientific argument v the political argument than the figures a few years ago. Isn’t the current scientific evidence-based opinion that there is a human-based contribution to global warming, but the amount cannot be quantified and is likely to be so small that it is largely lost in margins of error of empirical data? Or have I misunderstood current sceptical hypothesis (is)

  67. Bradley J. Fikes says:
    September 17, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Bradley,

    What an excellent job you did on your local news outlet. And people wonder why I don’t listen to news channels anymore. They can’t even get the basics of their job down. It’s like hiring a carpenter who can’t saw straight.

    Keep it up, maybe someone out there will actually start thinking.

  68. John W:
    “Very relevant, because it’s difficult to pass “draconian” regulations without support from the voters.”

    The experience of the voters of their governments in the US, the UK and other members of the EU is the opposite based on the last 25 years (and particularly since 9/11).

  69. The New York Times now openly employs Johann Hari.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/books/review/three-famines-by-thomas-keneally-book-review.html?_r=1&nl=books&emc=booksupdateema3

    This is after Johann Hari, gave the Orwell prize back, seems he made the stuff up. Seems he made lots of stuff up. Seems he writes nasty comments about people on there wiki pages.

    Here’s an article by him about so called deniers.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-much-proof-do-the-global-warming-deniers-need-2063077.html

    The New York Times is now a JOKE.

  70. Surprising that Louise invokes a Reuters Poll here (September 18, 2011 at 1:03 am) when she is usually amongst the first to attack the messenger with personal remarks and ad hominems whilst ignoring the message.

    Can Louise be ignorant of the fact that the Reuters News Agency, like Google and Wikipedia, is signed up to promote alarm over Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?

    Come, come, Louise, exercise some consistency in your approach to propaganda, please! Even better, read some genuine non-alarmist research rather than warmist crib sheets to keep up to date with the rapidly changing developments in climate science.

    Public opinion has indeed turned against the IPCC’s “man-made global warming” line but that is neither here nor there. What matters is, are climate research “findings” soundly based? All the rest is blather.

  71. …and then came the lawyers and then came the rules. (Telegraph Road, Dire Straits)

    Comparing the laws of physics (or more broadly, the laws of nature), with the legislated laws that govern societies, is comparing different concepts.

    When we demise, the laws of nature will relentlessly persist,….. anthropologically uninfluenced.

    Therefore, the earth is in no peril from the lawyer dominated politician’s intent to manipulate the natural laws, only the human race will suffer.

  72. BigWaveDave says:
    September 17, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    “The only way to fix the economy and create more jobs is to start using our own energy resources: instead of pissing our money away on toys and foreign oil.”

    Right on! Though I would edit your statement as follows:

    “…instead of pissing our money away on worthless climate research and ‘green’ energy boondoggles and foreign oil.”

    Of course, I’m still waiting for the CAGW climate hypocrites scientists to stop all use of petroleum products…still waiting.

  73. Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    Viva Climate Family Feud! *) Long live to polls!

    Sure! It is extremely interesting what morons on the street think about climate!

    Mr. Watts, how long yet will you feed WUWT pages with this sh** of polls and what for?

    You are confused Mr. Pawelczyk. The issue here is not science, but government propaganda. Propaganda is designed to create a public wide consensus to meet some underlying and unstated purpose. Consensus is both the aim and the lifeblood of propaganda. It can be countered only, repeat only, by counter-consensus. The latter can be achieved (albeit rarely) by members of the public employing logical argument, which will always require bravery on the part of those prepared to make the effort. The need is for the Anthony Watts of this world (may his tribe increase) to stand up and draw the public’s attention to the logic. There can be no victory, none at all, until a counter consensus, the new consensus, has been established.

    Sadly, consensus among a select group is of no avail, no matter how knowledgeable the group. Consensus requires morons on the street like me to believe in what the consensus is. The esteemed Mr. Watts and his like minded fellows need us morons simply because there are just so many of us.

    I have found it pleasantly surprising that Mr. Watts has tolerated many of us morons for so very long. I suspect that he is wise enough to appreciate that his audience needs to be a wide one.

  74. I think that the growing Solyndra Scandal (aka Solargate) is giving people a very negative opinion of the links between the “green” movement (which is joined at the hip to CAGW climate science) and government. Here’s the latest…

    “So now it turns out that the Obama White House was warned privately in no uncertain terms last January against a fresh infusion of taxpayer cash to financially beleaguered Solyndra.”

    “Indeed, according to newly released e-mails, a top career official at the Office of Management and Budget warned that the rapidy deteriorating Solyndra situation could damage the president politically.”

    “But the solar-paneling company — a centerpiece of President Obama’s “green jobs” initiative — pleaded that it was in danger of collapsing without new capital.”

    “So the money went through — and Solyndra went belly-up two weeks ago, after burning through $535 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees.”

  75. From Star Trek “The Movie”

    LIA PROBE: “The Creator has not answered. The carbon-units infestation is to be removed from the Creator’s planet.”

    I beginning to suspect that Al Gore and his Probes have been sent by the Creator to eliminate all “carbon units” from Earth.

    That would explain the Gore Probe’s attempt to label CO2 as a deadly pollutant. Take away CO2 from carbon units and you eliminate their infestation of Earth.

    Polling indicates that the public may not be aware of the danger, but their plans move forward.

    How big are the underground caverns they are building? And what do they really mean by sequestering Carbon? Carbon Units too?

    Earth to Kirk, Earth to Kirk … return to Earth.

    V’ger hasn’t been stopped.

  76. R. Gates says:
    September 17, 2011 at 9:05 pm
    For those who wish to use their view of the “science” to move the political football one way or another for their team, the results of such public polls must be encouraging or discouraging, depending in which team you’re on. For others, perhaps its all too depressing and sign of the sad state of America and the pending dark ages…

    ============================

    “For those who wish to use their view of “science” to move the political football one way or the other”????

    Cue Charlie Brown laugh: Hahahahaha.

    That remark coming fromYOU has the level of believability comparable to that of a serial killer on the witness stand who tries to opine about the virtues and sacredness of life.

    He just has lost all credibility…but yet he just keeps talking…and talking….and talking…incapable of change.

    And on your last part, I would add: “And even for others, perhaps it is all to exciting and a sign that not all Americans (and others across the world) have lost their ability to reason.”

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  77. Marchesarosa – I posted a link and quote from a poll, that is surely as valid as that of the opening post on this thread, without further comment.

    Please point out how this leads to your accusing me of “attack the messenger with personal remarks and ad hominems whilst ignoring the message”

    BTW – didn’t your own post in effect amount to an attack on Reuters (and me) without mentioning the message?

  78. As the AR5 preparation team reads news of polls like this one from CBS/NYT they know they need to make AR5 alarmingly more alarmist than AR4 in order to have any chance to save the CAGW pseudo-science.

    Now they have to increasingly escalate the option of favorably adjusting the scientific peer review process and positioning sympathetic science journal editors.

    Exposure of the AR5 process is a high priority.

    John

  79. Frank K. says:
    September 18, 2011 at 5:35 am
    “So now it turns out that the Obama White House was warned privately in no uncertain terms last January against a fresh infusion of taxpayer cash to financially beleaguered Solyndra.”
    =================================================================
    So our government gave them our money….
    …..that they turned around and donated to Obama’s campaign

  80. David L says:
    The number of believers still needs to be much smaller. It’s only a few points away from being a majority. Which leads me to the problem of democracy: a system where 51% tells the other 49% what to do.

    =======================================================
    I don’t know if you are American or not, but many (including a sad number of Americans) do not understand basic civics. A democracy is not 51% wins; that is mob rule. Democracy is majority rules with RESPECT TO MINORITY RIGHTS, and I do not mean racial minorities, but anyone who finds themselves outside of the consensus. In the US, we went one further and became a representative republic to help avoid the “mob”. Leftists want the mob rule because mobs, by their nature, do not think for themselves and are easily led. This is why people like the Goracle tell everyone, “Don’t look into this, we have done it for you and the science is settled.”, and, “Do not listen to those deniers”. ie, quit watching this hand and look over here, look over here at this hand.

  81. The result is consistent with Rasmussen findings over the last several years. It is remarkable, given the constant drumbeat from the media and the government. One must say that without the internet, the alarmists would control pretty much all the organs of information.

  82. Solargate is the poster child example of how our society has been hood winked by fraudulent politicians and their lobbyists friends.

    Democracy is rotten to the core. It may be Dems implicated for supporting and enriching their Green socialist friends, but the flip side is no better with defence contractors on the gravy train.

    Sarah Palin is far from being the sharpest tool in the shed but one has to resonate with these comments.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html?_r=1&ref=sarahpalin

  83. David L says:
    September 18, 2011 at 2:33 am

    The number of believers still needs to be much smaller. It’s only a few points away from being a majority. Which leads me to the problem of democracy: a system where 51% tells the other 49% what to do.
    ______
    This is a rather skewed vision of what a democracy is, but let’s go with it. It the best case scenario of a pure democracy, you could have 99% of the population telling 1% what to do, and in the worst case, you could have 51% telling 49% what to do (let’s forget tenths of percentages for the sake of argument). So what are the alternatives? Dictatorship where less than 1% (i.e. one person) tells the remainder what to do?

    As it stands however, the U.S. is only a Republic in name, but a Plutocracy by practice. The majority of our lawmakers are rich and well connected to their Corporate masters whose lobbyists write the wording in the majority of our laws. So in practice, while the mob gets to “vote”, they get to chose among the rich and corporate backed stoogies. No matter what party you vote for, it’s really just a matter of which Corporation get’s to have their stoogie in office for that term. Until we have true campaign finance reform, term limits, and separate the lobbyists from the seats of government, we currently have maybe 1% (i.e. lobbyists and special interests) telling 99% of us what to do. But so long as the shelves at Walmart are stocked with plastic crap from China and tasty goodies, Americans pretty much like it that way.

  84. I was once polled by Harris and back then I was so excited to be polled I answered all the questions. Later I met someone who worked for Harris and she told me that when she got too many answers she didn’t like, say too many people saying they liked Reagen., she just marked what she thought they should say. The polls were audited but if she didn’t do it too often she could get away with it, and push the poll a few points towards being more liberal. Now days I never answer polls, so my correct thinking is not reflected in the polls.

    Question #3 has 14% saying other so Global Warming could be at 14% thinking it is the most important issue. Foreign policy is at less than 1% but considering that foreign policy helps determine which wars we fight or have to fight and how much we spend on defense, I would think it would get at least 1%.
    I don’t automatically believe anything I see in the NYT or on CBS, and I have never believed their polls.

  85. Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    Viva Climate Family Feud! *) Long live to polls!

    Sure! It is extremely interesting what morons on the street think about climate!

    Mr. Watts, how long yet will you feed WUWT pages with this sh** of polls and what for?

    Regards
    *) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Feud

    [REPLY: Przemysław, you're right, science is not conducted by polls or consensus, but note the banner at the top of the page "...and recent news..." - the poll is news. Further, CAGW is a political and social issue as well as a science issue. The poll, and its results, are relevant. A data-point, if you will. You aren't required to read it. -REP, mod]

    Polls are manufactured news.

  86. >> “With only 42 percent saying it is human caused, that puts it in the minority view.”

    Uh, if you add the “doesn’t exist” and “natural causes” categories it comes out to 45%. Even so, the “human causes” category has the single highest percentage of any group. The statement above seems a bit of a stretch. Not that the polls mean all that much to me either way.

    Anyway, the polls do matter somewhat for policy implications. Speaking of which, say hypothetically the world is warming primarily due to human causes and we are on track for a serious temperature rise of 6 degrees Celsius. What policy would be the best?

  87. To note that of the 42% only 2% were right at the front of new communism, where the other 98% where left behind following as per usual, never mind the issue.

  88. Latitude says:
    September 18, 2011 at 7:14 am

    Frank K. says:
    September 18, 2011 at 5:35 am
    “So now it turns out that the Obama White House was warned privately in no uncertain terms last January against a fresh infusion of taxpayer cash to financially beleaguered Solyndra.”
    =================================================================
    So our government gave them our money….
    …..that they turned around and donated to Obama’s campaign
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    And changed the legal order of re-payment in case of bankruptcy so that Kaiser, a big contributor to Obama’s campaign gets repaid ahead of the taxpayers. Completely contrary to how the law is supposed to work.

    This suggest that the White House was fully away that the bankruptcy was going to happen, and made very sure that large campaign contributors were protected, at the expense of the US taxpayer.

    In other words, theft of taxpayer money on a massive scale, laundered through “green companies” to reward large campaign contributors. All done “legally” by a government made up of lawyers, headed by a law professor.

  89. Jeremy says:
    September 18, 2011 at 8:17 am

    “Democracy is rotten to the core. It may be Dems implicated for supporting and enriching their Green socialist friends, but the flip side is no better with defence contractors on the gravy train.”
    ____

    Let’s get our terms correct…it’s not that “Democracy” is rotten to the core, but rather that democracy as practiced in the United States (as a Plutocracy) is rotten to the core. You are correct that as practiced, it is not a question of whether those elected will serve one or more corporate masters, but rather, which corporate master they will serve. As the bulk of the wording in much of our laws are written by the lobbyists who work for those same corporate masters, it is the corporate masters who get to run the show.

    So how do we change it:

    1) Campaign finance reform with real limits on how much each candidate can spend
    2) Term limits (3 terms the absolute max, but 2 is probably better)
    3) Balanced budget amendment

    If we want a government by, for, and of the people, we’ll need to fight for control of it back from the Corporate elite who currently run the show in Washington. But of course, the corporate masters know that if they can keep us fighting amongst ourselves over petty issues, we’ll not focue our attention on the bigger issue at hand (i.e. their control of our democracy). Why else do they resist campaign finance reform and term limitations so vehemently?

  90. Anthony,

    I just read your message to Dr. Pielke Sr. (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/response-from-anthony-watts/). Since this specific post is categorized in “Al Gore”, I thought it appropriate to post my reaction to your message here.

    I commend you for listening to criticism, and making changes based on that criticism. Aside from the breadth of coverage that is posted here, the reason I come to this blog often is because the varied voices are not black-holed, struck through or otherwise censored merely because you disagree with their opinions. Walt Meier. Judith Curry, Jerry Ravetz and others have also had prominent posts here and were dealt with respectfully.

    Ad-hom’s, while they do happen here, are minimal, and are usually followed up with a factual basis for a difference of opinion. I don’t like the ad-homs, but at least there is substance to the stories. Your removal of a glaring ad-hom, based on feedback, speaks volumes about your character. As you stated, I hope Skeptical Science follows this good advice, and removes the more glaring ad-homs they prominently feature on their site. I also hope that they stop what I consider juvenile responses to Dr. Pielke’s reasoned comments on their blog. There is a marked difference how dissenting voices are treated at WUWT vs. how they are treated as SkS.

  91. R. Gates, for once, there is little I can argue with. One solution is to disallow lobbyists altogether. Make it a crime, like being a pimp. If some corporate entity wants to be heard, let the CEO come visit or write letters to the halls of government, just like the rest of us are forced to do.

  92. Al Gore’s Holy Hologram says:
    September 17, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    It’s just tragic that only 7% of people can think logically.

    Actually, the correct answer, is #2 – “Global warming is caused mostly by natural patterns in the earth’s environment”, which a respectable 33% got right.
    Depressing that 42% of the respondents are either knee-jerk Democrats, or just plain brain -dead, and either too lazy or unable to check things for themselves. Like some trolls we know.

  93. This is a poll from deep in the New York City bubble. It is a major urban heat island with too many people, too much concrete and not enough carbon dioxide disposing plant life. All in all, it is a very interesting drama to watch unfold.

  94. R. Gates says:
    September 18, 2011 at 8:25 am

    Your post reminds me of Marvin the Robot in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
    If you already know the answer, then what’s the use? Ask your doctor if Apathy is right for you.
    The concensus has shifted away from AGW, that much is quite clear. 3 years ago you couldn’t find a poll that didn’t list overwhelming support of AGW in print. Numerous AGW Scandals have taken their toll.

  95. In reply to Ron Dean, wrong thread but never mind.

    Do you consider this an ad hom too? “Dr. [Loonie] Lonnie Thompson, of Ohio State University”

    From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/23/quote-of-the-week-you-first-dr-thompson/

    [sorry can't do the strike through but everyone can see it on the link]

    REPLY: Yes and in that case it is deserved. Dr. Thompson wants us all (including you) to vacate the planet, by any rational definition, that’s a looney idea. Dr. Thompson’s press agent reads WUWT and has corresponded with me. He is welcome to post a response. Of course, if you want to get into a pissing match about all such ad homs, even those made in “jest”, and demand they be taken down, may I suggest you start with this one? http://www.webcitation.org/5x0pgZdgl be SURE to scroll down to the bottom to read the “corrections”. Thanks for your consideration – Anthony

  96. Here’s the link to the study I mentioned yesterday: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-09/ncfa-doc091511.php
    Anthony will not find anything surprising, but it might be fodder for a post about yet another computer model attempt to reconcile AGW theory with reality

    Deep oceans can mask global warming for decade-long periods

    BOULDER — The planet’s deep oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming, according to a new analysis led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

    The study, based on computer simulations of global climate, points to ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet (300 meters) as the main location of the “missing heat” during periods such as the past decade when global air temperatures showed little trend. The findings also suggest that several more intervals like this can be expected over the next century, even as the trend toward overall warming continues.

    [shortened since I'll be posting it soon]

    REPLY: Yes I was just reading it on Eurekalert myself, and I sent a note to Bob Tisdale…this is really something – Anthony

  97. As the climate changes Australia has its Paul Nurse out and about as well-

    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/climate-debate-hitting-new-lows-scientist/story-e6frfku0-1226140422434

    although with the tide of public opinion turning on the warmist hype and the utter failure of Green policies to date, some are getting much more guarded in their urgings nowadays-

    “I would urge politicians to look at all the evidence and to wonder why it might be that something like 32 national academies of science all around the world are all saying that it’s very likely that human activity has adversely affected our climate through global warming.”

    and naturally the poor chaps need the public sympathy vote for being unfairly persecuted now with-”simply very nasty emails with veiled threats in them that what might happen to us in a very general way”.

    You have to ‘wonder why’ it’s ‘very likely’ these folk are feeling ‘adversely affected’ by ‘what might happen’ to them ‘in a very general way’ with all the ‘veiled threats’ out there in such a climate. It’s either their ‘reasonable’ and ‘ever so umble’ approach to the poor misguided majority, or the caged attack dog response to all their holocaust deniers and tormenters out there now. Take your pick folks..

  98. “One solution is to disallow lobbyists altogether.”

    There’s a minor little thing called ‘freedom of speech’ which would get in the way.

    A better solution would be to explicitly limit government powers to a few areas where it is required, so then lobbyists would be irrelevant because there would be few things the government could do to benefit them. You could create a document listing those powers and call it a ‘Constitution’ or something.

    Otherwise, so long as control over trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is concentrated in the hands of a few hundred people then others will be eager to spend millions of dollars convincing those people to hand them billions. Worse, when those people can shut your business down overnight with a new law, a company pretty much has to pay lobbyists to convince them to let you continue operating.

  99. Louise said on September 18, 2011 at 1:03 am:

    From another poll this week http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/15/us-usa-poll-ipsos-idUSTRE78D5B220110915

    “The percentage of Americans who believe the Earth has been warming rose to 83 percent from 75 percent last year in the poll conducted Sept 8-12.”

    and

    “Some 71 percent of the Americans who believe warming is happening think that it is caused either partly or mostly by humans, while 27 percent believe its is the result of natural causes, the poll found.”

    Excellent! People have been paying attention to the real science as presented here on WUWT. The Earth has been warming, normally cited as since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. There is a human-based component to it, as seen in numerous research on black carbon (soot), land use changes, and a host of other possibilities, although the sum may be trivial and overwhelmed by natural causes thus the “27 percent” could also be considered correct.

    (And of course everything together except the supposed extra warming from increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations demonstratively swamps out the theoretical elusive “anthropogenic CO2 signal.” The poll makers were wise not to mention it specifically.)

    This is cheering news! Thanks for mentioning it!

  100. Pamela Gray says:
    September 18, 2011 at 9:33 am
    R. Gates, for once, there is little I can argue with. One solution is to disallow lobbyists altogether. Make it a crime, like being a pimp. If some corporate entity wants to be heard, let the CEO come visit or write letters to the halls of government, just like the rest of us are forced to do.

    ______

    Glad we agree from time to time. Considering how many time a month CEO’s and our elected officials have lunch or go golfing together, is it any wonder that our laws are skewed to protect their coporate interests. But of course, now that our corrupt and overly powerful Supreme Court has made the ruling that Corporations are people, it makes an ironic and sad mockery of the statement, “Government, by the people, for the people, and of the people.” The joke is us…the real people.

  101. Louise says:
    September 18, 2011 at 10:09 am

    In reply to Ron Dean, wrong thread but never mind.

    I you had cared to actually look before you criticized, you would have noted that my comment was made more than 10 minutes prior to the correct thread being posted. So you criticize others based on your own shoddy homework, “but never mind”.

    Do you consider this an ad hom too? “Dr. [Loonie] Lonnie Thompson, of Ohio State University”

    From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/23/quote-of-the-week-you-first-dr-thompson/

    [sorry can't do the strike through but everyone can see it on the link]

    Personally, I would have liked to have seen the full context for Dr. Thompson’s quote. My best guess is that he used the quote as a linguistic device to draw attention to his perceived notion of the dire straits of glaciers. In that case, I personally would not mock the quote as it would be a quote taken out of context.

    However, if Dr. Thompson meant anything close to what that quote states, then it deserves to be mocked and mocked in full. Some things are so far out there, that the only real rebuttal is to have fun with it at the other person’s expense.

  102. Is this the R. Gates blog or the WUWT blog?

    I can see it now, (unknown) moderator pens:

    . . . “Gates, methinks it might be time for you to transition to your own blog, so have at it, big boy, you are history here …

    .

  103. Heck, just to show there are no hard feelings, a link to his blog could be placed in the sidebar for a month or so … ANYTHING to get him/her away from here!

    .

  104. When atributing significance to polls it may be wise to recall that a 2009 Gallup poll reported that 44% of Americans believe God created human beings in their present form within the past 10,000 years. I believe another relevant quotation is “I dont believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance” (I am told this quote came originally from Queen Elizabeth the first ) So we shouldnt attatch too much significance to polls.

  105. http://www.webcitation.org/5x0pgZdgl be SURE to scroll down to the bottom to read the “corrections”. Thanks for your consideration – Anthony

    Whoa!

    I had to check out that link, Anthony.

    Sounds like you really know how to party!

    LOL

    But, seriously folks: “Most Egregious Lie: “The Hockey Stick is Broken!””

    Geez, if that is your most egregious lie, you must be a Saint.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket – Saint Watts, Patron Saint of Weather Monitoring.

    Will you be selling the Saint Watts medallions on CafePress?

  106. Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
    September 17, 2011 at 6:27 pm
    Polls’ results are relevant? C’mon!

    Actually, I believe they are. The vast majority of people only know what is pumped to them by the MSM. As their interest is piqued, they begin to research the issue on their own. Once that begins, the number of “skeptics” begins to swell. As evidenced in these polls.
    I know. I speak from experience. I bought the whole story, hook-line-and-sinker. Then I began to examine the issue wondering who these morons were that continued to doubt the official party line. Then my eyes began to open.
    Let’s be clear. I’m an environmentalist. A deeply concerned and involved environmentalist. And I’m worried that the “green” sheen on what is obviously a scam will cast doubt on ALL environmental issues. The faster the whole CAGW thing goes away the better, for all of us.

  107. MarkG says:
    September 18, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    “One solution is to disallow lobbyists altogether.”

    There’s a minor little thing called ‘freedom of speech’ which would get in the way.

    A better solution would be to explicitly limit government powers to a few areas where it is required,

    You’re both wrong. The solution is TERM LIMITS. The reason lobbyist influence is so pervasive is because those they have bought remain in positions of power for so long. If they had to start all over again, from scratch, every 2 years very few could justify the expenditure.

Comments are closed.