From Rasmussen Reports:
Voters strongly believe the debate about global warming is not over yet and reject the decision by some news organizations to ban comments from those who deny that global warming is a problem.
Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say the debate about global warming is not over. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters think there is still significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming, while 35% believe scientists generally agree on the subject.
The BBC has announced a new policy banning comments from those who deny global warming, a policy already practiced by the Los Angeles Times and several other media organizations. But 60% of voters oppose the decision by some news organizations to ban global warming skeptics. Only 19% favor such a ban, while slightly more (21%) are undecided.
But then 42% believe the media already makes global warming appear to be worse than it really is. Twenty percent (20%) say the media makes global warming appear better than it really is, while 22% say they present an accurate picture. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.
Still, this is an improvement from February 2009 when 54% thought the media makes global warming appear worse than it is. Unchanged, however, are the 21% who say the media presents an accurate picture.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well piss on the BBC. Shame on them.
The BBC are clearly in breach of their charter and only had that “28gate” meeting in order to legitimise renewables in a form of insider trading. They are committing a grand fraud on the British people. Shame on them.
The Spectator has a good article about the BBC and Climate Correctness
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9259911/climatic-correctness/
From the Report:
“However, just 30% of voters think the president should take action alone if necessary to deal with global warming. Twice as many (59%) say the federal government should only do what the president and Congress jointly agree on.”
President Obama: Are you listening?
The BBC have been living off their good reputation for years, oblivious to the fact that once they lose it they’re unlikely to ever regain it.
As 97% of climate scientists are convinced AGW is real and that 97% of papers published that have a position on climate change endorse the view that global warming is due primarily to humans burning fossil fuels, perhaps someone should tell the odious group at SkepticalScience that their propaganda needs re-evaluating
“Twenty percent (20%) say the media makes global warming appear better than it really is,”
And just why would it do that? Funniest thing I’ve seen all day (though admittedly it’s still early)
Of course, nearly 80 percent of Americans believe in angels, so not sure what we can take from such polls, other than lots of people believe in wacky things. Then again, this is ultimately a voting issue. So from that point of view, this strikes me a pretty big win for the skeptics..
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/
The increased vitriol and violence by the alarmists, along with the increased cat fighting among skeptics is proof of the poles. When the world seemed against skeptics, differences were not aired in the press. And the likes of Mann could haughtily go around and snub skeptics. Now they vociferously attack them (note Mann’s characterization of Dr Curry).
The Polls validate what we are seeing.
“…along with the increased cat fighting among skeptics is proof of the polls.”
Like your comment generally, but not sure about the assertion above.
@Pokerguy – I was referring to the dust ups of several notable skeptics recently. Notably about temperature adjustments and TSI and a notch filter.
Lance Wallace says:”President Obama: Are you listening?”
No, he’s busy spying on the Germans.
Not sure we actually “deny” that “global warming is a problem”.
Rather we “challenge” the alarmist claims that “global warming is catastrophic.”
Just a small point but words can be twisted so it’s worthwhile being accurate.
The PBS News Hour has a de facto policy of painting a one-sidedly alarmist picture of global warming research though they usually present both sides of an issue. As PBS relies upon donations, it would be beneficial if some of us were to withhold our annual donations to our local PBS stations while this continues to occur and to write to the management of PBS New Hour to tell them of why this has happened.
The San Francisco Chronicle has a similar policy. Though they usually print letters to the editor on both sides of an issue, they print only alarmist letters on global warming research. Here it would be beneficial to cancel one’s subscription and write to the editor, inform him of this action and of why it has happened.
@terry Oldberg
One cannot withhold what does not exist (in my case). I do not donate to them because I do not believe in their mission. I do not begrudge those who do, but I have a problem with State supported media.
“Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over,””
How come we suddenly crossed the Atlantic in a blog about a UK survey?
Confusing to say the least.
“Not sure we actually “deny” that “global warming is a problem”.
Rather we “challenge” the alarmist claims that “global warming is catastrophic.
Just a small point but words can be twisted so it’s worthwhile being accurate”
****
No, not a small point. Crucial distinction that goes to how deeply unfair, how ludicrously distorting, and how transparently disingenuous is the characterization.
The debate on news programmes is only about catastrophic Climate Change. Otherwise it is merely a magazine curiosity like other science stories.
Anyone who advocates policy decisions on the basis of the precautionary principle is committed to belief in catastrophic Climate Change.
But that extreme view is certainly open to legitimate challenge. There is no justification for censoring doubt abut catastrophic Climate Change.
Millennial fears may have been trendy around 2000AD but are not mainstream anymore.
pokerguy says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:59 am
=====
It really is sad when bigots come out to play.
Dave says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:16 am
======
I for one deny that it is a problem.
A doubling of CO2 will result in a warming that is going to be less than 1C, possibly much less.
That isn’t a problem, that is in fact a good thing.
More CO2 in the atmosphere means bigger and healthier plants. Also a good thing.
When news organizations “ban” something, it is a sign of desperation and panic. The far-left flatlanders are trying to escape from reality.
MarkW says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:28 am
pokerguy says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:59 am
=====
It really is sad when bigots come out to play.
—————————————————————————————-
Soooooooo being a skeptic is fine until YOUR ox is gored? While “wacky” is a bit off base, until I see an angel, I too am a skeptic. In the end, I will know one way or the other.
One approach taken by Al Gore and the alarmists lately is to claim a diminishing number of skeptics. This poll is timely and demonstrates these folks are once again being dishonest.
The debate and discussion is yet to begin.
When the unengaged tax payers, who have up to this point in time paid no attention to the CAGW scheme perpetuated at their expense by their governments, start to feel the hurt.
Then the true discussion begins, it is approaching quickly.
Consumer goods, utilities, taxes, fees, all have been rising steadily even though the local economies are stagnant.
Low information voter, is an unfair classification. Those with children to raise, work that needs done do not focus on things as abstract as speculation over future weather trends.
However their attention becomes focussed, laser like, on things that steal their money, the entire spectrum of CAGW “remedies” take from the many, while providing them zero benefit, in the name of an imaginary evil, to the benefit of the select few.
Who are all complicit in promoting the scheme.
CAGW is not going to end well.
People are really nasty when those they trusted,have played them for fools.
Time is on the side of those of us sceptical and suspicious of these fads, that are always presented in emotive terms, that seem aimed to stampede the masses in specified directions.
The contempt these manipulators express for the citizens, their dismissal of democratic means to address their desires.. these things work to their discredit and thanks to this internet tool are undeniable.
The costs of this mass insanity are now becoming an open assault on the taxpayers pocket book, once the bite starts to sting, then this discussion will begin.
Somehow I doubt the discussion will be politically correct.
Some sociological research is begging to be done and would be done if the ‘science’ wasn’t seriously broken and co-opted by sinistras. I think a small minority, less than 20% are of a sceptical (thoughtfully sceptical), “show-me” position on all types of claims and assertions. They are a societal treasure, but this can’t be recognized, of course, for obvious reasons. Note also, the hard number 21% for those who think the press is doing an accurate job of reporting on these things – these gullible folks added to the 19% – rank ideologists- who support the ban (and don’t care much about the science) are double or more the skeptics. The rest are a pool of mixed – those who are concerned there would be tax and other costs associated with support that they don’t want to pay and a population of “liberal” educated types from whom useful fools can be recruited.
Nik says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:11 am
Lance Wallace says:”President Obama: Are you listening?”
No, he’s busy spying on the Germans.
Playing golf, going to dinner parties, flying around in AF1, taking his dog on holiday, etc
It really does matter what the numbers are as to what the people think. IF science wishes to be correct, the debate NEVER ends regarding any and all issues. History has shown that when we assume we know exactly what is going on, someone comes along with evidence that proves the other 99.999% of the scientists were wrong. At one time science assumed that the composition of the sun and all stars was the same, but one woman scientist with evidence proved them all wrong.