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.
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.
It really is amazing to me that the number of those that are skeptical of the catastrophic claims is so high considering all the time and resources that governments and their allies http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85066 have put into the effort to convince people!
@rah – but mother nature refuses to back up the government, and people deal with her every day.
When you consider the hardcore 20% who generally think “science is settled”, skeptics should be banned and the media makes warming less of a problem you are talking about the core left-wing of the U.S. Sadly, this 20% will be disproportionately “academics”, “scientists”, “journalists” and other “opinion makers” with platform access. Then there are government workers, rent seekers of all sorts and all associated to free lunch wealth redistribution that is central to climate “policy”.
That’s how “20%” dedicated ideologists get social domination. If the other 80% can’t coordinate their thoughts the tyranny is established.
It is obvious that CAGW and AGW have not been robustly confirmed. Science requires subjecting theories which have not been robustly confirmed to skeptical scrutiny. Therefore, anyone who has a policy of trying to stifle skeptical arguments against CAGW and AGW is anti-science.
What percent approve of book burning and policy taunts of skeptics by elected leaders?
Mark W. writes: “It really is sad when bigots come out to play.”
Let’s be clear. I’m a bigot because I think the belief in as Wikipedia defines them, “humanoid forms with feathered wings on their backs and halos around their heads,” is half way to nuts? The intolerance I would submit is on your end. Which is to say I’ll continue to strenuously defend your right to believe in whatever you want, including angels, even if you don’t seem to recognize my right to laugh.
“Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over”
Wait, what? There was a scientific debate? When? Where? What did I miss?
@Pokerguy – “I was referring to the dust ups of several notable skeptics recently. Notably about temperature adjustments and TSI and a notch filter.”
I see, Phil, My quibble is I wouldn’t call it a catfight, or a sign somehow that the skeptics are winning. Robust debate is good of course, and to be expected in a healthy environment in which the goal isn’t “consensus” but the ongoing struggle for clarity and truth.
@Pokerguy – I agree with you. I am cursed by my short answer again.
The dustups (or cat fights) are signs they have TIME to critique the work of other skeptics. Which means that the alarmists have not been putting up much of anything (science wise) that merits their attention. The disagreements are good and is what science is about. The fact that they can take the time to disagree is the indication.
@Pokerguy – No one contests your right to laugh, you should remember, though, that being an a** is optional.
I don’t agree with Mark W’s use of the term ‘bigot’, but I think it would be wise of you to step back and take a look at how you come off when you make a comment like you did. Same tactics employed by the warmists.
I don’t think you understand the situation. Rasmussen polled common people — you know, mundanes who don’t count at all. If Rasmussen would poll The Team and Algore’s pals they would discover that 97% agree with the BBC entirely. (The other 3% are too drunk to answer the poll)
Simple really.
Rasmussen is not as good a source for polling, they have a liberal bias in their results since Scott R. left the organization. These can be seen in Obama polling numbers. So the results above are best case. Could be 5 points worse (69 and 60).
@GoHome
***
That’s interesting. So likely an even a worse result if you’re Barak Obama than it looks.
I’d give a lot to be a journalist at one of his press conference. My question might be, “So Mr. President, given that 60 percent of the American public don’t agree with you that the debate is settled, do you stand by your statement that doubting CAGW is akin to believing the moon is made of cheese? And if you do stand by it, are you at all worried that you’re calling almost 2/3 of the country “stupid?”
Why are American journalists such drones? Why can’t they come up with stuff like that?.
@Pokerguy – job security. You could ask that question once. But they would bar you from any future press conference. And of course no one else would report it.
BBC .what a joke they really are. I thought they were meant to be impartial. My ass. We pay £150 a year to hear their lies.
cAGW proponents mounted high horses to advance their noble, but misguided cause. They can no longer avert the inevitable, but seem to be dreading a payback. If so, it’s in vain IMO – at this stage they instigate vicarious embarrassment only.
The US might join Australia & Canada with at least partially skeptical political leaders after the 2014 & 2016 elections, with Congress maybe more likely than White House, but at least there’s a chance. Politicians of all stripes however can gain from Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism, although Tea Party types less so.
Publicly stated opinions of two senators running for president:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/22/cruz-to-cnn-global-warming-not-supported-by-data-cnn-political-ticker-cnn-com-blogs/
Dunno if anyone has ever asked Rand Paul if he thinks that CO2 is a pollutant.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/204235-paul-science-behind-climate-change-not-conclusive
philjourdan says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:12 am
@rah – but mother nature refuses to back up the government, and people deal with her every day.
===================================================
But Phil they convinced a plurality to re-elect the current president! 😉
@rah – true – but just once. LOL
The debate being over is anti-science and garbage. The debate has NEVER been over and, as a matter of fact, is only just hotting up (pun intended). Well it’s not hotting up in the atmosphere and the longer the hiatus the hotter the debate. There is no getting away from this simple truth – thus their desperation (caused by the hiatus). It is as clear as daylight to me, thus the debate is over nonsense.
Merchants of doubt.
For the BBC it’s about their pension money. They could loose untold millions in this co2 gamble. I showed yesterday that they also invest their pension money in oil and gas companies, so it has NOTHING to do with being concerned about ‘acting now’ and the alleged ‘planetary emergency’. It’s always been about the MONEY. Follow the money as they say.
BBC Pension – Top equity Investments at 31 March 2013
Altria Group [Tobacco]
Drax Group [Electricity generation]
BHP Billiton [Oil & mining]
British American Tobacco
BG Group [Oil & natural gas]
BP [Oil & natural gas]
Royal Dutch Shell [Oil & natural gas]
Imperial Tobacco
Centrica [Natural gas & electricity]
Reynolds American [Tobacco]
Petrofac [Oilfield services]
Occidental Petroleum [Oil & natural gas]
The above list “Does not include any assets held in pooled funds.”
It could be worse than we thought! Follow the money.
The other poll says the pols, bureaucrats and media members don’t care what the ignorant, unwashed masses think. They’re going to shove the message down our throats, cut off debate and not cover any stories that don’t conform to their beliefs.
“The BBC has announced a new policy banning comments from those who deny global warming”
This is simply untrue. The BBC has not made any such announcment.
Indrid writes “I don’t agree with Mark W’s use of the term ‘bigot’, but I think it would be wise of you to step back and take a look at how you come off when you make a comment like you did. Same tactics employed by the warmists.”
If it’s obnoxious to tell the truth, then I plead guilty. But I reject your assertion that’s somehow a warmist thing….telling the truth that is.
OTC, we’re Doubters of Merchants.
Why is it an improvement when more people buy into a lie? Biased much??
As a poster above noted, Obama’s popularity numbers stayed abnormally high after Scott left the group. They are an outlier now.
I think a more neutral phrasing of the 3rd question in the poll would be:
“Do you favor or oppose some news organizations having banned persons from presenting their views on global warming because these persons were on a particular one of the two sides of the global warming debate?”
pokerguy says, July 11, 2014 at 7:59 am:
“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/”
I agree that angels exist, and I am convinced that I have felt their presence. Especially when shopping for clothes for family members, especially when of the other gender.
However, I see a matter that angels are a matter of the science of theology. That science may be about as advanced as chemistry was back in earlier parts of the times when it was known as alchemy.
john robertson says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:01 am
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.
=========================================================================
Very nice point. I would agree with you on that. I come from a large family. We all received decent education. Yet all of my brothers and sisters were taken in with the promotion of the global warming story. My son, who has 4 children, had a good education ‘in Colorado’. He can do some levels of programming and knows more on maths than I do, yet he also believed in global warming. At least until last year when he drove some of my storage up to the mountains for me. In 5 minutes I had him questioning what he formerly thought was indisputable science, mainly by showing him the many correlating graphs and charts which I have received mostly from here. And I also have a way of connecting and imparting understanding at times. The point to that is the average person can not make the connections to further comprehension of this story without help.I would bet that it mostly first impressions from any given individual as to which way they view the climate chnage/CAGW story.
@pokerguy…
I see that it is, once again, futile to point out the obvious to someone who stubbornly refuses to remove their blinders. One can assert their viewpoint (not truth) without being an ass…also notice, YOU were the one who broached the subject. Warmists don’t engage in truth, they engage in opinion and blind faith…just as you have. You have no more truth than any other person when it comes to matters of which you bloviated. Good day.
pokerguy takes issue with Mark’s “bigot” comment ‘cos he thinks it’s about angels.
Maybe, it’s about people who don’t think AGW is a problem.
A Harley biker is visiting Taronga Park Zoo, Sydney, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lions’ cage.
Suddenly, a lion grabs her by the jacket and tries to pull her inside, in full view of her terrified, screaming parents.
The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.
Whimpering, the lion releases the girl and recoils, and the biker returns her to her terrified parents who thank him again and again.
A reporter has watched the whole event. Addressing the Harley rider, he says: “Sir, that was the bravest thing I’ve seen a man do in all my life.”
The Harley rider replies, “Why, it was nothing, really. The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and did the right thing.”
The reporter says, “Well, I’ll make sure it won’t go unnoticed. I’m a journalist, and tomorrow’s paper will have this story on the front page. So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?”
The biker replies, “I’m an SAS soldier just returned from Afghanistan and I’m against the political global warming nonsense.”
The journalist takes his leave.
The following morning the biker buys the paper to see news of his actions, and reads on the front page:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2014/07/modern-journalism-meets-a-lion-of-a-man/#more-19381
@ mwhite says:
July 12, 2014 at 2:51 am
Thanks for the humor. I have seen that joke in many forms, but that was a new one and very good!
SAS soldier assaults African immigrant and steals his lunch
Thank goodness that Mother Nature does not watch BBC or similar major and public tv networks nor read some of these alarmist mainstream papers that hide the truth from the public . Regardless how and what climate truths they try to cover up, the cooling of the planet will continue to 2100 and it will be increasingly difficult to pretend that alarming heating of the planet is happening. There is a lot of global cooling coming down the pike.for the next many decades. The 2013/14 winter and cool spring and now summer is just a dress rehearsal of what may be the norm in the years ahead.
The only place where this type of news censorship has taken place is in former and some still current Communist or Nazi based governments. One would not expect this from nations that value freedom of information. Our war veterans gave their lives to preserve such freedoms. Something is seriously wrong with our mainstream media. They demand freedom of the press for them selves and yet deny the most basic of freedom of information to the public just to support special political and business interests. One can see the meaning of the phrase ” green” on the outside but” red” inside.
Trulyfreethinker: “I see that it is, once again, futile to point out the obvious to someone who stubbornly refuses to remove their blinders. One can assert their viewpoint (not truth) without being an ass”
I think in this case given that from a scientific point of view, angels are no more likely to exist than the Easter Bunny, I can with reasonable confidence say that I’m speaking the truth. Is it *possible* that angels (and unicorns and UFO abductions) exist? I suppose so inasmuch as it’s not possible to absolutely prove a negative. But the chance is vanishingly improbable.
As to your point about being an ass, I don’t disagree. If I’ve been impolite.., .and some appear to think I have,,, I apologize
pokerguy says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:03 am
Mark W. writes: “It really is sad when bigots come out to play.”
Let’s be clear. I’m a bigot because I think the belief in as Wikipedia defines them, “humanoid forms with feathered wings on their backs and halos around their heads,” is half way to nuts?
——————————-
So your source for theological concepts is Wikipedia?
I don’t know a single Christian who believes in angels as per that definition. Even children know better.
And I also don’t know any single Christian who believes this is a scientific topic.
I don’t know if misrepresenting what other people believe to be able to sneer them and talking about something one knows nothing about is “bigotry”,
But it surely looks like what warmists do all the time.
As it turns out, Wikipedia is blameless this time around (I checked only after posting the above comment).
Here is the complete definition there:
“An angel (from the Greek ἄγγελος ángelos, “messenger”[1]) is a supernatural being or spirit, often depicted in humanoid form with feathered wings on their backs and halos around their heads, found in various religions and mythologies.”
You know that a spirit cannot have wings etc., right?
What part of “often depicted” you don’t understand? Or you believe people think that “Love” is a small winged child with a bow and an arrow? Or that “Justice” is a blindfolded woman with a scale in her hands?
Misquoting / trimming definitions to suit one’s argument is also something warmists are fond of and adept at.
The BBC have not decided that anyone who refuses to accept the alarmist version of global warming shall be denied any appearance on the BBC. What may have been decided is that anybody they deem to be a non-scientist who rejects the alarmist version of global warming is not allowed to appear. However, will that mean that in future they will give access to scientists who reject the alarmist version of global warming? Don’t hold your breath.
Unfortunately, the BBC and the New York Times are of the same ilk. They’ve sold out their journalistic integrity for some odd liberal love affair with saving the planet. But the planet doesn’t need saving. It’s like the editiorial board at BBC and NYT are suffering from some weird 60’s generation pollution-guilt thing. At least the Washington Post allows coherent and insightrul columns by Charles Krauthammer, who calls BS on this “it’s global warming and we’re all going to die” madness.
rah says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:51 AM
But Phil they convinced a plurality to re-elect the current president! ;-)””
rah, as I understand it. The Obama administration gave away 5 million cell phones
then won the election by 3 million votes.
When a reader repeatedly does not agree with the articles they are reading or programs on TV, they stop reading/watching. Evidence – when global warming propaganda is displayed on TV, people switch to another channel. In Australia, there are two large press groupings, the ones that are failing and dying such as the Fairfax group, who believe in Global Warming, and those that don’t and will publish both sides, such as the News Corporation.
If I was the BBC, I would be worried. The loss in viewership could eventually lead to the loss of funding, as the Government of the day realises only a few left wing loonies believe what it says anymore.
Will the shining whits of comedy bring their talents for mockery, irony and satire to bear on the BBBC (=biase obviously)?
Well certainly not the likes of Marcus or Dara or Mark Steele or indeed any of them. Why? I would be inclined to say follow the money. But deeper down they are usually the product of the same kind of university system. They are universal green materialist anti-theists.
Don’t Silence Lawson: We Can’t Leave Climate Policy To The Scientists – City A.M. 14 July 2014
http://www.cityam.com/1405359599/don-t-silence-lord-lawson-we-can-t-leave-climate-change-policy-scientists