Only 18 percent of survey respondents strongly believe that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful.
Yes you read that correctly, it is all in this article on the Nature Conservancy webpage. And that goes along with what was discovered in June this year by the newspapers UK Guardian and Observer, which reported that:
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans – and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem…
The Nature Conservancy story citing 18 percent, is citing the American Climate Values Survey (ACVS), conducted by the consulting group EcoAmerica It also found that political party affiliation is the single largest indicator as to whether people see climate change as a threat.
It seems it is all political, as there are some other fascinating tidbits. For example:
- Convinced it’s happening: 54 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats.
- Think that weather has gotten more severe: 44 percent of Republicans; 77 percent of Democrats.
- Noticed the climate changing: 54 percent of Republicans; 84 percent of Democrats.
- Trust Al Gore when he talks about global warming: 22 percent of Republicans; 71 percent of Democrats.
- Trust environmentalists who talk about global warming: 38 percent of Republicans; 71 percent of Democrats.
- Trust anyone who talks about global warming: 39 percent of Republicans; 75 percent of Democrats.
h/t to Tom Nelson
andyw35 (03:13:35) :
“It’s blatently obvious that the UK should try to get off it’s addiction to Russian gas and oil and if it takes the global warming banner to do it than so be it. ”
The first part I agree with, the second I take issue with. Legislation and government environmental incentives have their place – for real environmental improvement. It is possible that there will be long term benefits though having stimulated and given artificial advantages to some technologies but just remember we’re all paying for it – or will do in the end.
“The government paid for..” but where does the goverment get the money? TAX.
In the UK petrol has just come down to below £1.00 per litre. That’s $5.77 per US gallon. Gas in the US is only ~$2.66 per gallon. What’s the difference? TAX. On every litre we pay 50.53p fuel duty and 17.5% VAT.
You said:
“STUPID? No, personally economically better off on the back of “green” is not stupid” That’s exactly what you’re supposed to think.
I had some great high-paying contracts for Y2K. One of them actually was a legitimate concern, too. A pharmacy software package. Every time you started the program it would delete all records past a certain age. Unfortunately, if you set the date to January 1, 2000, all records suddenly became (infinite) days old and were deleted. All patient records, drug records, interaction records, etc. Gone. Wiped clean. And the source code for this commercial package was lost a decade earlier.
Some of the memorable Y2K humor involved people who truly believed that on January 1, 2000, even industrial microprocessors (ie. car engine controllers, telephone switching boxes) would stop working. Truly an example of how little most people know about technology.
And honestly, AGW is no different from Y2K, in that it preys on ignorance, sows unnecessary fear, is easily refuted with even a small amount of knowledge, is designed to get funding, and is based around a small nugget of fact.
Oh, and during 2000 I really did hear a lot of people take “credit” for averting disaster. Wonderful!
Alan the Brit: “How is the ice doing right now?”
Click on Anthony’s new Sea Ice link at the upper right, and you’ll see that 2008 sea ice levels are normal. Despite what NOAA says.
My concern is the freedom of the net and the present the search engines, I have searched the terms global warming , global warming skeptics, global warming skeptical blog.
Gristmill appears near the top, climateaudit and wattsupwiththat appear way down the list, this to me is alarming. Unless people are aware of the Hockey Stick debunking they wont end up at the two most important skeptical sites unless they trawl through numerous pages. If you type climate change skeptics it is just as bad.
Anthony is getting a large amount of hits but are they hits from a growing audience.
Why do Democrats believe in AGW? Possibly for the same reasons they support Obama?
http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3
So comrades, what we need is a new propaganda five year plan.
Bill P (10:44:51) :
A debate hosted by I.Q Squared (IQ2) in March, 2007 demonstrated this same result.
“Global Warming is Not a Crisis”
I believe Gavin Schmidt was part of that debate, he has never dared go near one since.
Nope. Can’t have a tent, that’s a manufactured item and therefore not “natural”. Can’t have a horse either, that’s animal abuse (assuming you’re going to ride it or use it in some way).
I don’t see the link…
moptop (14:21:35) :
“So comrades, what we need is a new propaganda five year plan.”
I’m in…how can I help?
Jim
A certain left wing loonie whose name rhymes with Osama is intent on treating CO2 as a dangerous pollutant. He also intends to repeal the Bill of Rights and replace it with a “Second Bill of Rights.” Oh, and he’s going to spread your wealth around to a lot of people you don’t know. But those “right wing loonies” who are looking around for their slaves balance him out….NOT!
Don’t be embarassed for her. She is still looking for her own slaves.
:0)
Oh crap! I’m a non-conforming non-conformist. I can’t belong to the majority on this issue. It will ruin my image!!!
Anthony,
A question – Your headline is Climate skeptics are the majority, not the minority
because “Only 18 percent of survey respondents strongly believe that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful.”
and yet according to the survey “There are people who deny either that global warming is happening, that it is harmful, or that it is human caused. Only 18% of Americans strongly agree with questions on this logic chain.” (Page 22).
So we have exactly the same proportion, 18%, strongly agreeing and disagreeing with the proposition that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful. So applying your logic, an equally valid headline would have been:
Climate Non-Sceptics in the majority, not the minority
How did you choose which headline to go with?
😉
REPLY: I’m not playing this game, if you don’t like the headline, go elsewhere. I don’t have time to debate such petty arguments. – Anthony
[…] EcoAmerica Poll: Climate skeptics are the majority, not the minority Only 18 percent of survey respondents strongly believe that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful. Yes you […] […]
Really so frightening that Obama plans to blackmail even his reluctant Democrat legislators.
This from Oct. 20 WSJ:
“He {Obama} plans to issue an ultimatum to Congress: either impose new taxes and limits on carbon that he finds amenable, or the EPA carbon police will be let loose to ravage the countryside.
Those taxes would far exceed the burden of a straight carbon or cap-and-trades system enacted by Congress.”
Thusly the AGW fanatics – cripple our economy – further.
A. It didn’t take but a few posts to say that one person’s fringe was somehow better than another. Maybe be I should be predicting the weather.
B. I fail to see where I posted anything about ultra right-wing conservatives being historically Republican and ultra left-wing greenies being historically Democrat. Somebody forgot to use their reading glasses. Or maybe the rose-colored glasses got in the way of the words I wrote.
C. Had I been alive during Lincoln’s time, I would have been a Republican. Had I been old enough to vote for civil rights, I would have been a Republican. I am a Democrat today because I believe in liberty and civil rights for all races and persuasions but the Republican platform does not, I believe in a woman’s right to say and make happen what will go in and come out of her body but the Republican platform does not, I believe in lower taxes for the common person but the Republican platform does not, and I believe that if you take care of these rights at the common person level, you take care of all people’s rights, but the Republican platform does not. If the Dem’s platform changes, I may no longer have that label on my voter registration card.
Pamela, If you believe that writing a check to somebody who doesn’t pay taxes equals “lower taxes”, then you will always be a Democrat, so spare us the “rhetorical flourishes”.
@Patrick Henry (07:42:23) :
You wrote: “2008 has brought the second coldest NFL game and possibly the first snowed out World Series game in over 100 years. It brought the first snow to Baghdad in 100 years. Proof positive that global warming is spiraling out of control.”
I’d say we are nearing that much ballyhood tipping point. The question is, which way will the teeter totter? I see the political climate teetering and the global climate tottering. As when we were children, when one jumps off the teeter-totter, the other comes crashing down with a bum-jarring thud.
I found it interesting that the MSM evening news I watched tonight was doing just plain old straight reporting – no spin – on the cold events in the eastern portion of the US. If this keeps up, I think perhaps the 18% in the article are in for a jolt as everyone else jumps off the teetertotter.
I am in a dilemma.
I am an independent (not with that party either)
How can I reconcile with the fact that I consider AGW hypothesis as overblown nonsense?
How can I reconcile with the fact that I consider most AGW believers as being profoundly liberal?
How can I consider Obama/Biden ticket as being as qualified as a Betty boop/Dupus Boomer ticket?
When they are proposing illogical and irrational anti global warming “solutions” to a non problem?
Yet be non partisan the whole time?
He he he…….
Jon Jewett (11:47:21) :
“Mark W,
You need to review history.”
Actually, I believe it was Pamela that made the comment about the farmers. Mark W. was quoting her.
Or maybe I’ve got the wrong glasses on.
Must be.
And speaking of those glasses…”I believe in lower taxes for the common person but the Republican platform does not”
I’m surprised you’re not familiar with the breakdown of who pays what taxes in our economy.
Here’s a refresher:
Top 1% pays 39% of total taxes
Top 5% pays 60% of total taxes
Top 10% pays 70% of total taxes
Top 25% pays 86% of total taxes
Top 50% pays 97% of total taxes
Please tell me what your definition of the “common person” is?
I typically enjoy your posts, but both of those seemed to be off the usual mark to me.
/glasses off/
Jim
[…] THE REST HERE (No Ratings Yet) Loading … […]
Here is what creates jobs. Demand for stuff. And if you have money in your pocket, you will go out and buy more stuff. This seems so simple. It would certainly work for me. I would be upgrading all kinds of stuff I have. And fixing stuff. And even getting ready to build a house. But alas, $1000.00+ is taken out of my paycheck every month for taxes. I don’t have any money left over at the end of the month to buy more stuff. If you want to create jobs, enriching stock holders will not create them. People who walk into your business wanting to buy stuff creates jobs. Empty store fronts were not created because their taxes were too high. They were created because there was not enough money in the pockets of the people who walked by their store. I know that because every time the paper reports on a store closing, the owner blames the lack of customers. That includes not just a mom and pop store front. It includes larger businesses like lumber and log mills, sports manufacturing plants, furniture and appliance makers, auto plants, jewelry makers, home builders, plumbers, electricians, and the list goes on.
Trust me moptop, if you were one of those small business store front owners or the owner of a corporation, you would not be so quick to poopoo the idea about money in the common person’s pocket. If it were there, you would soon be putting it in yours. I am dead set against corporate welfare as well as welfare for the able worker. But I am all for the corporate owner dealing with inventory not meeting increased demand. My my, what a problem to have.
” dennis ward (22:25:13) :
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081015_ncdcglobaltemps.html
/// NOAA: Ninth Warmest September for Global Temperatures
October 15, 2008 ”
Hello hello; Earth to Noaa, come in please… just heard a news bulletin that the nine highest altitudes on this planet can be found up in the mountains… please explain. This complements an earlier report that the lowest altitudes on earth are all found in the deep ocean trenches.
And now you are telling me that some of the highest global temperatures are being found around the recent peak in global temperatures before this downhill slide started. Always a surprise; damned if I can guess what they will discover next !
Heaven spare us from gummint statistics.
The common working person is the one who would like to have enough money in his/her pocket after essentials and taxes to buy stuff. Not a lot of stuff, but stuff nonetheless. And there are millions of such people who would like to do that. Your top tax payers are far fewer in number so the money in their pockets won’t stimulate the economy because there just aren’t enough of them. And you can’t create jobs if there is no demand for the stuff that your hired worker makes. So simply giving corporations a tax break will not create the DEMAND for jobs, so no job will be created. The tax break money simply stays on top of the ladder.
I’m on your list according to the tax roles as a middle class tax payer and help pay for that tax bill. However, paying taxes does not stimulate the economy but buying a recliner does. But I can’t buy a recliner. And that would be true for most of the people in the town of Pendleton. That’s a lot of recliners not being sold. That’s a furniture store on the brink of closure. That’s a store clerk who has been laid off. That’s a store that is no longer paying the local custodian business to come clean their store from all the foot traffic. That’s a bookkeeper seeking unemployment. And that’s a lunch counter that has let go it’s second waitress because there aren’t enough lunch customers to warrant keeping her on.
But put some extra cold hard cash in the pockets of millions of common people on a monthly basis spread throughout the land?
Are we good about the difference between trickle down and trickle up?
It looks like Dr, Hansen’s 70 mile daily commute across Pennsylvania may be blocked by snow.
http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&blog=Weathermatrix&pgurl=/mtweb/content/Weathermatrix/archives/2008/10/noreaster_brings_snow_or_does_it.asp
This is very troublesome because he needs to get to work to tell the rest of us to stop driving – or face certain death from global warming.