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
So you are rich and still used public funds to insulate your attic? I will let others decide if that is right or not…
Once I again I state that many do not have the resources you do, plus your insurance on a new car went down? Maybe I should move to the UK, here insurance is based on value of the car, unless you traded a Rolls for a Puegot.
Monopolies.
It used to be that “monopoly” meant a predatory company that:
A.) Reduced prices below costs,
B.) Ran the competition out of business,
C.) Jacked up prices to higher than they were before the monopolist arrived.
That is a Bad Thing. (It is also Illegal.)
Now it seems to mean :
A.) Beating the competition by charging a lower price.
B.) Keeping the price low so as to hold onto as much of the market as possible.
Why is that not a Good Thing?
“Dump, sir? I do not “dump”! I . . . sell abroad at a loss in defense of the National Interest.”
Back to the miner. The miner worked for a living. He/she harvested from the Earth. He/she got to keep his wages at first but then spent them in town. The vast majority of miners did not become rich, but their trips to town made shop owners rich. I am sorry, but that is trickle up, not trickle down. If the miner wants to be rich, he/she needed to invest earnings into a shop higher up the food chain. Most didn’t. That is the way of the wage earner. A tree faller does the same thing. He/she harvests from the Earth. Some contractors are paid by the tree. The logger gathers the fallen trees and puts them on the log truck driver’s rig. The truck driver gets them to the mill. Some drivers work as contractors. They sell their load to the mill. The mill owner is higher up the food chain and rakes in the most money from the raw product. I fail to see this as trickle down. It is a classic example of trickle up. As a matter of fact, the worker at Freightliner is creating wealth just like the miner used to. I’ld sure like to see the CEO try to do the job the worker does. For one, the suit would have to go.
But back to the forest products example. The bigger problem is that no one is building houses with the final product because the common person cannot afford to pay the price. To fix that do we raise the minimum wage? No because that fuels inflation. Instead, let’s give the common person a tax break. The food chain becomes active again. Problem solved.
The red side of the ticket keeps saying that by giving tax breaks to high earners, jobs will be created. I don’t know of a single large business corporate head who would advocate such a thing and still provide dividends to stock holders. Such corporations need to be lean and mean. So when demand goes down, jobs are CUT not created, regardless of the tax break provided. In fact, running lean and mean is a way to keep stock dividends high. There is a far greater incentive to NOT create a job then there is to create one. And frankly, if a corporate pres decides to create jobs in the midst of a down turn, I would fire his/her ass and get another corporate pres on board.
I guess I am one of those people who thinks that globle warming and globle cooling are NOT caused by the same mechanism. I am not a AGW who thinks that whatever is happening with weather/climate, reducing CO2 will solve it. A heated economy and a cooling economy are two different entities and need specific solutions for each one. There is not a single fix for both conditions. But it seems that there are many folks here who believe that one economic solution takes care of everything. I still say that those folks are looking at the problems through rose-colored glasses, somewhat like the folks who believe that AGW causes all ills.
Pamela,
Once again, there are many falacies with this latest round.
Where to start…
“The miner worked for a living. He/she harvested from the Earth. He/she got to keep his wages at first but then spent them in town. The vast majority of miners did not become rich, but their trips to town made shop owners rich.”
Because of what?…They were either poor miners, or poor besinessmen/women. This had nothing to do with them being at the “bottom” of the chain.
Some shop keepers got rich, most didn’t. Some equipment makers got rich, most didn’t. And so on…
I’ve worked with a lot of truck drivers. Some were rich truck drivers. I’ve met a lot of lobstermen that were harvesting from the earth…some were rich, most were not. This has absolutely nothing to do with trickle-up.
“The mill owner is higher up the food chain and rakes in the most money from the raw product.”
You know the mill owner made the most money based on what? You know their expenses?…their business model?
“Instead, let’s give the common person a tax break. The food chain becomes active again. Problem solved. ”
You’ve made this statement several times. I say again…the common person you’re referring to PAYS LITTLE OR NO TAXES.
“The red side of the ticket keeps saying that by giving tax breaks to high earners, jobs will be created. I don’t know of a single large business corporate head who would advocate such a thing and still provide dividends to stock holders. Such corporations need to be lean and mean. So when demand goes down, jobs are CUT not created, regardless of the tax break provided. In fact, running lean and mean is a way to keep stock dividends high. There is a far greater incentive to NOT create a job then there is to create one. And frankly, if a corporate pres decides to create jobs in the midst of a down turn, I would fire his/her ass and get another corporate pres on board”
I have no idea what you’re even talking about here. What does “lean and mean” have to do with how much taxes their employees pay? I believe you are mixing analogies between corporate taxes and individual taxes. Cutting corporate taxes INCREASES jobs, quite simply because it lowers expenses allowing for capital investment or additional workers.
“But it seems that there are many folks here who believe that one economic solution takes care of everything”
Perhaps…but I’m not among them. What I DO believe, in both climate and economics, is that while I may not know all of the right things to do, I do believe there are some WRONG things that are clearly not going to be effective.
And you still haven’t explained how you can cut taxes for someone who is essentially paying no taxes now. This is wealth redistribution, plain and simple. Take gold from the successful miner, and give some to the other miners that were less successful. YOu don’t end up with more successful miners, you end up with some complacent miners who will continue to demand more, and some angy miners who go mine in Bolivia. At that point you have no miners to take wealth from, and a bunch of people who were never very good miners to begin with.
Jim
kim (05:02:44) :
andyw35 (04:14:30) Basically you are a thief. You’ve rationalized and internalized the arguments so you miss the point. And when you depend upon the government to do your thieving for you, you’ve become a slave. Nice state you’re in.
===============================================
Cough, Cough: Ahem, isn’t this a getting a bit off-topic? – Dee
Perhaps, but I am in the UK & am relatively poor. I can’t afford a new car so the one I have is taxed at an extortionate rate because of my relative poverty. Such is AGW!
As the relatively poor here say. “Money goes to money”
DaveE.
Business 101:
You must have buyers to sell a product. Expanding the work force through the use of tax breaks will not create buyers. Why? A lean and mean corporation keeps it’s human resource budget tied to its inventory sales. When sales are down, workers are let go. When sales are up, workers are added. Sales come before jobs are created. In a down turn, jobs will be cut in order to keep profit margins stable (and stock prices stable as well). This is good business. Under normal circumstances, the natural up and down of markets keeps this going.
Current events:
Abnormal circumstances. Health care, energy prices, and other similar kinds of cost of living has taken a greater and greater share of middle and below incomes, incomes that have no padding for such events since wages do not keep up with such living expense increases. If the down turn stays around for long, we end up in a spiraling situation that cannot be fixed with tax breaks for the wealthy person or corporation. The profits will not go to job creation or expanded industry. If it did, inventory would sit in warehouses, causing corporations to experience sharp tax increases on the overflow of unsold products.
That leads us back to business class 101. The most efficient fix for a tanking economy (without wage increased inflation) is to bring back enough income padding to the majority of potential buyers that they once again start spending discretionary income on goods and services. It is not spreading the wealth. It will not enrich the middle income layer and below. The wealth will return through the flow of cash for goods market back up to the corporations. And because consumer demand is up, corporations will need to hire in order to handle the returning economy. When the abnormal circumstances go away (as they often do), these tax breaks should go away as well. Just like they come and go for the upper income level.
Again. This is basic economics.
Pamela Gray (09:54:17) :
Business 101:
You might call this basic econ 101 but your wording in “Current Event” indicates the need for a bottom up economy that always fails and reminds me of a presidential candidate in favor of such an economy. The padding just increases the national debt and usually is of short duration. We have had too many bail outs already and padding is just another bail out.
Bush sent us a one-time cash amount to jumpstart the economy. It did. And immediately. But we all knew it was a one-shot deal and there was no consumer confidence behind it to keep things rolling. It also increased the deficit because it was not balanced by a tax increase somewhere else or a spending freeze. However, the decision to put some extra cash into the pockets of spenders was sound and based on an elementary understanding of where economic growth comes from, from spenders demanding and buying goods and services. Something like that worked into a tax break that sunsets would be a good thing to try, as long as there is a balance somewhere else. To not balance it immediately runs the risk of deficit increase.
The conservative side of things wants to do the SAME exact thing I have been talking about here but focus on a different income level (which begs the question, “Why is that not spreading the wealth around but when applied to the other end is?”). There is an old saying the Bible, “A worker is worth his wages.” Just because you flip hamburgers for a living on minimum wage does not make you less worthy of a tax break than someone who owns the franchise, even given the fact that 38% of tax payers do not pay income tax. But to be clear, they pay other taxes, so they do pay taxes of some kind. The problem is that the conservative plans so far do not come with a balance of a tax increase somewhere else and instead hopes that the economy will pick up. This is too risky given our current deficit and economic down turn. I don’t think that plan = good fiscal policy.
Tax cuts for the middle class are fine.
Tax hikes for “the richest 5%” (who already pay 60% of the taxes), would be extremely stupid: it will cost jobs and DECREASE revenues that would otherwise be collected. A tax hike “on the rich” WILL NOT INCREASE REVENUES.
I repeat: Before the bulk of the “tax cuts for the rich”, the richest 1% paid 33% of revenues. After the “tax cuts for the rich” the richest 1% paid 40%. And the revenue base went ‘WAY up.
To soak the 5% who are already paying 60% of the pile is also immoral. But I’ll go with the dude who said, “It’s worse than a crime. it’s a blunder.”
Global Warming is Crap!
That leads us back to business class 101. The most efficient fix for a tanking economy (without wage increased inflation) is to bring back enough income padding to the majority of potential buyers that they once again start spending discretionary income on goods and services.
Actually, I’d argue that the Kennedy/Reagan approach was far more efficient. The result of the JFK/RR policies was the padding. That way the workers-with-money and the goods were available at the same time. Welfare for the middle class mainly creates inflation.
Tax cuts are fine, but they need to be across the board.
The Laffer Curve rules. Perhaps that reflects badly on the morals of humanity. But it rules. Like it or lump it.
Pamela Gray (09:54:17) :
“The profits will not go to job creation or expanded industry. If it did, inventory would sit in warehouses, causing corporations to experience sharp tax increases on the overflow of unsold products.”
Ummm….no.
Corporations get taxed on revenue, not unsold inventory.
And sorry…it may be “Business 101” in your view of the world, but that’s about it.
evanjones (17:44:38) :
Tax cuts for the middle class are fine.
Tax hikes for “the richest 5%” (who already pay 60% of the taxes), would be extremely stupid:
Exactly.
Pamela has never defined what the “middle class” is in her reckoning. Btw…Obama has now moved this bar a couple of times in the last week. It started off at $250,000…then it went to $200,000. Now Biden says it’s actually $120,000.
Figuring my paycheck?…when I add in the state and local taxes that I pay, including state sales tax and state income tax, on top of medicare and social security, I’m paying roughly $.60 of every dollar I earn in taxes.
How much more would you have me pay, Pamela? I get to keep $.40 of each dollar. Forty cents.
Your analogies don’t work, your math doesn’t work, your economics don’t work, and the tax policies you subscribe to are a fairy tail, and don’t work.
Jim
I thought that socialism had died with the Soviet Union. I am very sorry that it seems to have only moved to the halls of academia. It seems we must repeat the failed experiment. God help us. God help our children.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Are there any history teachers left?
Mike
Yeah. Me.
How much more would you have me pay, Pamela? I get to keep $.40 of each dollar. Forty cents.
Not to mention the tax hike that occurs every single year: Bracket creep.
I’m dead poor. I have hopes of remedying this. But the LAST thing I need, the ONE thing that will doom my hopes is if some idiot with a bit of power decides to sock it to the rich. To all of you do-gooders out there who want to wreck Bill Gates in order to “help” me, I say, “DON’T ^%&*&$# HELP ME!” I can’t afford your kind of help! When, oh when are the so-called “intellectuals” of this world going to get it through their thick, counterintuitive skulls that they cannot extract both beef and milk from the same cow?
“When, oh when are the so-called “intellectuals” of this world going to get it through their thick, counterintuitive skulls that they cannot extract both beef and milk from the same cow?”
I don’t know why Evan, but it seems like every few generations we must learn it again. Maybe schools should require that all teachers pass a test on the constitution.
I just hope we don’t elect Chairman Mao.
Pamela,
Just can’t seem to get your head around this 🙂
“The conservative side of things wants to do the SAME exact thing I have been talking about here but focus on a different income level (which begs the question, “Why is that not spreading the wealth around but when applied to the other end is?”).”
This is once again, just plain false.
What you want to do is take money from me, MORE money, in fact, than is being taken now, and give it to others.
What the so-called conservatives want to do, is let me keep $.42 of MY OWN MONEY, instead of $.40.
That is very, very different.
Jim
I recommend Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics manuscript as a rather interesting and engaging explanation of the dismal sciences.
It highly rated and worth the read for the layman.
1. You just can’t trust pollsters, can you?
2. Access to Federal Money does not require votes from ordinary people.
3. Al Gore wants to make a lot of money. Just like investment bankers did.
4. And a few inconvenient truths aren’t going to stop him on his quest.
5. Actually, Obama’s plan for green energy is a healthy one. Nothing to do with global warming. Just to do with American energy self-sufficiency, creating American jobs and breaking the hegemony of foreign oil.
6. Same with recycling. It’s a good idea. It’s just that it has sweet zip to do with carbon dioxide.
7. The only thing is: unless there is Govt imposition of all of that, Al Gore might not make quite so much money.
Dee,
Great suggestion…thanks.
You can also go here for interesting material from the same author:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp
Jim
[…] concern to Americans, while global warming may seem like a somewhat more remote issue … " EcoAmerica Poll: Climate skeptics are the majority, not the minority Watts Up With That? " … Only 18 percent of survey respondents strongly believe that climate change is real, […]