EXCERPTS FROM GALLUP – complete poll story here
PRINCETON, NJ — Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.
As recently as 2006, significantly more Americans thought the news underestimated the seriousness of global warming than said it exaggerated it, 38% vs. 30%. Now, according to Gallup’s 2009 Environment survey, more Americans say the problem is exaggerated rather than underestimated, 41% vs. 28%.
The trend in the “exaggerated” response has been somewhat volatile since 2001, and the previous high point, 38%, came in 2004. Over the next two years, “exaggerated” sentiment fell to 31% and 30%. Still, as noted, the current 41% is the highest since Gallup’s trend on this measure began in 1997.
…
Notably, all of the past year’s uptick in cynicism about the seriousness of global warming coverage occurred among Americans 30 and older. The views of 18- to 29-year-olds, the age group generally most concerned about global warming and most likely to say the problem is underestimated, didn’t change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This may be part of the problem. Even if AGW were a valid theory people can become numb to a constant stream of … models clearly demonstrate … end of the world … kitten drowned today … stories. Perhaps one reason some warmlings seem to be asking for moderation?
Seems to me that some scientists are beginning to realise that they have lost control of the debate and of the interpretation of the science.
Perhaps they will end up including “actual interpretation may vary” or more likley “(…) makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, as to merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or any other matter relating to this product.” on every page.
No, Galileo’s statement that the Bible was wrong when it said that the sun stood still in the sky (Joshua) is what got him in trouble.
Learn the facts instead of regurgitating what anti-Christian bigots say.
Based on the actual known facts of the time, it was reasonable to question Copernicus’ (actually, Aristarchus’) theory. Most use the Galileo incident as a foil against religion and use tissue thin arguments like “Copernicus’ model is more elegent and Occam’s Razor therefore says it is the better theory” and 500 *subsequent* years of observational astronomy to attack a straw-man they set up for the Rennaisance Catholic church and Christianity in general.
In fact, the Pope at the time had a very civilized *scientific* discussion with Galileo regarding heliocentrism at the time and posed a defense of geocentrism that Galileo simply couldn’t answer (and admitted so) at the time: if the earth moves, why don’t we see apparent stellar motion (parallax)? The “obvious” answer, that stars were trillions of miles away, was even impossible for Galileo to postulate at the time. No one could possibly imagine that the universe was that large at time time and there certainly was no obvious scientific observation to suggest it.
Is this where I should point out that Einstein (correctly) observed that the Big Bang theory was virtually indistinguishable from Genesis and denounced it as religion masquerading as pseudo-science and promptly “invented” the cosmological constant to make the evidence for the Big Bang in his theory of relativity magically disappear?
Let’s see, Einstein ignores Hubble’s observations and invents the cosmological constant out of whole cloth because he doesn’t like what it suggests about the universe and the Pope follows the best available scientific evidence regarding the nature of the universe… who was the better scientist?
“”” Merrick (15:50:59) :
Jae,
Speak for yourself. I’m a PhD physical chemist and there isn’t a single discipline related to global warming (molecular spectroscopy, black body radiation, emissivity, (non)adiabatic heating/cooling and heat transfer, radiative heating, etc.) that aren’t required fields of study for the degree. Look up who Svante Arrhenius was, what his profession was, and what interesting theory involving atmospheric CO2 he first postulated.
There is no single “disinterested” field of scientific specialization more suited to understand the merits of the scientific arguments involved in “climate change.” Of course, when the AGW crowd gets busy playing fast with the data the statisticians are the best front line. “””
Amen to that Bro. I passed on the Chemistry in high school; and I don’t have the sheepskin either; I opted for three years of field experience in Industry as a practising Physicist whose peer reviews consited of bosses who actually expected my stuff to work. And all the radiation Physics and every manner of thermal energy transport accompanied me for the first 50 years of that career. So I don’t know beans about why el Ninos or La Nina’s happen; but I bet that some how earth’s land/ocen geography somehow has something to do with it, and there are plenty of experts who do that stuff anyway.
But I know a photon when I see one; and I have been seeing them from down to, but not including DC, and all the way out to them thar Cosmetic rays; but I must admit to having ducked the X-ray spectrum, although I have a glancing knowledge of Laue patterns, that being somewhat useful in orienting III-V semiconductor Crystals.
I don’t know all I would like to know about the molecular spectroscopy, since I played hookey on the advanced and organic chemistry; but I did once teach Optics and Atomic Physics to University Freshmen; before departing Academia for the real world.
I’m on my second half century of industrial enterprise now, and no regrets about being a Physicist rather than an Engineer (no aspersions on engineers though).
So yes I’m quite confident I’m equipped to do accounting for the photons coming in and going out of this strange rock.
But I have no intention of getting involved in “Anomalies”, forcings” or “Climate sensitivities”; none of which appear in any of my Science Handbooks or anywhere in my listings of the SI sytstem of Units.
And in my University days; my Mathematics curriculum at least matched my Physics curriculum, giving me at least a double major degree; so I’m not hoodwinked by statistical ramblings that work just as well on totally unrelated telephone directory numbers, as they do on totally unrelated “temperature anomalies”; and have pretty much the same scientific significance.
George
Phil’s Dad… how do you figure? It looks like those lines cross well before 2012 to me.
The Gallup site had this to say in summary:
One should have doubts about a pollster, even from an experienced organization like Gallup, when it doesn’t understand the difference between “debunking” and “correcting” the science (in reality, the political influence on science) behind climate change.” Half the results are in how the questions are asked.
“Science behind climate change” — now that’s a silly phrase in itself. Gallup needs a rational science advisor on this one.
from The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/us-carbon-cuts
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said domestic political constraints made it impossible for the US president to announce ambitious short-term climate targets similar to those set by Europe. And he questioned the value of a new global climate deal without such a US pledge.
Speaking on the fringes of a high-level scientific conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Pachauri told the Guardian: “He [Obama] is not going to say by 2020 I’m going to reduce emissions by 30%. He’ll have a revolution on his hands. He has to do it step by step.”
Pachauri’s remarks echo those of Todd Stern, the US president’s new chief climate negotiator, who said last week that it was “not possible” for the US to aim for 25-40% cuts by 2020.
It will be interesting to revisit this poll once the new “cap and trade” regulations rob the population of more of their hard-earned money…
Robinson:
“…Houses of Parliment under water.”
What a pleasant thought!
The older one is, the longer one has been around to know that it’s getting colder than it has been in quite some time. Those number of disbelievers in AGW will climb. Just wait until another year of poor Sunspots and pegged Cosmic Rays takes it’s toll.
My point about Galileo is that he was ridiculed by the authorities for having a different belief system, like Wegener.
A sane scientific environment welcomes dissent and out of the box thinking. Only madmen feel the need to silence intellectual dissent.
Cap the AGW hype and trade it in for 10 cords of firewood or a couple meghours of power to run the heater. Wonder what they will do to the perpetrators of the Climactic Ponzi scheme when the ice hits the fan?
The Gallup site had this to say in summary:
Americans generally believe global warming is real. That sets the U.S. public apart from the global-warming skeptics who assembled this week in New York City to try to debunk the science behind climate change. At the same time, with only 34% of Americans saying they worry “a great deal” about the problem, most Americans do not view the issue in the same dire terms as the many prominent leaders advancing global warming as an issue.
One should have doubts about a pollster, even from an experienced organization like Gallup, when it doesn’t understand the difference between “debunking” and “correcting” the science (in reality, the political influence on science) behind climate change.” Half the results are in how the questions are asked.
“Science behind climate change” — now that’s a silly phrase in itself. Gallup needs a rational science advisor on this one.
The meme is building: even the stupid child that is the average American can see that the “science” is “correct,” but he/she is too selfish/greedy/sinful to do the right thing.
“Mike N (17:25:42) :
Robinson:
“…Houses of Parliment under water.”
What a pleasant thought!”
Matters not what happens to pollies places of “work”, they’ll work around it. Here is a genuine example; The Beehive, as it’s called in Wellington, NZ, is the house of power and the base of Govn’t. The powers that be concluded that if in the event of a significant earthquake (You can actually get an impression of where one of the fault lines is when up on Mt Victoria hill lookout, looking north towards the Hutt valley), they’d move “Govn’t” to Melbourne, Australia.
We here in Australia have enough pollies of our own as it is.
PS. I’m a Pome, Kiwi and nearly an Aussie too.
Americans generally believe global warming is real. That sets the U.S. public apart from the global-warming skeptics who assembled this week in New York City to try to debunk the science behind climate change.
Well, I was at the conference, heard all of the stemwinder speeches, and attended as many of the seminars as time would allow.
Not one of them denied that Global Warming was real. Not one.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the scientists present believed in global warming at a much greater percentage than the American public.
They did indeed debunk much of the AGW science behind climate change, though.
To George E. Smith per your comment “AlGorithms”.
From an engineer who uses (real, mathematical) algorithms every day: Bravo! I laughed my A@ur momisugly% for a couple minutes when I saw that term from you.
evanmjones (18:02:46)
“In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the scientists present believed in global warming at a much greater percentage than the American public.
They did indeed debunk much of the AGW science behind climate change, though.”
I wasn’t there Mr J. but I suspect that you are spot on with both your conclusions!
I agree that the world has got warmer. Given its starting point in the mid-victorian era (end of the LHI) that has to be a comfort!
The debunking of the ‘Science’ by Science was a given from the start-It’s the timing of the debunking of the politics by the Science that worries me- ‘cos it still hasn’t happened!
@Myself (18:29:05)
“The debunking of the ‘Science’ by Science was a given from the start”
Before anyone attacks me on that statement, please allow me to attack myself!
I disagree totally. In fact I agreed, 100%, that the science, at that time, was non-debunkable! That I was wrong then as I was wrong with my above statement is attributable to the conceit of the 20/20 hindsight brigade of which I am a dishonourable member.
Let me now restate my position. “I thought that the case for Man Made Global Warming was unassailable at the time- I now understand that I was wrong”
Merrick (15:50:59) :
Sorry, M, I’m an organic chemist, and I disliked P-Chem. I liked the EtOH wash bottles the best 🙂
Seriously, though, after reading ClimateAudit.org and RealClimate.org and some other blogs for about three years now, I can be 99.9999% certain in my own mind that much, if not most, of “climate science” is political pseudoscience, and is in fact the biggest farce and deceit that I have seen in my lifetime. It makes cold fusion look good, by comparison. I applaud the real scientists in the “field,” (if there really is one), who are practicing honest science. It is striking, scary, and sickening that almost none of them has any funding, especially government funding. My hat’s off and my prayers are with those brave souls!
Orwell was a very bright person.
RoyfOMR,
I understood what you meant…
The advantage that those us trained in the sciences have vs others in the realist camp is that we know not only that the alarmists are twisting science for political ends, but also how they are accomplishing the task.
My training as an economic geologist included a gawdawful amount of of PChem, too much of which was taken before I had mastered the math that I realized later should have been a prerequisite.
The most important academic training though was in how to think my way out out of paper bag. Something that no longer appears to be part of core curriculum.
DJ (13:30:28) : Can someone explain to me why sceptics are so fixated with public opinion.
Because it tells us how well we are doing at explaining the complete farce of AGW to everyone else. It informs us just how much the average joe and jane have got a clue.
CC is a science debate
If only that were true… “AlGore’s Scary Movie V, revenge of Gaia”, is not exactly science; nor is “The Phantom Hokey Stick” nor is “Hansen and the Fictional Data – DIY Anomaly Fabrication!”
If it were about science, the fact that it’s all been down hill since 1998 and that every prediction (oops, pardon, make that projection, or construction, or fabrication, or… what ARE you calling computer fantasies these days?) has been wrong; well those would invalidate AGW. But since the hypothesis rolls on, it’s clearly about politics, not science.
The laws of physics won’t change just because a group of non-experts have been confused by the misapplication of media norms.
And exactly which law of physics would that be? The one that says you can not make 1/100 degree accuracy out of 1 degree data? The one that says you can’t make 100 year trends out of 30 year history? The one that says you ought not to cherry pick your start date or your baseline? Hmmm?
The bottom line is really simple. It’s cold. It’s getting colder. People as a mob are pretty slow to catch on, but they are not that slow. The average joe is not buying this “junk” when their heating bill is going up, their radiator is frozen, and they are shoveling more “stuff” than you are.
Get it?
There is the wonderful thing called an “existence proof”; and Joe & Jane six pack are shoveling a lot of “existence proof” this winter; with more to come next winter, and for the next 20+ years given the PDO and barycenter action. So you’ve got maybe 1 year to make hay, then they are going to be taking that haymaker after you, the folks who sold them a bill of goods.
I’d feel sorry for you, but frankly, I learned a long time ago that the average joe was a pretty good guy to have a beer with; just don’t “Frank” around with him (OR her) because they (and me – I are one…) have a long memory for folks who did them wrong. NEVER forget that. They (and we, meaning me…) don’t forget it either…
So you are in the lead right now. Run with it while you can, but the 1st & 2nd derivative are against you; I’ve got “tools” to sharpen, in particular:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/gistemp-start_here/
My analysis of the “polite fiction” that is GIStemp data.
I give it about another 1 year (2 years max) of ever more “stuff” being shoveled before Joe & Jane Six Pack decide that they were lied to by the AGW crowd and maybe they just ought to get a little political payback. Call it 2010 election? Works for me…
John Galt (13:34:49) : I recall reading about past ‘global crisis’. In previous decades, people were more concerned about basic survival. It’s a sign of our prosperity to believe we have the resources to fight a global problem.
Poor people are worried about getting through next week, or through next winter. Wealthy people are concerned about the environment and the distant future.
Ah yes, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
While I’d rearrange it some, the basic idea is sound.
The problem that Cap and Tirade has is that it works on somewhere up around “self actualization” while the average Joe & Jane are down near “Safety” or maybe “Belonging”… (And China is somewhere between “Physiological” and “Safety”…)
Don’t ever tell someone working on “Safety” that they need to do what you want so you can have your “Self Actualization”… What this implies for the next 4 years is interesting to contemplate…
Interesting… The default make a link software choked on the apostrophe in that last one. I’m going to try making an explicit link from it with quotes.
So, Maslow and his needs works?
Claude Harvey (13:46:31) : Contrary to my expectations, 57% of Americans can neither read a thermometer nor detect when they’re up to their behinds in snow and ice. The younger ones seem particularly oblivious;
My God Man! I think you’ve GOT IT! We just need to get the Moms of the world to dress Johnny and Janet in a bit too few layers and send them out to shovel the driveway!
BRILLIANT!
They will come, shivering and tired, into the kitchen muttering “Global Warming, My …” Assuming they are cold enough, they will have clue!