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.
Allan M R McRae, apparently you failed miserably in noticing that all of the statements about global warming are filled to the brim with could, should, maybe, might, possibility, etc. Scientist who are not confident in their predictions do not deserve to be scientist at all as they are the ones that create a global hoax like this one.
DJ –
100 years ago, everyone knew the world was the center of the universe.
Alfred Wegener came up with the idea of plate tectonics, and no one believed him for 45 years.
When Einstein came up with the General relativity, and it was based on the idea our Galaxy was the whole universe, and a static universe. No expansion.
Everyone in science who says “All scientists agree, and you should too” should be treated skeptically.
Skeptics of the given paradigm are where science gets done.
Rhys, it was John Tyndall, and Svante Arrhenius.
http://www.manhattanrarebooks-science.com/tyndall.htm
Remember the greenhouse effect is quite clear. We should have seem as much or more warming in the troposphere, but we haven’t. So as far as Tyndall is correct, it is also not the warming effect we are seeing.
Some of us Brits can see past our socialist state apparatus. Even the younger generation have failed to become fully indoctrinated. Strange how this debate at St. Andrews University was announced in the media, but for some reason, the result of the debate was not.
http://media-newswire.com/release_1086420.html
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters/Crisis-What-crisis.5054066.jp
Couldn’t be that the result did not match the desired result?
Seems to me that WUWT (in general) and Watt’s devotees (in particular) are leaving themselves little ‘wriggle’ room. No wonder this blog site is seen as the epiphany of the close-mindedness of the deny and delay crowd.
I’m outa here.
Ps
Jon H
Glad to see you have paraphrased me on Einstein. The rest of your guff … well, guff is guff.
When are you going to learn the fundamentals of atmospheric physics and chemistry?
@richard Hobley
There is a problem with the satellite and if you look through Wattsupwiththat you will find the thread.
Or use these sites.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/WsvPageDsp.cfm?ID=1&Lang=eng
The best comparison to this is the theory that man arrived in the America’s at the end of the last ice age. This was discredited by overwelming physical eveidence yet the scientific fought for years to discredit the scientists that had proved the theory invalid.
And I won’t even mention the two bicycle mechanics from Ohio that figured out how to make a plane fly, while the worlds greatest scientists with the full backing of the governments money could not.
Well…seems like it’s time for another round of “Feed the Troll” this morning.
DJ, no one has to publish a paper to disprove man-made global warming. Not a single paper. The burden of proof is entirely on the pro-AGW side, period. That is the group that is making the claims, and that is the group that must prove these claims. The fact that you say that Col. Mustard did it in the library with the knife does NOT mean that I have to prove that Col. Mustard did it in the kitchen with a gun. What it DOES mean is that you have to prove that A) Col. Mustard was in the library, plus B) Col. Mustard had a knife, WHILE he was IN the library, and C) Col. Mustard used the knife to commit the murder. If you can’t prove all three of those things…the good Col. Mustard is a free and innocent man.
I don’t know how to make this any more simple for you folks over there.
And for “The idea of putting on a seat belt before driving a car or taking a life jacket on a trip in a small boat seems completely alien to a large section of the contributors to this forum and to all politiicans and business leaders.”…
This argument is pure folly, as it never recognizes the tremendous HARM being done to entire populations as a result of the actions the person making this argument says we must take. Its always presented from the “Well…there’s no harm in doing this now…we should ALWAYS wear a seat belt.” This particular seat belt is incredibly harmful to the people that will be swept into or maintained in horific levels of poverty, who are denied energy to produce and store food. So stop with the sanctimonious youidiotswontevenwearaseatbelt-crap.
/rant off
/troll food stored
JimB
timetochooseagain (13:45:29) :
…More over, evidently you are totally ignorant of the masses of papers which seriously question some of the major assumptions behind alarmist AGW theories….
Exactly, the writing criticise others research they add nothing to the debate – no new evidence that AGW is false.
Any AGW “evidence” put up for debate is always battered with the same “its cyclical just wait and see” the trouble is it will be too late if we wait.
Mike Strong (15:19:29) :
We’ll be taxed and our lifestyles will be changed long before the debate is settled and all the science is in. Then what are the governments gonna do if the AGW theory is wrong? You think they will give me a CO2-tax rebate?
You must already know that the California Air Resources Board is already making changes to car emissions standards based upon the “science” of global warming. Soon we will all be driving those tiny Smart cars. They even proposed taxing us on how many miles we drive each year and tax us proportionally to the CO2 emissions …
So it is OK for you to consume without thought for the future. “i’m all right, jack – let the future look after itself, they’ll think of something” Oil is a limited resource. If Europeans can get 60mpg out of a modern standard family petrol/deisel car and get comfortably from A to B why cannot you Americans? We own a 7 seater petrol vehicle built 13 years ago. Even this gets 38mpg mixed driving.
To drive drive a SUV (10mpg?) to work is just pain nuts.
Mike
DavidK – I don’t see a previous post by you to have “paraphrased” anything.
Also, what part of my “guff” do you disagree with? John Tyndall having 2 l’s in his last name? or the historical record of consensus science? because there are at least a dozen areas of science I can come up with off the top of my head on that. Biology, medicine, chemistry, everywhere you look, science is not changed by mass consensus, but by unique perspectives, and great minds challenging the paradigm.
To be honest I am likely one of the most open minded people you will meet. I also challenge the idea of the Big Bang, and certainly string theory. Yes I understand the math, and no it does not work. Making up a matter you can’t see, test for, measure, or even theoretically quantify, then making up an energy to do likewise is not science, and takes more faith than any religion I know of.
Theories based, on untestable theories, based on a theory, about a theory that is untested, is highly theoretical.
All I keep coming back to is the ICE of 1977, they were wrong than, they are wrong now. I have no idea what the agenda is, I guess world control of money and domination of policy. We may end up in another world war at some point. Japan, China and India could care less about CO2. I doubt that the Middle East wants the world to stop using oil. Germany is increasing it’s usage of Coal.
DJ (13:30:28) :
“Can someone explain to me why sceptics are so fixated with public opinion. CC is a science debate – well it would be if the sceptics ever got around to publishing science papers. ”
Because those of us who are professional scientists but who don’t have a financial stake in the AGW story are concerned that policy decisions are being made that are directly contraindicated by the very “science ” they pretend is the basis of those decisions. Further in a Republic, such as this one, if the alarmists can convince enough of the populace to allow their policies to be implemented than reality doesn’t count and we go merrily the wrong direction while the economy goes down the tubes with the catastrophic human and environmental consequences that always accompany economic hardship.
Putting it simply; millions of real people die and the environment is permanently harmed because of the AGW political agenda when the catastrophic AGW idea is directly contradicted by the very “Physics” you imply supports that agenda.
“The laws of physics won’t change just because a group of non-experts have been confused by the misapplication of media norms.”
Correct, the laws of Physics don’t change, usually; at this point unless new physical laws are discovered or old ones disproved the idea of catastrophic warming due to carbon dioxide increase is dead.
DavidK:
“Seems to me that WUWT (in general) and Watt’s devotees (in particular) are leaving themselves little ‘wriggle’ room. No wonder this blog site is seen as the epiphany of the close-mindedness of the deny and delay crowd.”
I dont know. Seems to me that it’s the alarmist camp that has, (and continues to), paint itself into a corner. How many “tipping points” and planted stories of some looming ecologic disaster (happening faster than predicted) can you play amidst record snow storms?
I understand you guys being far too invested in the hoax to back out. I mean, after all, this really isnt about climate is it? If you lose public opinion and people perceive you are deliberately perpetrating a fraud to further a political agenda, it’s going to get pretty ugly out there.
Climate alarmism is a bad house of cards, but I do enjoy the occasional hyperbole. Bring on the “death trains”. That’s always good for a smile.
Careful, a certain Fox News weatherman may be getting a bit twitchy with this angle!
I am having a real problem with these photos of coastal urban centers inundated with meters of melted ice water from AGW, as if we are going to stand by for 50 years in some passive daze as the water creeps into our buildings or we’re going to wake up one morning like Rip Van Winkle up to our necks in water.
I am not a believer in catastrophic AGW but I am aware that there is at least a possibility that significant natural global warming could occur during the next century which may cause significant sea level rise. I wonder if we are investigating how to deal with this possibility? The Netherlands has 2000 years of experience with this problem.
now this is great…add another scary compound to the list of culprits!
I’m getting pretty tired of seeing stuff like this….
New greenhouse gas discovered: Sulfuryl fluoride, 4800x worse than CO2
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41702/178/
maybe this stuff can help us avert the coming ice age! LOL
Chinese climate scientists tactfully tell the IPCC that surface air temperature (SAT) trends over north China include a large component of urban warming
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=203
Back to topic, one thing that pleasingly stands out is that 57% of people belive that the reports of effects of global warming are either correct or Underestimated. As said in the arcticle “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. “.
Considering in many parts of the US there has been a relatively cold winter it is heartening to know that people seem to generally understand the difference between weather and climate. One would have expected that many more people would be in doubt.
Maybe many of them are looking at the subject from all angles and wondering that, if PDo has switched to -ive for a while, we are now in La Nina conditions (though not an event as yet) and the sun is in a prolonged solar minimum, they must be wondering ‘Where is the global cooling many of the WUWT people have been talking about’? It is reassuring to know that the general public appreciate that the global warming is masking these effects (be honest, you do realise in your heart that global temperatures should be falling rapidly, unless you are of the 66% mentioned in the arcticle 😉 ) and unlike the ostrich scepics hope that governments and industry work together to try and resolve the problem.
God bless the American people!
schnurrp: The problem with any of that is, the seas aren’t rising. They’ve fallen a bit recently.
Shawn Whelan (05:11:49) :
The problem with your assertion is the statement that there was “overwhelming physical evidence” to support the new hypothesis.
The truth is that there was a lot of information that “suggested” the old hypothesis needed to be revised or replaced and it took decades of field research to firmly establish this as “evidence”.
Prior to the AGW scare that began in the 1980’s it was fairly well established that the sun was the principal driver of climate. There were other ideas out there, but the weight of evidence was stronger for solar domination.
For the past 20-odd years we have been bombarded by a lot new information – primarily derived from climate models – that have suggested a different mechanism (CO2) has an important, and possibly critical, role in controlling climate.
So far, at least outside the models, the CO2 hypothesis has not presented a compelling case that would justify abandoning the well established solar connection.
This does not mean that CO2 has no role in climate. It just means that its role has not been satisfactorily defined and quantified to the degree that would allow honest scientists to claim its role is either established or critical.
Aron,
Suzanne Goldenberg’s description of the ICCC demographics would also be equally accurate for the IPCC.
I love these surveys, always good to chew on.
If anyone is confident about predicating the future I’d like information on the horse to back at next Wednesdays Happy Valley races?
schnurrp (05:53:01) :
I am not a believer in catastrophic AGW but I am aware that there is at least a possibility that significant natural global warming could occur during the next century which may cause significant sea level rise. I wonder if we are investigating how to deal with this possibility? The Netherlands has 2000 years of experience with this problem.
The powers that be know that building sea defenses is a waste of time and effort. They also know that moving infrastructure further inland is beyond budget. Taxing co2 emissions is a lucrative alternative to doing anything practical, and gives the appearance of tackling a ‘root cause’. The media hooha and pro vs anti AGW debate nicely draws attention away from the fact that adaption isn’t being facilitated or addressed.
It’s a classic political cop-out/taxation hike.
I would be more worried about a man made compound over CO2 anyday, however, this is just more fluff. PPT? LOL