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.
DJ:
You probably think that skeptical scientists don’t publish, because others have told you that. And you believe them. But since the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is predicated on false information, it’s wise to be skeptical of anything its proponents claim.
In this case, they’re deliberately lying to you. For example, here’s the work of just one skeptical scientist, out of literally thousands: click
Thanks a lot, Tony.
Yes, I’m a Londoner. When I look out my bedroom window near Baker Street I see thousands upon thousands of now decommissioned chimneys. In the 19th century London had more chimneys than people. The smog was so dense people were forced to wear hats, gloves, beards and long sleeves even during the summer to protect their skin and nails. It wasn’t just a Victorian fashion statement, it was practical for their health, and no doubt the dimming effect of the smog meant that even when fully dressed during the summer it wasn’t as hot as it could have been without the smog.
I think 1850 would be a very good starting point because it is a period I know very well from my non-scientific studies. Is it possible to get a list of those 100 surface stations and where they were located?
Thank you very much for the information and I look forward to working on this together if you want.
(Long time lurker, first time poster so full disclosure, I guess. 28, female, Canadian, B.Sc. Geology, B.Sc. Zoology and I work for this company.)
@ur momisugly thefordprefect
Just because I oppose capital punishment doesn’t mean I oppose crime. Likewise, just because the science behind AGW is shoddy, doesn’t mean the “moral of the story” is worthless. You can certainly be an AGW-doubter and still be an advocate for using our resources as fairly and efficiently as possible and therefore providing the service to our descendants that you are calling for.
In this case, the (fear-mongering) means don’t justify the (frugal use of resources) ends.
And you owe an apology to Douglas Adams.
We will be handing off a different planet to our children and grandchildren regardless, or irregardless for those in Rio Linda. I thought King Canute did a great job explaining it to the Brits centuries ago. It won’t matter if seas rise or fall, someone will lose out and complain. My ocean front mansion sank, or my ocean front mansion can’t see the ocean anymore.
“I will at least be able to face my children when they struggle with a planet very different to today’s and say, “I tried”.
And if I am wrong I will be again able to say to my children that the world is a cleaner place because of the actions we unecessarily took.
This is much better than burying my head in the sand and hoping it will all go away.
Mike”
Great. Glad you have those responses all worked out.
Now what will you say to the millions…yes, millions that will perish from starvation due to the policies you are promoting?
“I tried” sounds rather pithy in that light.
JimB
Mary Hinge,
This article below is a lengthy piece in the Guardian the greenest of green UK papers, it is full of catastrophic projected sea level rise and like similar press articles aimed at the general public is just rhetoric with not one single reference to any actual observed rise. Give a link to any paper that shows any observed sea level rise in the Maldives over the past 30 years. I presume that if sea levels were in fact rising the Maldives would be the ideal place to observe this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/08/climate-change-flooding
Hadley admits that they have been adjusting HadCET since 1974 to account for the urban heat island effect:
“Since 1974 the data have been adjusted to allow for urban warming.”
But what is their method for subtracting urban warming from the data? Is it using an average or a precisely measured anomaly for each site?
At least they admit that they have not accounted for urban effects prior to 1974, which means 200 years of prior temperature data needs to be reconstructed.
Mary,
I forget…are we in a La Nina yet?…by your definition?
And have you made predictions that haven’t come true?…just curious…
JimB
Rob and Mary,
Here’s video evidence that sea levels are not rising around the Maldives.
Whenever I give that link to an alarmist who mentions the Maldives they can only respond with personal attacks, which is fine by me because it reveals the content of their character.
Mary Hinge (12:31:25) …
Yes there’s a cooling trend in recent years. Commenting on that is “cherry-picking”?
But more to the point… since the trend of rising ocean levels has stayed slow but steady since the 1870s, and CO2 level have supposedly only dramatically risen since the late 1950s… why haven’t the seas accellerated their rise? It’s as if CO2 doesn’t matter at all? Where’s the long-predicted spike?
Is a 140 year trend “cherry picking”? Is it weather rather than climate? none of the usual counter-arguments seem to apply.
Ron de Haan (16:29:49) :
Same Poll different graph, more interesting:
– republicans, 66%
– independents, 44%
– democrats, 22%
Hmmm. Did they survey 132% of the people?
DJ – By all means, it should be a debate amongst scientists, as isolated from politics and culture as quantum mechanics. We did not choose to drag it out into a realm where it infringes our rights and encroaches on our lives, and since we do not live under meritocracy nor have any desire to do so, the reaction you described is every bit as justified as it was inevitable. When the Marxists and Malthusians stop using science as a weapon to force their ideologies upon everyone else, most of us non-experts will gladly return to enjoying our existence instead of criticizing The Science.
Lord Stern is going nuts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7940532.stm
The Danish Prime Minister agrees and is saying we should set a 2C rise as a goal instead of the 5C projections of the models.
I seriously doubt that we’d get a 1C rise anyway because the 19th and 20th century’s CO2 emissions were the peak of human CO2 output. We’ve been decarbonising our energy sources for over a century and it won’t be long before we have very low carbon solutions.
Politicians are simply using our natural creative destruction of out-going technology as an opportunity to tax by making it appear that without their insistence and dramatic predictions we will always be using old technology.
DJ (12:38:33) :
BTW I understand the US has had the driest start to a year on record. Let’s hope you don’t suffer horrible summer heatwaves like NZ & OZ lest your poll numbers go the other way.
When did NZ have a horrible heatwave? Maybe I missed it while I was in Hong Kong for Christmas. it seemed a little more humid than usual in February but was not truly remarkable.
Annette in Auckland where March seems to be presaging an early winter.
I have but a single observation.
“Mary Hinge”? What a delightful Spoonerism!
I almost lissed myself paughing!
If it were a fair fight, no one would believe Al Gore and his hoax.
It’s simple…you average the temps…if they’re increasing….well…there’s really no argument is there?
I think it’s WHAT’s causing it…people argue about… cow farts, auto emissions, Manny Ramirez???
Aron
i thought you must be British, I am from South Devon. I am fairly tied up over the next week or two writing an article, so my postings here will be limited.
However if you want to send me your email address I can send the links to the information I have. I suspect the nitty gritty of names of weather stations will be in the Callendar archives as in most published work they tend to be alluded to as the overall number, rather than as specific stations.
The archives are on a dvd and some are difficult to read as they are in Callendars handwriting. I got it for the co2 information that he compiled as I am in fairly regular contact with Ernst Beck re his belief in past high co2 levels. I suspect he may have access to some useful related information also.
These threads move fast so make sure I acknowledge any reply you give.
BTW your description of the smog reinforces the suspicion of the presence of considerable amounts of co2 -amongst other chemicals- from the burning of vast amounts of coal in all walks of life. Whilst the actual amount was said to be limited according to the IPCC charts I posted, I wonder if this reflects the reality of the potency of burning poor quality coal with few emission filters.
Tonyb
DJ whines: I don’t reply because all I see are talking points
Perhaps DJ needs to remove his AGW blinders from his face. Unless they are permanently welded on, that is.
And:
I also know when non-experts … adopt a position where you are willing to argue against a massive literature produced by climate scientists that you are driven by belief and ideology and not science.
Ah, yes, the old appeal to authority – “massive literature”. That never gets old. How about quality, eh? That pile of horse manure is indeed “massive”, but it sure reeks to high heaven!
It is, of course, the AGWers who are driven by “belief and ideology”, relying, as they must, on pseudo-scientific drivel, and a grab-bag of tricks they use to try to stifle debate, such as ad hominems, strawmen, appeals to authority, and red herrings.
tzugidan:
I’m not sure I follow, but there is, in fact, an occasional alarmist argument that temperatures are rising.
But of course, they’re wrong:
click1
click2
click3
Plenty more where those came from. But you get the picture.
What does a Gallup poll have to do with the amount of CO2 that is actually in the air?
DAV (12:25:06) :
“The parts you left out, Prag: 1) Galileo was asked, possibly in some quaint Italian way, to keep it as theory — meaning no advocacy — unless he could provide sufficient proof; 2) he not only failed to do this but one “participant” in the Dialogue was a common fool, Simplicio, espousing the non-heliocentric side who clearly was meant to be the voice of Urban himself; 3) the “prison” was house arrest — rather mild considering his open insult of a potential, powerful ally.”
Cardinal Bellarmine demanded that Galileo not “hold or defend” Copernicus – a specious command in violation of even the most ignorant understanding of scientific method.
The character of Simplicio, while subject to ridicule was far from a common fool. He espoused the Aristotelian, geocentric cosmology, the consensus of the day. That consensus included Pope Urban’s favorite anti-heliocentric argument: God could have made the universe any way he wanted to and still made it appear to us the way it does. Hardly “an open insult” and certainly not damaging to a Pope Galileo had dedicated his previous book to. In modern parlance we’d suggest the good Pope… suck it up.
“House arrest” is the fascist’s excuse for playing Big Brother; depriving those incarcerated freedom of movement and income. It is amusing to read defenders of the Inquisition – an institution that buried or distorted the truth and held up scientific progress for the better part of a century.
No those are the proportion of each group that feel AGW is exaggerated.
By the way Bret Baier Report on Fox tonight (3/12/09) had another item regarding the ICCC conference, they had a 30 second bit about 30 min into the program which quoted Richard Lindzen.
There are starting to be small notations in some of the more conservative major press but the classic liberal MSM outlets still are mostly ignoring the debate.
Larry
How frightened and short-sighted we are. Technology is on an exponential curve. Global temp is on a logarithmic curve at best.
Gee…just realized that An Inconvenient Truth opened in May 2006. After that the ratings for AGW started to fall. ☺☺☺☺
Coincidence? See here…..
http://photoshare.shaw.ca/image/2/d/8/63987/gwtrends-0.jpg