On the day the EPA declares CO2 a “dangerous pollutant” we have the from Rasmussen Reports
Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming
is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of all likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while seven percent (7%) blame some other reason. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure.
These numbers reflect a reversal from a year ago when 47% blamed human activity while 34% said long-term planetary trends.
Most Democrats (51%) still say humans are to blame for global warming, the position taken by former Vice President Al Gore and other climate change activists. But 66% of Republicans and 47% of adults not affiliated with either party disagree.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of all Americans believe global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 33% who say it’s Very Serious. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s a not a serious problem. The overall numbers have remained largely the same for several months, but the number who say Very Serious has gone down.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats say global warming is a Very Serious problem, compared to 19% of Republicans and 25% of unaffiliateds.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.
President Obama has made global warming a priority for his administration. Half (49%) of Americans think the president believes climate change is caused primarily by human activity. This is the first time that belief has fallen below 50% since the president took office. Just 19% say Obama attributes global warming to long-term planetary trends.
Forty-eight percent (48%) rate the president good or excellent on energy issues. Thirty-two percent (32%) give him poor grades in this area.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of adults now say finding new sources of energy is more important that reducing the amount of energy Americans currently consume. However, 29% say energy conservation is the priority.
A growing number of Americans (58%) say the United States needs to build more nuclear plants. This is up five points from last month and the highest finding so far this year. Twenty-five percent (25%) oppose the building of nuclear plants.
While the economy remains the top issue for most Americans, 40% believe there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. Thirty-one percent 31% see no such conflict, while 29% are not sure.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.
===========================
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
The Rasmussen Reports Election Edge™ Premium Service offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage available anywhere.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rasmussen Reports is fairly accurate. It’s polls are not done by some obscure personality, or by college students who don’t have experience. They also don’t do their polling via the internet.
I wonder how much of a change would be seen in these numbers in America if everyone there saw “The Great Global Warming Swindle”?
For the times, they are a changin’. Temps, too.
==============================================
The most common reaction to finding out that the Sun is in a Deep Minimum is to question Global Warming immediately. You can almost hear the “Aha, I knew it” in thier voices.
“Forty-eight percent (48%) rate the president good or excellent on energy issues.”
Now that is a shame.
One can only hope that awareness of the truth will ultimately result in votes for candidates who support a rational position. But maybe that’s too much to ask.
No surprises there. My guess is the next warmist argument will be somehow the cold is related to CO2 also. Probably a increased cloud albedo negetive feedback caused by a small warming, resulting in a big temp drop. I kid you not, judging by what has happened to date , anything is possible now.
I was listening to a BBC call in show, Have Your Say, the day before yesterday. The question being discussed was “Is the human race committing suicide by ignoring climate change?” I was disturbed that during the 45 minutes I listened not one caller or guest even questioned that catastrophic climate change was threatening the planet with imminent doom.
The featured guest was documentary film maker Franny Armstrong. She has apparently made a film appropriately named “The Age of Stupid”.
She is a loon.
Caller after caller waxed on apocalyptically about the “fact” that we, and the planet, faced certain doom if we didn’t adopt a neolithic lifestyle devoid of air travel, private automobiles and meat, among other “suicidal” carbon producing behaviors.
Are the producers of this BBC show screening callers or is their audience predisposed towards this nonsense?
speakin of the other planets, its hard to find any current info on what their climates are up to.. anyone got some good sources for that?
Keep it up people… it’s working and the Truth shall always prevail… and of course Anthony’s surfacestation project has been of major help to expose the fraud behind AGW. Anthony should be named a Knight of Climate Truth Army.
I think the latest presidential election caused many people to look at AGW that had ignored it for a long time. With the cooler winters and snow many of these folks can’t help but be a little skeptical.
I think one way to win this battle is to take a page out of the alarmist handbook. For a long time they equated skepticism with big oil. Since many people were/are cynical when it comes to the oil companies they could easily be convinced that AGW was correct. Now it is time to link AGW with Wall street and big finance. By showing the link between cap and trade and the finance/investment industries you can pull many people over to the skeptical camp.
They will soon forget about it in the Northern Hemisphere as summer approaches, but they will be very quick to recall the previous winter as the next winter gets underway.
It will not be the weather which will boil over, it will be public outcry.
The sun today is dead quiet.
Thanks to WUWT the truth is coming out. We’re going to have cap and trade. We’re going to have EPA regulation. We need to be able to show that cooling began before this attempt to reduce GHG’s was implemented so 1. they can’t take credit for a natural process and 2. we can reverse and cancel these stupid idiotic economy destroying new taxes.
Watch for alarmist polls that show the opposite and post the questions that were asked. Some of these polls ask questions like “how long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?” or “since polar bears are drowning are you in favor of regulation pollution that is killing them?” Liars figure and figures lie.
When the EPA decision came out yesterday, one of the news broadcasters for the largest talk/news radio station in the United States described carbon dioxide as the gas “emitted by automobiles”.
Political leaders and their scientific advisors ( if they have any) have a poor grasp of technology. A change to electric cars would increase CO2 emissions because of the lower fuel to power efficiency of power plants compared with modern internal combustion engines.
It does not matter the majority, even if it is 99%, a known religion founder began with just a few followers then they got the idea of recruiting followers by force. Present day green religion´s founder is no less fanatic to do the same, perhaps by using some more efficient means, like “pay carbon tax or die”.
WOW!
That’s a stunning reversal. I’m sure mid April blizzards in the Rockies don’t hurt the momentum.
I tried an experiment with an old friend recently. She’s trending liberal with strong political support for the Obama administration. I normally try to keep out of political discussions, but when she said she liked what he was doing, I said that I didn’t like the spending and debt obligations that were building and their implications. I then broached climate change and what I think are damaging policies being considered. I was expecting a fight. Surprisingly, she immediately deferred with the comment that she didn’t understand all that “science stuff”.
I don’t think I necessarily convinced her, but I wasn’t trying to. What she does know is that someone she knows and respects doesn’t buy the AGW story.
Trust me on this. If you’ve been following threads like these, you know 100x what an MSM consumer knows. Don’t be afraid to share your opinions (supported with facts you can back up) with your friends and associates. While they may not switch their opinion, at least they’ll know someone who knows more on the subject than they do has misgivings. Our biggest hurdle is the “everybody believes it” mentality.
I think the problem is the word ‘believe’. ‘Know’ is a much better word. Belief is better suited to religion as knowledge is better suited to science. Therefore to say that so many people believe in global warming is probably worthless. Our understanding of the global climate is not complete and believing it to behave in one way or the other is not good enough. As far as our experience and understanding goes we live on a unique world and as there seems no sign of another one like this turning soon we should be mindful of that. Which means we do need to understand what we have and whether any of our actions will come back to bite us, as happened to the people of Easter Island, who know doubt thought that their beliefs would look after them. I do not think that the ‘AGW’ movement is helping our understanding of our global climate because some of the ‘AGW’ assertions have the flavour of someone with an axe to grind or in some cases are just plain wrong. And to suggest we should act on ‘AGW’ regardless is reckless. Imagine trying to defuse a bomb and being confronted with a blue wire and red wire. Cutting both is not a great idea.
Richard M (10:06:05)
“[…] For a long time they equated skepticism with big oil. Since many people were/are cynical when it comes to the oil companies they could easily be convinced that AGW was correct.”
“[…] the link between cap and trade and the finance/investment industries […]”
– – –
…and (some would say remarkably) this has nothing to do with political affiliation.
We need to get rid of democracy and fast! People are irrational and don’t know what’s best for themselves. We should leave big decisions to group of experts that can make rational decisions on the people’s behalf.
[just-kidding!] But you can just see that some people thinking this can’t you?!
R Stevenson (10:18:07) :
“Political leaders and their scientific advisors ( if they have any) have a poor grasp of technology.”
At the risk of being redundant, here’s the great scientific grasp of Henry Waxman, (D, California) head of the House Energy and Environment committee:
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.”
Remember, this is the guy that’s writing the Energy and Environment policy for Congress. Does anyone else find this incredibly scary?
I think Cap’n Trade will be forced to walk the plank by congress, and the EPA will be forced to either put up or shut up. They are reserving the right to arbitrarily regulate carbon, so if congress refuses to implement carbon trading, congress will be basically calling the EPA’s bluff. Lots of Democrats oppose carbon trading so I don’t think that will get through congress.
The last thing Obama needs is for one of his regulatory agencies to arbitrarily take action that will raise energy prices. I think the whole point of this maneuver by the EPA is to force congress into acting, “or else” the EPA will impose its own restrictions.
Write your congressman. No carbon trading. Let the EPA put this threat into action. Get the process rolling, and let’s get this whole AGW thing out to where people will have to put their children’s lunch money on the table over it.
That will “raise awareness” in a way that the AGW crowd does NOT want to see happen.
We need help in the UK. We used to be able to assess situations, keep a stiff upper lip and do what had to be done…….. Now we have a BBC that is supposed to be impartial and yet uses every available opportunity to propagandize the AGW myth as though it were The Truth. We also have a generation of mindless morons that actually think dramas they see acted on TV are Real! A soap character put her ‘soap’ house up for sale and was besieged with offers from viewers anxious to buy the fictional property!!! Doh!!!
Then we have Bonnie Prince Charlie and his Catlin Arctic Amateurs hell bent on providing ‘evidence’ of melting North Pole ice…….
Lovelock is a Brit, so is George Monbiot, sadly. They both need deporting.
Also, like a rash that won’t stop itching we have Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund and as a coup de grace, Plain, sorry Plane Stupid and a plethora of mini Green nutters.
Where is that bottle of Jura Single Malt?
Richard M (10:06:05) :
I think one way to win this battle is to take a page out of the alarmist handbook. For a long time they equated skepticism with big oil. Since many people were/are cynical when it comes to the oil companies they could easily be convinced that AGW was correct. Now it is time to link AGW with Wall street and big finance. By showing the link between cap and trade and the finance/investment industries you can pull many people over to the skeptical camp.
——————————————-
Why would you advocate using the same tactics that the weak of argument use? How about putting the facts out and letting people make up their own minds, we have one great plus on our side, we are not fanatical.
Fanatics always get unmasked when opposed, so all we have to do is calmly state our case often and publicly, their over-reactions and frantic grasping for control shows the radical agenda each and every time, unfortunately not before many people suffer, so this time I hope we can prevent that here.
Europe, Africa and Asia have suffered quite enough for all the world under failed GHG mitigation policy, biofuel madness, artificially inflated energy costs, hostile action justification amid climate fears have cost thousands of lives.
North America is about the replay all the failed left wing policies using the Socialist Mantra “the reason it did not work was because it was not BIG ENOUGH”, this is the door America opened, it is the driving force in DC, Bride of Stimulus lies waiting for Pelosi-stein to give it life because 787B was just not big enough.
So when Cap and Trade does not reduce GHG, it will be expanded into your living room because … you guessed it! it was just not big enough.
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.”
So, so true… and then the three mile thick ice at the south pole will naturally evaporate and what happens to the tundra down there?!? You guessed it… the tundra won’t be held down any longer. I hate it when THAT happens. There will be tundra floating all over the place.
We have a tundra emergency. Save the tundra!!! Don’t let the ice evaporate!!!
God bless you Henry Waxman!
“Are the producers of this BBC show screening callers?”
Does a bear sh*t in the woods?
“We’re going to have cap and trade. We’re going to have EPA regulation.”
We’re going to have tea parties.