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.
Chris Wright (04:15:33) :
In today’s UK Observer there’s a neat example of how the term ‘climate change’ has taken over from ‘global warming’. The heading is: “Climate-change threat to rare black grouse’. The amusing thing is that the report blames a cooling climate, and not warming. I quote: “Consecutive cold, wet summers, the worst conditions in almost two decades, have set back recovery, with the numbers dropping from 1,200 to 850″.
It’s hardly surprising they’ve tended to drop the term ‘global warming’. After all, if we have much more of this global warming we’re going to freeze to death!
Chris
—————————–
Taken at face value, it’s probably true. It’s when the cooling part of climate change is blamed on carbon dioxide too. Then the American public know they are being lied to (except the slower, zoned-out, or closed-minded 34%, I guess).
Around here, the wild turkey population has exploded recently, although the microclimates around the San Francisco Bay are so odd that I think it would be difficult ascribe that to any climate change or weather patterns.
tp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/11/27/MN237724.DTL
We’ll see how polar bears do in a cooling climate following their little-reported increase in population during the warming phase.
“Ian Schumacher (22:00:22) :
_Jim (21:50:53) :
“see the Well to Wheels ’system ”
This is just more ‘models’. Forget the models. When it comes to the most efficient allocation of resources … that’s what capitalism is for.”
That is very true. Capitalism is THE best way to get the most efficient cars, fuels or anything else for that matter. By taking capitalism apart we are guaranteed a return to much simpler, quieter, hungrier, more dangerous and more brutal times. Within one year, if this fascist/socialist trend continues, life expectancy will decline markedly here in the USA. You won’t see it in the official government numbers, but keep your head about you and look around your own community.
We, and maybe Venezuela, are the only people stupid enough to voluntarily return to the conditions they had “back in the USSR”. It’s a fun song, but the reality of it is stark. Here’s Putin’s warning to the USA:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/02/putin-warns-us-democrats-against.html
Those anthropogenics are really anthropopithecus oligophrenicus, they are chemically pure fools who over-ultra-super-exaggerate human DIMENSION.
Look the following picture:
http://www.igp.gob.pe/vulcanologia/Principal/Html/VolcanLadoSur-ImagSatelital-Grande.htm
You see nine volcanoes and three names of cities down there. Do you see any anthropoids in the picture? however we all can see the nine volcanoes and its calderas, one of them, the Huaynaputina eruption, caused the 1700´s winter, where Venice chanels became frozen and people skate on them:
http://www.giurfa.com/venice.jpg
It does not matter what the GWrs nuts think or say, any of this volcanoes, as more than 10 right now, emits a by thousand of times what we anthropoids could in hundred of years of “polluting party”
Mike Bryant (08:10:24) :
We had all that from 1968 to 1975. A socialist revolution sponsored by the “Group of peruvian studies” funded by two well known liberal american NGOs.
That “experiment” destroyed the agricultural production by distributing property among people, atomizing big agricultural units into 2 to 5 acres properties which were abandoned afterward as improductive or just served for survival.
It succeded in disappearing all the ruling class confiscating even their banks´current accounts. Such a disastrours era had to be stopped by a coup d´etat.
What leftists “intelligenzia” think of these experiments is that these are justifiable because they “democratize” societies.
How can they do it in more developed societies?…By making them believe that the world will end if they not reduce pollution, then, by doing it, they will destroy the economy, by destroying the economy they destroy social structure, and, finally, when all have becomed poor (except of course they, the commisars)
a new social structure is implemented: The long wished paradise where oligophrenic anthropopitecs, they, the thirstful for revenge loosers, will govern over the most intelligent and prepared.
I think this is probably as low a number as you are going to ever get for belief in AGW. 31% of the population believe in astrology and if the lack of scientific understanding is that high in so many people we have most likely peaked out trying to educate people. Facts are not going to sway the remaining believers.
Adolfo,
“We had all that from 1968 to 1975. A socialist revolution sponsored by the “Group of peruvian studies” funded by two well known liberal american NGOs.”
Who were these well-meaning Americans?
God must protect us from the well-meaning people. If not I guess a coup is the alternative.
40% of people believe in ghosts.
All electric cars do is move the source of the pollution to a fixed site, they have very little impact on actual energy usage, and actually increase CO2 production/energy unit used.
As far as fuel energy conversions in internal combustion engines are concerned many electric car advocates grossly low ball the numbers. It is easy to see that the true conversion is much higher in modern engines. One of the most useful measures of internal combustion efficiency is the brake specific fuel consumption. This measures the pounds of fuel required to produce one horsepower hour of energy.
The rule of thumb for typical automotive engines is about 0.5 lbs of gasoline for each horsepower hour at the crankshaft. Most consumer engines exceed this value substantially in light throttle cruise on the highway. The very best conventional internal combustion spark ignition engines for efficiency are the light aircraft engines which can achieve bsfc numbers in the low .3x range, typically near 0.34.
If you convert these bsfc numbers to efficiency you come up with a typical range of from almost 25% to almost 36% efficiency. In light throttle cruise modern cars will get about 30% efficiency.
=================
Typical energy content of gasoline — 2.2 x 10^7 Joules/pound
(varies slightly by season and fuel blend)
Energy content and conversion source: (proponents of electrical vehicles)
http://www.evworld.com/library/energy_numbers.pdf
Brake specific fuel consumption of spark ignition gasoline engines, typical assumption is .5 lbs/hp/hr
Very best spark ignition engines in steady state cruise (light aircraft piston engines) 0.34 lbs/hp/hr
Energy conversion —- 1 hp hr = 2.68 x10^6 joules = 0.746 kwh
0.34 lbs bsfc gasoline per hp/hr = gasoline produces 2.68 x 10^6 joules of useful energy from (0.34×2.2 10^7 joules of fuel energy) = 7.48 x 10^6
0.5 lbs bsfc gasoline per hp/hr = gasoline produces 2.68 x 10^6 joules of useful energy from (0.5 x2.2 10^7 joules of fuel energy) = 1.1 x 10^7
0.34 bsfc= 2.68/7.48 = 35.83% efficiency
0.5 bsfc = 2.68/11 = 24.36 % efficiency
Highest recorded thermal efficiency for spark ignition direct injection ethanol powered engine = 42% (research engine by MIT) This is comparable to the best turbo diesel efficiency numbers.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentations/gni-mjb-051303.pdf
Larry
REPLY: But if you charge your electric car from a rooftoop solar array, then you really do get a free lunch. – Anthony
Yes and “almost free” lunch, you still have incremental expenses like periodic replacement of storage batteries for your array, so you can charge the car in the evening, and the batteries in the car which also have a life cycle, plus the amortized cost of the panels and controllers.
I agree that local PV charging is one solution which does work and make sense.
( aside from the minor problem that PV panel producers do not have the ability to build out the necessary panels in less than multidecade time scales. The currently are selling every panel they can produce and frequently sell out a years production mid year.)
Unfortunately for most users they are using grid connected power chargers, which in the U.S. necessarily means at least 50% of their power is coming from coal for at least the next couple decades.
Larry
REPLY: But if you charge your electric car from a rooftoop solar array, then you really do get a free lunch. – Anthony
The best solar cells are made of Gallium Arsenide, nothing less!. Try to google Gallium price, you´ll find it very interesting. By the way those solar cells made from ARSENIC are really tasteful!
Mike Bryant (10:11:10) : The Ford and the Carnegie foundations.
Mike Bryant: Here the link and a google translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&u=http%3a%2f%2fwww.iep.org.pe%2fnoticia%2f0185%2fantonio-zapata-sucedio-comprender-a-velasco%2f
This poll offer just some relief. We still need to get people to fight the EPA regulation of CO2 and the Cap-And-Trade legislation.
EPA regulation of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gas) emissions will provide cover for politicians who want to enact Cap-And-Trade or some other sort of scheme upon the American public.
To really stop this, we need Congress to explicitly not authorize the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Unless the EPA is forbidden, the regulation can be imposed upon us at any time.
“REPLY: But if you charge your electric car from a rooftoop solar array,
then you really do get a free lunch. – Anthony”
How much would that cost i wonder? Are we talking $1000 or $10000? I remember reading that Al Gore put something like $35,000 worth of solar panels on his house and his electricity usage actually went up the next year, so obviously their effect was minimal.
Electric cars don’t work too well here in Canada for 8 months of the year. For
that matter, nether do the solar cells when they are under snow 🙂
The biggest issue with electric cars is the batteries. They are expensive and they don’t last very long. Anyways, we’ll know when electric cars are worthwhile when you can actually walk into a dealership and buy one (and not just for the ‘green’ status).
Adolfo Giurfa (09:13:21) :
Mike Bryant (08:10:24) :
We had all that from 1968 to 1975. A socialist revolution sponsored by the “Group of peruvian studies” funded by two well known liberal american NGOs.
That “experiment” destroyed the agricultural production by distributing property among people, atomizing big agricultural units into 2 to 5 acres properties which were abandoned afterward as improductive or just served for survival.
It succeded in disappearing all the ruling class confiscating even their banks´current accounts. Such a disastrours era had to be stopped by a coup d´etat.
What leftists “intelligenzia” think of these experiments is that these are justifiable because they “democratize” societies.
How can they do it in more developed societies?…By making them believe that the world will end if they not reduce pollution, then, by doing it, they will destroy the economy, by destroying the economy they destroy social structure, and, finally, when all have becomed poor (except of course they, the commisars)
a new social structure is implemented: The long wished paradise where oligophrenic anthropopitecs, they, the thirstful for revenge losers, will govern over the most intelligent and prepared”.
Adolfo,
You have made your experiences and the process you describe is real.
Nobody will benefit from shut down economies.
Nobody will benefit from a fascist government eager to introduce a “green dream world” where human kind lives in harmony with Gaia.
It’s a dangerous hoax and we have to get on top of this ASAP.
Meanwhile, California ‘greens’ turn out against off-shore drilling (apparently only one person in the audience was in favor—where were the rational folks?), and 52% according to some poll ‘believe in’ global warming:
The rest of the article here:
http://tinyurl.com/dja6jq
When gas went over $4 a gallon, calls for more drilling began to be heard; now that gas is back to $2, the ‘greens’ once again control the public forum.
There’s plenty of oil and gas; we just have to go get it. But we won’t, if the enviro-wackos have their way; instead we can just sit back and watch the USA commit slow suicide.
/Mr Lynn
Should I even bother to answer – I don’t think you even peeked at the reference I posted, wherein you would have found the following:
I should like to think that I do not have to post the entire contents of referenced material here, but rather just a link and a short excerpt or abstract. Meanwhile, I await something definitive from the other side of the aisle in the way of a ‘study’ or something at least beyond open-ended speculation, conjecture or filibustering; let us see some numbers, gentlemen!
.
.
And you’re using …. models in rebuttle?
Have you reviewed the ANL study? Is it all just ‘models’?
You’re asking me? The original debate point I addressed was on the efficency of base load thermal (coal) power plants vs car engines; from there it moved onto the ‘system’ analysis from Well-to-Wheels energy chain for ICE vs HEV and EVs. I am not a proponent of anything except what makes good sense, and for the majority of us in this time and place that means an ICE powered automobile.
.
.
.
Really … I didn’t see a reference in your post, so, maybe I missed it. Sure would like see something, ahhhh, authoratative, based on some science, because, the numbers I’ve seen don’t bear that out.
.
.
Does this sort of fake web site fool anyone ? Fighting a rearguard action for the money are you ? No shame ,or maybe not bright enough to understand what is being explained to you
I hope name calling will prevent runaway greenhouse and the 6th big extinction .
There should be a public debate on TV so we can hear both sides of the story and not just the liberal side that they are shoving down our throats. There are a lot of scientists that believe global warming is a hoax,but you never see them in the newspapers or on TV news because the liberal media won’t be fair .LET’S HAVE A PUBLIC DEBATE and let everybodys opinion be heard.
_Jim (19:28:36) :
You accuse others of not reading through your posts and references. From your replies I think its pretty clear this applies to you also.
Tony peart (21:17:38) :
“fake web site”
And strangely it is the skeptics that are called conspiracy nuts. LOL.
“Not bright enough” and “I hope name calling will prevent runaway greenhouse”
Me confused.