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.
Karl Denninger has a great item at his blog which I strongly recommend:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/968-Bend-Over-Here-It-Comes-Carbon-Taxes.html
He raises the possibility of a higher carbon tax on beans because you know what they produce……..
“As you know, climate scientists massively and overwhemingly accept CO2 from humans as a driver of warming”
And at last report, mice unanimously assert cats are a pernicious evil and must be stopped.
Ron de Haan (02:44:48) :
Also we all know that battery technology is not too effective dispite the years and years of research and dollars expended by the government and private industry.
Lithium-ion batteries are about the highest efficiency available coming in between 80%-90%. The most common battery used in an EV, however, is the lead-acid battery with a mere 70%-75% efficiency that also drops in lower temperatures making them less attractive in places with cold winters).
Assuming somehow that Li-I batteries are all the rage in the future, that knocks the 37%-41% number offered by _jim down to 29.6%-36.9% before transmission line losses (I don’t know the legitimacy of _jim’s numbers though they seem reasonable). Transmission line losses are estimated in the 7.5% neighborhood, dropping the EV to 22.1%-29.4% efficient, or an average of 25.75% efficient before considering their abysmal energy density: it is a stunning 160 Wh/kg, approximately 70 times less than 87 octane gasoline.
Using the most common L-A battery at 70%, and forgetting the reduction due to cold, the final efficiency of most EV cars on the road is only 18.4%-21.2% or an average of 19.8%, not much different than an ICE vehicle. This does not even take into consideration the fact that due to their extremely low energy density, 30-40 Wh/kg, any where from 25% to 50% of the total mass of the car is due to the batteries themselves.
Li-I batteries suffer from extremely short life-cycles, and the other options (Nimh, sodium) suffer from even lower efficiencies than Li-I and L-A, as well as other problems. We have a ways to go before EVs are feasible.
Mark
approximately 70 times less than 87 octane gasoline
would probably read a bit better if I had said “approximately 1/70th of 87 octane gasoline.” 🙂 L-A batteries, at 30-40, are 20%-25% of that.
Mark
What has caused global warming? An interesting question. Only trumped by the following:
What has caused global cooling?
What has caused the absolute, perfect, stability and invariability of global temperatures since the beginning of time?
What has caused the moon to be made of green cheese?
What has caused Obama to be perfect, infallible, and, indeed, divine?
What caused you to cheat on your last chemistry test?
Thanks to your article “The Antarctic Wilkins Ice Shelf Collapse: Media recycles photos and storylines from previous years” many thoughts and questions arise aboute the way in which media can both conceive and influence people. In 2006 a movie like “An inconvenient truth” appeared and last year the majority of USA voters blamed human activity. Last year a new movie “Not evil just wrong” appeared which asserted global warming is just a scam which is creating a sort of hysteria. Now public opinioni changed… Is it a coincidence? Which is the truth? What I fear most is the evil (I should say) and not just wrong usage of media both from the side of producers and final users. Maybe this is the first problem to be worried about because this can represent the way in which problem’s relevance is gained.
Just because of this phenomena I really appreciate the good information offered by your blog.
http://italianopinionist.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/antarctic-peninsula-and-global-warming-which-is-the-truth/
Seems that a couple of scientists at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have cracked the AGW problem.
A lean population, such as that seen in Vietnam, will consume almost 20% less food and produce fewer greenhouse gases than a population in which 40% of people are obese (close to that seen in the USA today) … a lean population of 1 billion people would emit between 0.4 and 1.0 gigatonnes less carbon dioxide equivalents per year compared with a fat one.
Between 1994 and 2004 the average male BMI in England increased from 26 to 27.3, with the average female BMI rising from 25.8 to 26.9 (about 3 kg – or half a stone – heavier). Humankind – be it Australian, Argentinian, Belgian or Canadian – is getting steadily fatter.
The article itself is written somewhat tongue in cheek but also draws on other data to argue against the case made by the scientists for the starve and solve solution. Not sure that the quote of a population of one billion implies some ideal size…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/20/more_bmi_foolery/
Exciting news. US news reporter breaks the silence.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10456
I am so happy about that news I live in Vernon British Columbia, which is usually Canada’ s warm spot.. It was only 5 above at 10.30 am with a gusty cold wind. Time for a winter coat.
I posted on another story before, because I did not know about this one
Would those who are skeptics look at the scientific evidence and understand it all before making sweeping statements of denial. You could do worse than start at the International Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch) for some up-to-date, real information. Please remember that scientists do not warn about climate change for some attention-seeking self-serving gratification. They are reporting what the find out there in the real world.
wifeoverseas (10:16:40) :
“Would those who are skeptics look at the scientific evidence and understand it all before making sweeping statements of denial. You could do worse than start at the International Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch) for some up-to-date, real information. Please remember that scientists do not warn about climate change for some attention-seeking self-serving gratification. They are reporting what the find out there in the real world.”
Be careful with that last statement. It’s not really the scientists, but the non-scientist like Al Gore and other Big Enviroment groups who take the data from the scientist that may or may not indicate anything concrete, and then spin it to come to the conclusions they want.
But you have to follow the money. If a group of scientist do a study that was funed in part by Exxon Mobile, aren’t they immediately smeared and discredited by the Alarmists despite how solid their credentials might be?
Why would it be any different if the money behind the studies and scientists is either government grant money, or money from Big Green? Their funding runs out about the time they produce results other than what their money suppliers want.
In the case of Big Green, their motives are as skewed as anything Big Oil might be. Money from the government is equially suspicous because no one ever got a grant saying, “I believe this is part of a natural solar and climate cycle, and there is no eminent danger to mankind”.
If they want the money, they have to say, “OMG!! WE are ont he verge of a cataclysm! The seas will rise and the land will burn. Dogs and Cats living together…mass hysteria!”
If you were shelling out some grant money for a study, which seems like it’s more urgent?
Bingo! And so the scientists suspecting catestrophic peril gets all of that government money.
That’s how the grant process works. reserachers put together synopses of studies they are applying for funding for, and then the EPA or whatever beurocratics agency is dolling out our tax dollars reveiw the proposals to see which gets the money.
And of course, Big Green, Big Media, and Big Hollywood pump lots of money into funding studies. But somehow those researchers and scientists aren’t questioned, but good Lord, a study that Big Oil helped fund, and suddenly nothing from that study is legitimate.
Can’t have it both ways…