Washington (CNN) – A rise in skepticism among Americans over global warming is mostly due to changes among Republicans, according to new national poll.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Monday, indicates that two-thirds of all Americans believe global warming is a proven fact. That’s down eight points since June of 2008, with views among Democrats holding steady while Republicans’ belief in global warming dropping 11 points.
“The growing skepticism among Republicans, with no matching shift among Democrats, suggests that the changes measured in this poll may be a reaction to having a Democrat in the White House rather than a shift in underlying attitudes toward global warming,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
The poll’s release come as a United Nations climate summit opened in Copenhagen, Denmark. That global conference began under a cloud of accusations, after international attention the past two weeks over hacked e-mails that suggest some scientists faked data to support the argument of global warming. But Holland notes that polls released last month from other organizations have found similar shifts in views on global warming for several months. He says that indicates the changes in the new CNN survey are not the direct result of the media attention to the leaked e-mails from climate researchers.
According to the survey, roughly a third of the people who believe in global warming think it is due to natural causes, rather than manmade causes such as industrial emissions. As a result, the number who say that global warming is caused by humans has dropped from 54 percent last summer to 45 percent now.
The poll indicates the number who say the U.S. should reduce emissions even if other countries do not follow suit has also dropped, from 66 percent in 2007 to 58 percent today.
“That drop is due to roughly equal changes among Republicans and Democrats, suggesting that economic conditions, rather than political factors, may be at play,” noted Holland.
Why do a majority support lowering emissions when most Americans no longer think emissions cause global warming? “Americans may have other reasons to support a reduction in carbon dioxide and other gases,” Holland says. “Pollution is pollution, and the country has been worried about clean air long before global warming became a topic of discussion.”
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted December 2-3, with 1,041 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus 4.5 percent for the overall sample.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Then again, it COULD also be an indication that Republicans more easily see through scams…
The press release doesn’t match the poll. Big surprize.
Nit-pick: misplaced apostrophe in your title.
I am incensed at the continual confusion in public commentary between acceptance of “Global Warming” and acceptance of the AGW hypothesis. Are the reporters just ignorant? Are most respondents to these polls also ignorant of the difference? Or is the obscuring of this difference pure spin?
Skeptics generally BELIEVE in a changing climate that includes warming trends such as occurred in late 20th century. That’s the whole point — change is normal! It is the AGW’ers who are “deniers” — deniers of the normality of change, deniers of the MWP and deniers of the MIA.
Wow, I bet CNN are upset that they, and the rest of the MSM, have failed in their primary roll – to formulate public opinion to conform with political dogma.
This shows that people still have the ability to think for themselves; the next step is for them to remember they also have the ability to act.
Always remember. we are many and they are few.
The clock is ticking and I think we are in for some interesting times.
another ‘Hockey Stick’, perhaps? Maybe they will try to ‘Hide the decline’ in believers….
The “pollution is pollution” line about CO2 at the end is positively chilling.
God Bless America!!! You’ve got to love a country where 58% of people think that they should be reducing GHG emissions regardless of other nations, 75% think they should reduce GHG emissions in partnership with other nations, but only 45% think that AGW is a fact.
Conclusion – at minimum 30% of US folks are morons (that is the 30% who think GHGs should be reduced even though they don’t think they cause warming).
People are waking up to the truth,
http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/07/lord-monckton-on-climategate-at-the-2nd-international-climate-conference/
ot news from n.z.
A senior geologist drilling off the New Zealand coast has called for the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be “killed”.
Today, Prof Carter argued that the study of climate change had been “captured” by the small group of well-connected, well-networked and well-funded atmospheric scientists and computer modellers who advise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
He claimed that the course of climate history and change on Earth should be the domain of geologists, “not meteorologists and computer jockeys”.
A lot of charges have been made that I think are quite unjustified, cherry-picking information and… misrepresenting what it’s actually saying,” he said.
But Prof Carter said the “global warming scare” was a scam and the hacked files had demonstrated “scientific malfeasance” of an influential and internationally well networked segment of the climate research community.
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6562679/scientist-drilling-off-nz-drills-ipcc/
“Pollution is pollution, and the country has been worried about clean air long before global warming became a topic of discussion.”
That’s what it’s really all about.
The leading scientists know this.
Even though I am a FIRM believer in natural climate variations, I’ve never felt politically motivated by the climate “issue” because I’m not opposed to pollution reduction. I made drastic changes in my lifestyle to reduce (by probably a factor of 10 to 100) the amount I pollute 15 years ago. [I pollute less than people who ride the bus (because I walk or kayak 95% of the time when I travel).]
The thing that infuriates me is how long it is going to take to understand nature because research on natural climate variations is being FIERCELY obstructed (for clearly political reasons). It is very important to understand weather & climate (& nature more generally) for reasons other than the climate “issue”.
I’d prefer that pollution reduction be achieved by honest means, but I remain politically neutral because the fake climate “issue” affects only my research work, not my belief system.
Skepticism in NZ seems to be growing as well. On NZ TV tonight there was phone in poll after a believer ( Gareth Morgan,economist) and a skeptic ( Ian Wishart, journalist) had a brief debate.
You can watch it at http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/climate-change-confusion-you-decide-3241785/video
The poll was 77% in favour of the skeptic having the most convincing argument. Yes I know phone in polls are of little value but it was the first time I have seen climategate get a positive airing on our MSM TV. This program has very high ratings.
Ugh, I get so pissed when people say CO2 is pollution – stupidity is really annoying.
Scientist drilling off NZ drills IPCC.
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6562679/scientist-drilling-off-nz-drills-ipcc/
“The poll indicates the number who say the U.S. should reduce emissions even if other countries do not follow suit has also dropped, from 66 percent in 2007 to 58 percent today.”
Why, if only 45% believe that human emissions are responsible, do 58% still figure we should reduce emissions anyway??? What is the MATTER with these people?!
And just curious… any democrats here can shed some light on whether your side is holding up or not? (for the record, while I applaud the republican resistence, I have no favored party).
I’m adopting a term for whitewashing and covering up the scandal that is Climategate: GREENWASH
I first saw it used by Hans van Storch.
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/
————
The BEST presentation I’ve seen that puts our recent warming in perspective is
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
!!
Quick, get Phil Jomes or Michael Mann to reconstruct the results of this poll through the intensive use of well-placed proxies.
Mapou (00:11:32) : “Quick, get Phil Jones or Michael Mann to reconstruct the results of this poll through the intensive use of well-placed proxies.”
But wouldn’t that only result in an insignifcant finding that doesn’t change the overall picture? 🙂
Gregg E. (00:05:44) :
Yeah I just read “The Last Centurion”. This mess is also looking like Pournelle, Niven and Flynn’s “Fallen Angels” from 1991. I think the greenies are using it as a manual on how to set up a green police state.
>>I’m adopting a term for whitewashing and covering up the scandal that is Climategate: GREENWASH
That word belong to the greenies meaning corporates that push green propaganda with out meaning it – but I agree it should be co-opted.
I have another – GREENMAIL – dodgy climate scientists who fool gullible and ignorant academics, media and politician into pushing their agenda.
I wrote a post in response to a BBC R4 programme discussing science and policy (in general, but prompted by climategate). My perception is that people with a weak science background tend to treat the word of a scientist as the word of an oracle, either accept it blindly, or ignore it – they find it very difficult to engage with in a meaningful way. I think that most of the readers here probably tend to forget that, since we have already demonstrated we are an inquisitive bunch.
http://www.houlihane.co.uk/blog/2009/12/08/science-evidence-and-policy/
This is Al Gore’s Interview with Liz Hightower of Outside Magazine, December 2009
Al Gore: Mr. Climate Is Back!
The former VP talks about his new, solutions-based book.
http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200912/al-gore-our-choice-interview.html
Outside Magazine, December 2009
By Elizabeth Hightower
“Our Choice (Rodale Press, $27) explores so many promising ideas, from efficiency gains to a U.S. super-grid that would transmit more energy farther and faster. Where do we start?
Efficiency improvements offer the fastest opportunities for progress. And the best way to unlock all of those solutions is to put a price on carbon. We ought to immediately take steps to protect forests, and we need to pay attention to some of the enabling infrastructure like the super-grid and encourage the more rapid development of advanced battery systems.
Are we doing any of that right now?
Definitely. We haven’t made as much progress as I would have liked, but we have seen a big change since President Obama’s inauguration. The stimulus bill kick-started construction of a U.S. super-grid. The one piece that is still in formation is the placement of a price on carbon. It’s extremely unwise to continue using a system for valuation that completely ignores the destruction of the planet’s ecological integrity.
You write that, when we do start to pay for carbon, a lot of companies suddenly won’t look so profitable.
No question about it. There are millions of business plans that assume carbon-dioxide emissions have zero value, and those business plans are in danger of becoming obsolete rather quickly. So, yes, there is a sub-prime carbon-asset bubble that is going to have to be dealt with. Many businesses are already taking steps to reduce their exposure, but so long as business leaders are penalized for slightly missing quarterly earnings projections, they’re going to be irrationally resistant to investments that are good for their shareholders in the long term.
You’d think that, with China staking its renewable-energy claim, we’d be stampeding to invest. What’s the holdup?
Inertia. A second reason is this short-term investment horizon, and a third factor is the legacy political power of carbon polluters, who are just digging in their heels. A change as large as this doesn’t happen quickly, but we are very close to a political tipping point.
How do you talk to those climate-change naysayers?
The denial movement is in its sunset phase—and they’re putting on a spectacular display just before they fade. The scientific evidence is so overwhelming now. And people are seeing changes all around them: Older people are telling their grandchildren these patterns are different. Farmers are no longer able to predict the arrival of rainfall. People who look for birds are finding dramatic shifts in their range. They must not watch Glenn Beck.
So what’s more important in our own lives: trying to be greener or pushing for political change?
They go together. All of us can make changes, but the changes that are most needed are not lightbulbs and windows but laws and policies and treaties. So, yes, we are in a phase of this struggle where civic and political action are at the top of the list.
What do you do about your own carbon footprint?
Tipper and I have put in solar panels, new windows, additional insulation; we drive hybrids; we purchased green electricity from renewable sources—the geothermal took our natural-gas bill down to zero. But it’s all-pervasive. The bigger changes are going to come from laws.
But people still criticize you for flying around so much.
I fly commercial except in rare instances, and I offset my travel. But in getting the word out and getting the change under way, I think it’s important to go to places like Copenhagen, where you can make a big difference. Having said that, I’ve also cut down on travel.
Now that the book’s out, do you have any adventures planned? I know you’ve climbed Mount Rainier with your son.
That backpack gets a little heavier above 14,000 feet, but it was great fun. We tend to do our outings closer to home. I go up to wilderness areas and to Center Hill, a lake near Nashville. I got some friends to build me a houseboat with solar panels and bio-diesel engines—it’s a big toy, but it’s fun and I don’t travel halfway around the world to get there.”
NOTE: This interview was not in Copenhagen. For some reason, Gore was more comfortable talking to one reporter on her own halfway up a mountain in the middle of nowhere.
I know I stated that Obama was good for the US in one of my very earliest posts here (And it was more to do with what the Bushes have done to the US in their time inparticular oil and war, not made clear by me at the time), and initially it did look that way (IMO). But, like Kevin Rudd in Australia (IMO will be. Rudd you have lost most of your Australian support, you certainly will not have mine), does anyone think Obama will be a one-term wonder?
Massive Climategate and NIWAgate fallout in NZ – primetime TV poll shows 77% don’t believe in AGW any more.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/12/bombshell-poll-on-climate-change-77-dont-believe.html
On the heels of the Aussie political uproar, this has the makings of a wave beginning to break.
we just had a phone in poll on TV1 in New Zealand after listening to a warmer & a skeptic both of whom have published books Ian Wishart ( author of Air Con) & Gareth Morgan (Poles Apart) the poll results were 77 % believed skeptic Ian Wishart and only 23 % believed Gareth Morgan.
The results stunned the moderator !
Below 50%?
77% in NZ?
Big Deal! Tell that to Kommrade Jackson and Secretary Obama.
Do you think they are at all swayed?
Actually they are. That’s why they rushed with the EPA ruling.