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.
I’m feeling ugly today.
But I have to congratulate NZ on this. You’re a shining example of hope, and you can be proud that you are of the few sane left on the planet.
How easy is it for an American to move to NZ? Seriously.
Benjamin (00:02:31) :
“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?!
Maybe they don’t like smog, and reason that cutting emissions of EPA designated ‘pollutants’ will cut emissions of stuff that makes them cough and blocks sunshine out and makes their washing dirty.
This may seem like a reasonable approach to someone who doesn’t understand all the scientific nuances.
The losses are not confined to Republicans. Independents are dumping AGW en masse. Climategate broke the dam. Older Democrats see it too.
The proponents of the AGW Agenda come across as dismissive and highly condescending. The air about them is really hard to take.
America just got a dose of what the skeptics have been getting, and the polls show the result.
It is true that Republicans generally distrust science and scientists.
For example, when it comes to evolution, most Republicans see no reason why the Bible should not be held up as a definitive explanation for the creation of the world…the 7 day hypothesis, that holds that the earth was created in 7 days about 5000 years ago and that dinosaurs and man coexisted at the same time.
While most scientists believe that the world is billions of years old and that dinosaurs predated man by millions of years Conservative Christian Creationists consistently champion the Old Testament Biblical view and lobby for equal time to teach their view in school.
The same disdain for science is playing out in the Global Warming debate with the world’s scientist on one side and forces backing the continued use of fossil fuels (Oil rich nations like Saudi Arabia, major oil corporations, entities that wish to continue burning fossil fuels.. and , of course, many in the Republican party, which usually sides with big businesses.
Not being a scientist my tendency is to go with the view of a majority of scientists. And the vast majority of scientist believe their research shows that there is a human element in global warming.
Of course, it is possible that this is just a big conspiracy by climate scientist around the world to boost their cause and make themselves more important.
Though I find it hard to believe that thousands of scientists from China, India, Europe and North America all agreed to promote bogus science. To do that they would have had to get together with interpreters and try to hammer out an plan of action. Pretty hard to do without being discovered.
In addition, some of those big developing countries stand to take a big economic hit if the science of global warming turn out to be true . Despite that , they are reluctant supporters of their scientists views that global warming is fact and not fiction.
So the arguement seems to boil down to two camps: On the one hand are those that benefit from the continued use of fossil fuels…namely oil companies like Exxon and petrol rich nations like Saudi Arabia.
On the other…the scientists who really don’t stand to lose one way or the other.
Having some respect for science (yet knowing that it isn’t infallible), I tend to listen to what the scientist are saying.
And of course as they continue to research Global Warming new data will undoubtedly surface to give credence to one .side or the other.
For now, though, the overwhelming support for the concept of Global Warming by scientist all over the world has my attention.
If CO2 is ‘pollution’, then the biosphere is pollution and the earth would be better off dead.
‘Pollution’ is a very interesting concept with a long history; it is ultimately a prescriptive concept of moral valuation, and does not work very well in the context of the objective, descriptive discourse of natural science.
If a coal-powered generating plant puts tons of SO2 into the atmosphere, that is surely pollution, as the word is used in current English. But what about the tons of SO2 emitted by volcanic eruptions–does that count as pollution too? Is SO2, per se, a ‘pollutant’?
Ibid for CO2.
norris hall (05:10:11) :
It is true that Republicans generally distrust science and scientists.
For example, when it comes to evolution, most Republicans see no reason why the Bible should not be held up as a definitive explanation for the creation of the world…the 7 day hypothesis, that holds that the earth was created in 7 days about 5000 years ago and that dinosaurs and man coexisted at the same time.
——
Most? Really? I am sure you have a reputable source for that claim.
Of course not, because you just made it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1&hp
true or not?
Preached to long enough, the religious sheeple will believe anything
Imagine when all trees and all other plants dies out due to CO2 pollution, the horror of it all….
So now the Met Office says that the last 10 years has been the warmest in recorded history.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/met-office-warmest-decade
Tallbloke,
I think you’re on to something there. If you listen to Ed Begley’s debate/interview the other day he goes right at “smog over LA” when solid questions about the validity of the science behind CAGW were posed. Heart’s in the right place – I don’t like air pollution either – but this whole thing is allegedly based on climate science – not air quality
Norris,
I’m really, really hoping your post was just a troll. The whole neutral scientists all in consensus vs. knuckle-dragging-creationist-republicans and “big oil” paradigm wore thin a long time ago.
R. Craigen (23:24:31) :
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.
In the spin to discredit ClimateGate, the talking heads keep telling us the data shows the earth is warming and therefore we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Either they are willfully ignorant or deliberately misleading people.
Going along with expensive measures to combat AGW, a way in the future and probably paid for by someone else, is one thing, especially during a boom. With a downturn in the economy and looking at higher prices now, it all looks different. That’s when voters who never thought about it much, and took a lot on trust, start to concentrate and change their minds.
This trick of using every and every extreme weather event to reinforce the idea that Catastrophic Global Warming is happening, is fine in a hot summer. In a cold winter, it backfires.
The other thing is that you can only keep people in a state of fear for so long, when the spell breaks, they either yawn or become angry.
norris hall (05:10:11) :
Your rant (which is all it is) suffers from the usual logical fallacies that Alarmists use. The Straw Man, which you use several times seems to be a favorite, as well as your use of the Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority. These are all tactics used by those who either have no interest in, or indeed do not have the truth on their side – by liars, in other words.
Care to try again? Next time, hopefully, doing a bit of research first?
reliapundit,
The temperature reconstruction(s) that form the graph, that form the basis of the linked article has serious problems. There is mounting evidence that past warm periods have been suppresed (MWP… for Christ’s sake – they used to grow wine in Northern England… and don’t get me started on the unfounded allegations that this was only a local phenomenon) and current instrument record “adjustments” have biased the recent record upward. From a scientific POV, which sets the bar very high, I would say that article is not true based on what I know of the data that is the basis of the argument.
After all, garbage in -> garbage out
Not sure where to write this (used heavily in the MSM)
2000–2009, THE WARMEST DECADE says WMO
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html
Rank and file may need succinct rebuttal points
The people who believe we should still reduce emissions of GHG’s even though they don’t believe humans are responsible for climate change suffer either from cognitive dissonance and/or ignorance of the severely negative economic impact that doing so will have on our economy, on economies world-wide, and indeed, on their own quality of life.
My moderate-liberal brother says that many of his colleagues are confused by his skepticism on global warming. They think that since he is a democrat he should believe in global warming. He, of course, says it has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with facts and science.
I find my conservative view points stand in the way of my global warming views as well. Most people assume that I have my AGW views just because I am conservative. No, I just believe in facts…..
Anyone else find it funny that the majority of protesters and activists that claim they have all the answers to climate science……. Are Hippy Arts students?!
Read:1066: The Year of the Conquest by Howarth and find out how pleasant
England was-until Duke William screw’d it up.The big thing was how warm and pleasant it was.Warm bad Cold good-no I don’t think so….
5 F at my home this am-didn’t get as cold as they were saying….
CNN is a fully ‘on board’ media proxy for the AAM alarmist cult, they have close links to green industries that stand to make billions out of the cap and trade/subsidies/anti CO2 regime being brought in. When you look at the one sided and often poisonous coverage of things like the Heartlands conference of last year, it becomes all too clear that CNN has a vested interest in its poll coming to the conclusions it claims.
The BBC in the UK just happens to have had a poll carried out on its behalf by a company called globescan and it too came to more or less the same conclusions as this poll and by strange coincidence the BBC is every bit as fanatical and biased toward the AAM cultists, funny that!
The thing about polls carried out by vested interests is that they nearly always get the result they are looking for to begin with, its the ‘8-10 cats prefer whiskas’ routine, people trust polls to be transparent and honest yet the evidence shows us time and time again that pollsters are there to make money like any ad agency, they have client bases with special needs and the pollsters cater for those needs.
Globescan and the BBC have a very cosy relationship, globescan can expect repeat custom IF it gives the BBC the correct answers and so on the basis of repeat business it does just that.
A pollster that tells the client things they do not want to hear will suddenly find other pollsters along the line will receive the business next time. Think of pollsters like ad agencies instead of impartial opinion finders, the pollsters primary aim is repeat business and a growing client base.
Warmists often accuse people of being “conspiracy nuts”.
But put it in perspective. Many voices say that we need a new world based on sharing and selflessness. But the problem is most of the world’s population is selfish. So how do you get people to do the right thing?
The Buddhist voices, for example, have the notion of “skillful means”—this is the moral correctness of lying when necessary. The new world of selflessness has to be introduced in terms that the existing world of selfishness will understand—cooperate or you will all suffer biblical floods and economic ruin, for example.
There is no conspiracy nutness about this—it is just good salesmanship.
If you want to change the world, you have to lie to people. If people already wanted it, they’d already be asking for it, and there would be no need to manipulate people into it.
All the sceptics have done is notice that in terms of evidence, it is looking more like a fiction than a truth.
We could of course simply trust the experts, but you know, there are many experts in the world. There are those who say that, the only proven method of shifting people towards greater compassion, is meditation and forms of prayer. You can run little experiments with groups of people, measure their brain waves, assess their behaviour and attitudes, and meditation is the only thing we know of that actually shifts people systematically towards more compassion. So, save the world? Learn to meditate. Takes about 10 – 20 years.
But most of the world savers are stuck in a materialistic way of looking at things (they’re actually part of the problem). They think that to stop starvation, you need to redistribute wealth, for example. All their thinking is about materials, and little is about teaching people hot to shift towards more compassion. This used to be the role of religions, but they got so thoroughly discredited that people how have to be a priest by another name. Again, sounds like a conspiracy? It’s the only way it can be done.
My personal objection is that scaring people into resource competition will just lead to global war, because the initial problem—people are more selfish than selfless—is the starting condition and hasn’t been changed—and so people will deal with global resource conflict from a selfish stance, and the politicians will lead their countries in such a manner—and the losers will lose big time. A minor criticism, I’m sure.
Norris,
IPCC does NOT actually represent “world’s scientists” – it simply CLAIMS to do so.
The same disdain for science is playing out in the Global Warming debate with the world’s scientist [IPCC, Politicans & Media] on one side and forces backing the continued use of fossil fuels (Oil rich nations like Saudi Arabia, major oil corporations, entities that wish to continue burning fossil fuels.. and , of course, many in the Republican party, which usually sides with big businesses.
If you understand that ‘world’s scientists’ is just a catch phrase for a political agenda then you may open your eyes to what is happening.
Of course, big business and fossil fuel companies and Saudi Arabia will try to defend the use of fossil fuels as they all depend on either selling fuels or use of cheap energy (the majority of industry depends on this: to grow food, power machinery and transport goods to market – and by proxy so do we all depend on them for our prosperity and the food on our tables). However, this does not mean that the political agenda or motives of this group is any worse than the IPCC alarmists.
If you want to appeal to science then do some research and analysis and form your own opinion but please do not blindly trust the IPCC, UN and the Media and their claim to have all the “world’s scientists” speaking for them: this is EXACTLY what Al Gore, IPCC, UN and Media WANT you to do – don’t let yourself be manipulated. I would add that it is wise not to completely trust big oil or Saudi Arabia either – due to their vested interests which you quite rightly identify – but DO NOT for one moment believe that there are no vested interests running the “spin” on the other side….billions and billions are at stake.
Enlightenment has finally come, I have worked out how to sell this to News International’s tabloid section!
I heard of this study which was measuring the average size of women’s breasts.
In general, they were getting a little bit bigger from about 1750 up to about 1940, in proportion to increasing height. Then with the war and rationing, and all the obsession with being thin they got a little bit smaller for about 40 years.
But they’ve been running away uncontrollably since then. Especially at the measuring station to be found near LAX.
And you know what: this danger to mankind is all the fault of men!
Industrialists who invented silicon implants! Surgeons who implant them! And men who for whatever reason find them more exciting than ‘naturally occurring breasts’.
I’ve seen the chart and, believe you me, no women never ‘ad no massive knockers when it was hot in the MWP!
Clearly all resistance to climate change will now disappear!!!!
@Penthouse 2009
norris hall (05:10:11) “[…] it is possible that this is just a big conspiracy by climate scientist around the world to boost their cause and make themselves more important. Though I find it hard to believe that thousands of scientists […] all agreed to promote bogus science. […] Pretty hard to do without being discovered.”
Actually not so hard.
Personal anecdote:
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:
Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.
Follow the money — perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.
Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.