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.
Quoting Norris Hall:
Having some respect for science (yet knowing that it isn’t infallible), I tend to listen to what the scientist are saying.
Commenting:
Then listen, please, to these >31,000 scientists, including 9,000 PhD’s, including Dr. Edward Teller and Dr. Freeman Dyson.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
That compares to a claimed 2500 IPCC signers. But, oh yes, the IPCC changed the conclusion from “no evidence” to “clear evidence” of AGW without their permission.
We need political leadership that will stand up and run on the explicit goal f defunding and defanging the Obamafication of America.
No more ‘czars’
No more bureaucrats imposing taxes by way of CO2 regulation.
No more of government targeting industries for destruction based on phony science.
Audit and review for complete openness and transparency from all government funded science. No more simply trusting ‘the scientists’ because they say ‘trust me’.
The science/public policy intersection has happened before, with terrible results. Think ‘eugenics’.
Turning America’s economy in effect over to obviously partisan bureaucrats, using the veneer of what we now know is corrupt science, is not going to be better for us than eugenics was in the past.
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?
——
I agree, but it looks to me that that’s a WUWT headline. I’m one of the 32% that aren’t even sure there has been GW, though I wish it would start here.
“…. 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.”
media attention? Does he imply that CNN not only knows of the leaked emails (notice he doesn’t say hacked) but has diligently reported on them. This mention is on of the few I’ve seen from CNN referring to Climategate.
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak
Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN’s negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change
The Telegraph has this just now from ” Will Heaven is a writer who specialises in politics and the internet. He also writes about Catholicism and religion.” Have they now accepted that AGW is a religion?
I made the observation that the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) were also under a cloud and indeed that some of their people may face criminal charges.
Sorry,forgot to paste the linkie
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100019294/copenhagen-will-the-warmest-decade-on-record-silence-the-pub-bore/comment-page-1/#comment-100101172
R. Craigen (23:24:31) :
“I am incensed at the continual confusion in public commentary between acceptance of “Global Warming” and acceptance of the AGW hypothesis.”
And then for me, I am a CAGW denier, not a AGW denier. Idon’t believe a degree or two C increase would be bad for the world (actually, I think it would be a good thing.) and I don’t think the Catastrophism is based on any real science. And I am a skeptic as to how warm it has really gotten in the past 100 years when considering the surface stations and the statistical tricks used to fill in the gaps. So where would I be in the poll?
Just a note: it infuriates me that when Holland says: ““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.”
Equating C02 to C0 or other pollutants is just insane.
OK. I’m also tired of all of the political pigeon-holing.
I consider my-self quite conservative. I am a lifelong scientist. I am an AGW skeptic. I think I might be religious(i’m not sure), but don’t belong to any specific group. I believe in evolution. I believe in gay rights. I am pro-choice and anit-abortion…..
Most importanly I believe in freedom, small government, and the rights of myself and others. And I believe in the destruction of elitism.
Is anyone else sick of being pigeon-holed based on a single belief or group that they hold dear? It’s time to stop this nonsense and show your cards! Both scientific and political discourse in this country needs to change!
norris hall,
I assume that your opinions are sincerely held, and if so you have raised some interesting points. Many people do believe in AGW because it is the consensus view of “thousands of scientists.” This is a valid position to take and seems reasonable on the surface. The problem arises when we try to pin down these “thousands of scientists.”
The figure came from the number of authors and co-authors who were referenced throughout the fourth IPCC report in 2007. However, it is important to understand that most of the report has NOTHING to do with the question as to whether CO2 is responsible for present warming. Most chapters deal with issues of land use and management, computer modelling, paleoclimatology and economics.
It is only in chapter 9 that the IPCC attempts to ask the question – how likely is it that the current warming is due to manmade CO2? If we count the number of scientists who have contributed to this, we arrive at a figure much less than “thousands”. The actual figure is 52. There is also an appendix to the report that lists reviewers comments. Chapter 9 contains at least 60 reviewers who have rejected the conclusion that humans are “very likely” responsible for current warming. In other words, more scientists directly oppose the motion than agree with it.
Many of the 52 scientists are among those implicated in the climategate scandal. One of the worst excesses of their over zealousness has been to blacklist skeptical scientists from having their work published in peer reviewed journals and in at least one case, having a “troublesome” editor removed. And yet, there are many, many climate scientists who have published literature that contradicts the “consensus”. Some names include,
Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Akasofu, Douglass, Loehle, Zoriata, Scaffeta, Pielke, Von Storch, Svensmark, Choi, Cazanave.
And they are only a few of the climate scientists. There are many more. If you include those of the base sciences – physics, geology etc – they number in their thousands. So, no, you don’t need a conspiracy of thousands. Just about 20 would suffice. As long as they are in key positions such as CRU, GISS and NOAA.
A typical example of how easy it is to mislead ordinary people is the CNN poll showing ‘97% of climate scientists think humans contribute to climate change’
What the poll does not state is the number that think the human contribution high enough to cause dangerous tipping point runaway global warming and how many think the contribution is negligible and cannot effect the planets natural climate cycle.
Around a decade ago there was a concerted attempt by some governments to gain political control of science research budgets, the was a drive to centralize funding through ever more controlled funding channels, those who control the funding control the research direction and funding is critical for scientific institutions everywhere, without funding nothing gets done so chasing and sucking up to the source of funding becomes very important to scientific institutions.
In effect the fake consensus has been bought by the use of highly selective funding of those scientists who toe the line, these have been granted the gift of the client mass media coverage for their findings which in turn reinforces the funding levels, a cycle of interdependency thriving on the media love of scary headlines and money controlled by vested interests.
In effect the politicians are not listening to the science as they love to claim they are buying the science to use as a cover for something very different. Capping carbon emissions will not alter the climate one bit,raising taxes on the backs of ordinary people will not alter the climate one bit, creating a massive legal authority to control the essence of an industrial civilisation(the energy matrix)will not alter the climate one bit.
The tragic truth is that the whole man made global warming idea is a fraud built to conceal a hidden agenda, when the curtain is pulled back it reveals a surprisingly small number of people pulling the strings and using a surprisingly small number of people to create the illusion of a consensus.
The arguments put forward in the NZ televised debate best represent the real issues. Neither author is a “climate scientist,” Morgan is an Investment Manager most likely with a stake in green energy, Ian Wishart is the author of “Air Con,” a skeptic with a stake in book sales.
http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/climate-change-confusion-you-decide-3241785/video
Morgan, a multi-millionaire who hired a research/ghost writer for his book “Poles Apart” uses a studied, laconic delivery to claim he only cares for the “science.” We are led to believe he’s something of a scientist himself – yet he only refers to one skeptical scientist, Svensmark that, “I had access to.” No mention of the APS Petition, or 30,000 men and women who signed the Orgegon petition, or of Soon, Happer, Dyson, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Akasofu, Douglass, Loehle, Zoriata, Scaffeta, Pielke, Von Storch, Idsos, etc. ???
Morgan does offer this thoughtful plea: “But for God’s sake, don’t use a hammer to crack a nut!” Indeed! something in Denmark should smell rotten – given the “balance of evidence” Morgan presents. BTW Gareth, I find about the only thing that does the job on a Brazil nut – is a hammer.
Poll results: 77% to 23% for Mr. Wishart’s arguments.
TEMPERATURES AT DARWIN PROVE . . .
AGW is nonsense!
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/pdfGet.jsp?id=MSP880198c92dai8016h290000341ig8f9a6fe253b&s=44&i=darwin+airport+uk+temperature
RE: my last, yonason (13:55:47) :
NOTE – That’s only current temps. What you need to do is search that website (Wolfram Alpha) using the indicated search terms, then select “All” from the dropdown menu. It will show that there has been NO CHANGE in avg., temps there since 1948.
See what really caused the late 20th century temperature run-up.
A simple, science-based EXCEL model has been derived that accurately (sd = 0.064 C) predicts all average global temperatures since 1895. The model did not need any consideration whatsoever of changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas.
A description of the model and its development along with an eye-opening graph that shows measured and predicted average global temperature are in the pdf dated Oct 16 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true
Norris, quite the successful troll you are. OK, I’ll bite. I’m a republican. I have an engineering PhD. I believe in evolution and am pro-choice. I also know, unlike a certain high-profile democrat, that the earth’s core temperature is not millions of degrees. I do not believe in AGW for the simple fact that modern day temperatures are not unprecedented. Much as Mann et. al. would and have tried to eliminated the MWP and Holocene optimum, they haven’t come close to convincing me. Even their own temperature proxies which “prove” that modern temperatures exceed those for thousands of years fail the test because they have to manually edit out the last 50 years of data to match with modern temperature records. Meanwhile, Viking graves in Greenland are still below the permafrost depth. So, when modern day humans are capable of living in Greenland using 11th century technology give me a call.
I am also extremely tired of the left equating skepticism of AGW with creationism. Here’s another comparison for you: the Spanish Inquisition and modern day AGW advocates. Shall we list the similarities? One dogma to rule them all: IPCC. Anointed bishops to guard the so-called truth: Hansen, Mann, Jones. Intentional suppression of dissenting views via a perversion of the peer review process. Calls for court trials of so-called climate criminals. All of these actions should make anyone who knows anything about the scientific process cringe and retch with disgust. The tragedy is that years ago in undergrad I got very angry sitting in a humanities class and listening to all of the liberal arts majors claim that science was no better than their soft studies. I pointed to the scientific method, falsifiable results, sharing and REPRODUCTION of results as key differences to the liberal arts world. Now, years later I have to tragically admit that they were right and that politics can be just as corrupting in what I had thought the hard sciences as anywhere else. That is the true legacy of your “overwhelming evidence.”
It’s extremely unwise to continue using a system for valuation that completely ignores the destruction of the planet’s ecological integrity.
So true. We should be paying extra to the CO2 emitters for the benefits that plants are getting from an enhanced CO2 environment.
As someone who lived in the Los Angeles area from the polluted 1950’s till 1992: Saying that auto smog is still a problem in the U.S. has no idea what real smog is like. An example, in 1958 I bought a new pair of German over your eyeglasses goggles and rode my motorcycle through downtown LA. The next day the strap had rotted into lace. Your eyes tearing constantly was standard in the downtown area. East of downtown was worse. The various air quality beauracracies keep lowering the thresholds to stay at the money trough. I have been in Seattle on my bicycle on middle level smog alert days and had none of the familiar symptoms of air pollution. And like New York: Puget Sound sea water is now clean enough for teredos and gribbles to survive and attack the wharf pilings.
[REPLY – Same deal for the Jersey Turnpike. Folks just don’t (or won’t) remember how truly awful it was. Ah, the smell of it! (It burns! It Burns!) ~ Evan]
Mr. Paul Vaughan,
Your statement is interesting.
I would be very interested in seeing some of these funding application instructions – particularly which institution(s) is/are offering these grants.
Is it possible that you might be able to have a few of them put up as examples?
Mr. Paul Vaughan,
Hell, yes, loudly second c1ue above : where can we find examples of these funding application instructions ?
Paul Vaughan (07:53:54) :
“a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.”
Beautiful – the insightful quote of our times
> Paul Vaughan — Personal anecdote:
Paul, elsewhere someone has challenged this claim of yours. Can you cite any specifically, publicly accessible data (i.e., an openly available funding specification) to support it, please? I don’t think it’s an overly unreasonable request, offhand on their part, though the snark level means, if you can provide an example of such a request, that it will be quite pleasant to ram it down their throats.
I too would like to be able to verify this anecdote.
Unlike John Bruno, I am skeptical of all claims, but also respectful of others who behave well.
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=3765