Pew Poll: global warming dead last, down from last year

It seems that the public just doesn’t share the worry some of the activists have.

From the Pew Research Center

Global Warming and the Environment

Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey.

Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents.

Protecting the environment fares somewhat better than dealing with global warming on the public’s list of priorities, though it still falls on the lower half of the list overall. Some 44% say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for Obama and Congress, little changed from 2009.

click for a larger image

See the complete report at the Pew Research Center

h/t to Leif Svalgaard

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Steve Goddard

Some people are worried about the lack of global warming.

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?

Scott Brown ran his campaign on the Top 3 plus health care.

More interesting is the decline (-11) in those concerned with dealing with America’s energy problems. Unemployment trumps all. Bill Clinton said it best–ITES…

Dave F

Wow. Glad to see helping the poor beats it, but why are there separate categories for health care and health insurance? Aren’t they the same thing?
I know you didn’t write the poll, just sayin’.

Chris in Tropical Australia

All that has to be done is to dismantle the IPCC, bury it, and make sure nothing happens like this again.

David

Amazing how easily your priorities shift when you can’t pay the heating bill due to record cold.

rbateman

Economy and Jobs are a big deal.
Global Warming is what you get when you back up against the heater on a cold morning.

Phillip Bratby

No surprise here. The public is gradually realising what has been going on and more and more people are seeing through the AGW scam.
BTW What’s happpened to the WEBLOG awards?

James F. Evans

We, the people have spoken.

toyotawhizguy

It’s good to see that global warming finished dead last on the poll. Perhaps for the next Pew poll they will replace “Global Warming” with “Global Warming Hoax”. That issue may score rather high on the list of priorities the next time around.
The IPCC should be declared an international terrorist organization, thus making it illegal for funds to flow to them from the USA.

tokyoboy

I don’t figure out the meaning of “Lobbyists”, the third from bottom.
The US people are scared by lobbyists, or wish an increase in the number of lobbyists??

Martin Brumby

Apologies. A bit OT but interesting.
After contacting Phil Willis – Chairman of the Commons Science and Technology Committee on 24 Jan. (Posted under Quote of the Week #27)
Martin Brumby (05:06:06) :
I received a speedy reply yesterday (25 Jan) saying:-
“Dear Mr Brumby,
“Thankyou for your email, which I have passed onto the Science and Technology Select Committee clerks. I assure you that when we are considering the emails leaked from UEA we will take your submission into consideration.
“I’d also like to add that I accept that my use of the phrase ‘Climate Deniers’ was a mistake, and I shall endeavour not to use it in the future. I apologise for any offence caused by my error, although I assure you that none was intended.
“Yours Sincerely,
Phil Willis MP”
A reasonable reply, I think. Note that the Chairman of the Committee who is investigating the UEA emails refers unambiguously to “emails leaked from UEA”.
Not a hacker in sight….

AlanG

It’s always the ‘economy stupid’, especially considering the shocking rise in unemployment in the US. Who cares about carbon mumbo jumbo when they’ve got no money to buy carbon? OT but I love this quote: Global warming is sub-prime science, sub-prime economics, and sub-prime politics, and it could well go down with the sub-prime mortgage.” (Philip Stott, September 21)

Martin Brumby

It would have been interesting if they had included an option:-
“Dealing with the global warming scam”
That might have done better!

Michael

I don’t know why Terrorism is on the list. Terrorism is a tactic. It’s an intangible. You cant touch it and you cant put your finger on it because it’s an intangible concept. Oh well, one brainwashing event at a time.

Dave F

tokyoboy (23:18:53) :
Usually when you see something like this in a poll ‘What should X Administration be doing?’, there is an assumption that simply putting ‘lobbyist’ will imply the actual meaning of ‘Restraint of the act of lobbying’. If you are indeed from Tokyo, maybe this is a Western media thing(?), but it could also be that the graph is built on data explained in the reported poll results, which would further delve into the meaning behind each category listed in the graph.
I am still not understanding the rationale for separating ‘health care’ and ‘health insurance’ if it makes you feel any better. 🙂

jorgekafkazar

Obviously, enough hasn’t been spent on Warmist propaganda, yet. Obama will add 44% to 28%, get 72%, and open the floodgates. “The people have spoken; the science is settled. Let’s spend another billion or two. Where do I bow?”
DaveF: If you want people to take you seriously, I’d suggest not adding “Just sayin'” to the end of all your comments:

K

All those cool AGW ads on cable: W A S T E D !!!!

Chris

Has anyone fed the historical AGW poll results into Mann’s hockey stick formula / system to see the results yet ?

Gerard

The environment should be a lot higher, but I’m happy with global warming on the last place!

wes george

Our political and (so-called) intellectual elites believe that the common people are ignorant fools. See anything by Joe Klein, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman or the White House staff, just to name a few. The Pew Poll shows that Americans are actually rather well clued into the real world in spite of the constant barrage of propaganda they ingest daily from the MSM.
These same elites believe the weak point of democracy is that the common people’s vote counts as much as, say, Al Gore’s. Therefore it is fair to cheat the system a bit, in order to make sure hoi polloi gets what is best for them as determined by those so much wiser and with so much more vested interests.
Every morning we should wake up, kiss the sky and be grateful for the free market of ideas which the Internet has made impossible to suppress, for without it George Orwell’s dystopian visions of the future would be well upon us.

Moral decline rates a 45. Another decline that’s tough to hide.

It’s good to see that while concern about global warming has dropped two points, concern about protecting the environment has risen three points.
I was worried that people would throw the environmental baby out with the co2 driven warming bathwater.

Dave F

jorgekafkazar (23:34:49) :
If someone is going to apply that standard to comments I make here, I am not incredibly concerned with it, but thank you for the advice. If it bothers you so, I will refrain from it when addressing you. Otherwise please restrain yourself from the grammar nazi behavior. It is sometimes necessary to over do the ‘tone of voice’ in typing to portray the unwritten communication accurately. Most interpersonal communication does not involve text, but subtlety such as body language or vocal tone. How does a person accomplish this on the internet? Just sayin’… 😉

gtrip

May I see the hands of all of you that have actually participated in a poll such as this? I have taken a few phone polls early in my life and decided that after the loaded questions they fed me to never answer the pollsters again. The best poll is the ballot.

Tenuc

Good to however, perhaps the pole itself is lacking in credibility and some of the big questions which concern people just were not asked.
Loss of personal freedom.
Failure of democracy.
Power of lawyers.
Freedom of the press.
Power of bankers.
UN agenda 21 – world government.
Foreign policy designed to create terrorism.
Increased use of nuclear power.
Failure of renewable energy systems.
I think that any politician willing to make a start to address some of the issues on this list will do well with the voters.

Old Goat

The BBC “Today” programme are having a field day to day – obviously the revelations about the IPCC are doing collateral damage to BBC idealistic dogma, and they want to try and negate the effect. So we’ve had Roger Harrabin insisting that the glacier business was an obvious, unfortunate error, and that future reports will be far more, er, “accurate”, and it’s all a storm in a teacup. Then we have a long piece on ocean acidification warning us that too much carbon dioxide is being absorbed into the oceans, and we’re all to blame.
Then we had Professor Mike Hulme from East Anglia University (who very weakly, mildly criticised the IPCC’s “openness”, and Tony Juniper (who talked non-stop, utter rubbish in support of the IPCC). All very weak, and obviously pro-AGW. Of course, Juniper had the most (and last) words
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. Why don’t they have the grace to just come out and say that the IPCC is useless, the chairman is corrupt, and the CO2 debacle was all just an unfortunate misunderstanding, and all’s right with the climate? Now THAT would be a turn up for the books…
Awful, awful prejudiced BBC.

O/T but I thought you’d be interested Andrew.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
You’re being taken seriously enough for a full scale attempt at refutation.

RichieP

The counter-attack against this apparent apathy has begun in earnest this morning on the UK’s Pravda. The BBC’s Today programme this morning has been running a story on ocean acidification, “suggesting” that this newly discovered horror may destroy the food chain, with the clear implication that WE MAY ALL DIE FROM STARVATION. Government departments will put millions into the research.
Another story, a few minutes later, with Mike Hume from UEA dragged on to argue (rather fitfully) that the IPCC was being discredited by the current scandal (only one of them mentioned); countered by an ex-mouthpiece of Greenpeace (I think, name missed) who praised this great body of scientists that is the IPCC, who’ve only made a little mistake, and ,in any case, whose very little mistake was discovered by good scientists, not those terrible people on the internet whose agendas are purely destructive and suspect.
I have never been greatly enamoured of climate conspiracy theories but there are moments when one begins to feel that that paranoid contruction may have some merits. A small joy in the BBC piece was, however, that Hume distinctly called the release of the CRU emails a leak, not a hack.

Peter of Sydney

Interesting. The trend is even more remarkable. Does this mean that in a few months time, people won’t even be talking about global warming? I only wished.

Vincent

It’s disappointing to see that there is still 28% who rate global warming as top priority.
Top priority! Not second or third, but top. Think about that for a moment. It means that 1 in 4 thinks global warming is so serious that it ranks above unemployment and government debt.
Ok, I know this is less than the last poll, and shows a downward trend. But the fact is, there are still an awful lot of people that just don’t know that AGW is a busted flush. The message just isn’t getting out there. We have a lot more work to do.

Brian Johnson uk

Does anyone know where Al Gore is hiding? Come on you journos’ dig him out/up and ask Big Al some searching questions and print them along with Al’s perceptive replies.

Veronica

Martin Brumby:
One man’s “leaker” is another man’s “whistleblower”. I’d love to know who it was so I can buy him / her a large drink.

KPO

There are times I believe (and this is one) that indifference to a particular concern may not be a good thing. This lack of awareness or focus may well be advantageous in introducing changes that if presented in Toto run the risk of being rejected as too radical. If brought slowly and discreetly there is the certainty that the population will become “acclimatized” and over time even supportive. There are countless examples of changes that seen separately appear harmless, but collectively have had massive impacts on society both good and bad. It is incredulous that the population is so indifferent to such matters – it is this apathy that permits, even creates the tyrants of this world.

D. Matteson

From Rasmussen Reports Poll
Global Warming is Primarily Caused By…
April 2008 – Human activity: 47%, Planetary Trends: 34%
January 2010 – Human activity: 37%, Planetary Trends: 50%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update

Patrick Davis

On ABC here in Australia just watched a documentary about why the great Pyramid era of Egypt, 4200 years ago, failed. Yup! You’ve gussed it; catastrophic climate change.
Climate change, we are told, drove “Lucy” from the trees.
The Atlantic “conveyor” stalling causing climatic shift in central and northern Africa (Creating the Sahara desert), Greece, Turkey and Iraq. Egypt, and the Nile, relying on rain falls in Ethiopia which fail and extreme cold in North America and Europe.
I wonder how many SUV’s were being driven then?

Richard Tyndall

Andrew Neil of the BBC once again showing that he doesn’t believe in following the rest of the corporation in its pro AGW propaganda campaign.
A nice summary I thought:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html

PaulH from Scotland

O/T, but you may find this interesting.
I wrote to the BBC a few weeks ago. My questions was a simple one…
“Why did you sit on the CRU emails for 5 weeks?
Didn’t you deem it newsworthy?”
Got their response this morning:
Dear Mr Hannay
Thank you for your e-mail.
Firstly, I should apologise for the delay in getting back to you. We
realise that our correspondents appreciate a quick response and I’m
therefore sorry that you’ve had to wait on this occasion.
I understand that you have concerns regarding our dealing of the leaked
e-mails.
Criticism that the BBC had underplayed the significance of the leaked
e-mails was discussed during ‘NewsWatch’ on 4 December. Our Environment
Correspondent, Richard Black, commented as follows:
“In quantitative terms I’m not sure that we have underplayed it. I don’t
think that stands up but there is another side to – certainly comments I’ve
had in from the public – which talk about the way in which we’ve treated it
and whether we’ve asked the kind of questions that…perhaps need to be
asked.”
“…there are different views about how enormous it really is. I mean there
are many in the scientific community who say that it doesn’t actually alter
the scientific picture one jot. To start with, the Climatic Research Unit
at the University of East Anglia is just one of a number of institutions in
the world that keep records of global temperatures. So even if all the CRU
interpretations and analysis turned out to be wrong, that doesn’t
invalidate all the other analyses. And they also point out the fact that
the raw data is not something that’s gathered by CRU – it’s used by CRU and
analysed by CRU but the raw data is still out there.”
As far as we are aware, the BBC was the first mainstream news organisation
to cover the story – the following article by Mark Kinver was published on
the BBC News website just after 14:00 on Friday 20 November:
‘Hackers target leading climate research unit’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
The morning after, our Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin, did a piece for
the website looking at the arguments sparked by the leak:
‘Harrabin’s Notes: E-mail arguments’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm
Roger also covered the story for Radio 4 later that night.
Martin Rosenbaum reported on the Freedom of Information aspects of the hack
on Monday 23 November:
‘Hacked climate e-mails and FOI’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/11/hacked_climate_emails_and_foi
.html
‘Today’ also covered the story on the Monday – the former Chancellor, Lord
Lawson whose book ‘An Appeal to Reason’ is highly critical of the
scientific consensus on climate change was on the programme, as was
Professor Robert Watson – professor of environmental science at the
University of East Anglia.
Roger Harrabin reported on the leak and subsequent calls for a public
inquiry into the science behind any deal made at the Copenhagen conference
for Radio 4 news and the BBC World Service on Monday morning and again
later that evening. Susan Watts’ piece led that night’s edition of
‘Newsnight’ and a live studio discussion with Professor Watson (UEA) and
Professor Fred Singer from the University of Virginia followed.
BBC North weather forecaster, Paul Hudson, blogged about it briefly that
day and followed it up with a more detailed entry on 24 November:
”Climategate’ – CRU hacked into and its implications’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an
.shtml
”Climategate’ – What next?’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml
Roger Harrabin covered the story further for the BBC News website on the
Tuesday:
‘Harrabin’s Notes: E-mail impact’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8377465.stm
The BBC News Channel ran the story the same evening – excerpts from some of
the leaked e-mails were read out and Bob Ward from the Grantham Research
Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics was live in
the studio for his reaction.
These are just some examples of where the story was covered within the
initial few days of it breaking. It also received coverage on the BBC News
Channel on 2, 3 and 5 December; the ‘BBC News at Ten’ on 2 and 3 December;
the ‘BBC News at Six’ on 3 December and on both the ‘BBC News at One’ and
‘Breakfast’ on 4 December. All this as well as on-going public comment on
Richard Black’s blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
It has also been suggested that the claimed lack of coverage of this story
is evidence that the BBC is biased against the dissident view in the
climate change debate.
This was rejected by the BBC’s Deputy Director of News, Steve Mitchell,
during an interview for ‘NewsWatch’ on 4 December. When asked whether the
BBC had taken a corporate decision to downplay the dissident view in the
climate change debate, he said:
“I can categorically assure you there has not been any such decision and
any such decision would be entirely at odds with the culture of the
organisation. Our job is to pick our way through what is a highly complex
scientific discussion and also to do so with a sense of proportion – making
sure the full range of voices in these areas are represented.”
The BBC’s Editorial Policy unit also issued the following statement, which
was read out on the edition of ‘NewsWatch’ broadcast on 11 December:
“Our job is to help audiences make sense of the issues and to report on
where the centre of gravity lies in the debate. This is why, when we report
on the variety of public opinion about global warming, we explain that the
broad majority of climate change scientists say that the evidence is clear
that human activity has contributed to global warming. The scientific
background is not, of course, undisputed and we also feature sceptical
voices. We aim to pick our way through what is a highly complex scientific
discussion, making sure a range of voices is represented.”
It is however important to note that on 18 June 2007 the BBC published a
report on safeguarding its impartiality in the 21st century. It is the
result of a project first commissioned by the BBC Board of Governors in
conjunction with BBC management in November 2005 to identify the challenges
and risks to impartiality. The report has been fully endorsed by the BBC
Trust, the BBC Executive Board and the BBC Journalism Board.
Below is an excerpt from the section of the report relating to coverage of
the climate change debate:
“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific
experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer
justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But
these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should,
because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. Acceptance of a
basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of
the arguments surrounding both causation and solution.”
The full report can be found on the BBC Trust website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/other/century21.shtml
Our view is that the BBC covered this story at length and that we did so in
a fair and impartial manner. We will continue to report on the climate
change debate in this way, allowing appropriate airtime to both those who
support the broad scientific consensus on the causes of climate change and
to those who reject it.
I hope this addresses your concerns and I can assure you that your
complaint has been registered on our audience log. This is a daily report
of audience feedback that’s circulated to many BBC staff, including members
of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your feedback.
Regards
Liam Boyle
BBC Complaints
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Richard Tyndall

Tallbloke
I agree entirely. I haev a great deal of concern about our environment – which is one of the reasons I am so appaled by the AGW movement which has done more damage to both Science and Environmental issues than any other cult in history.

David

It would be interesting to carry out a similar poll in the UK, because we the population here have been SOOOO brainwashed by the government and the allegedly-impartial BBC that global warming is still some sort of fact. There are none of the heart-warming interviews with ‘skeptic’ scientists on tv like on your side of the pond – even the venerable Lord Monckton only pops up on You Tube, Russia Today and the like.
We’ve got a General Election coming up – but so far none of the main political parties have distanced themselves from the IPCC’s climate fraud – so it’ll be UKIP for me – that’s the only party with any courage..!

Hoi Polloi

May be a bad situation as it may allow the government to implement Climate laws and taxes without people knowing/caring about it? Not sure if this is good or bad.

I’m with the tall bloke. Great to see evidence that suggests action to mitigate environmental degradation and action to mitigate global warming are NOT identified in everyone’s mind. That at least 16% ticked ‘Protecting the environment’ without also ticking ‘Global Warming’ suggests that – while I have never met them – there must be many other environmentalists like me who have not been swept along with this alarmist tide.
This distinction between enviromental concern and AGW alarmism has become a particularly hard one to hold in the political climate of the last 2 years (This came to my attention dramatically when I found that in Australia it became impossible to be green AND quietly sceptical because, for example, we began to defend old growth forests BECAUSE they are carbon stores – all other grounds of defence by 2008 had simply fallen away!). And so I would suggest that the results of the last 2 years would reflect many who would avoid ticking ‘environment’ simply because it is identified with global warming alarmism even though they may be concerned about destruction and pollution of forest, oceans, streams, air etc.
Some commenters on this site would do well to note that these sorts of results may suggest a substantial silence (and currently invisible) minority of environmentalists lost in the background of this current hysteria.
Note also that the presentation of the results suggests that the interviewee can select any number of ‘top’ priorities and so, Dave F, it is not like the two items ‘Health care’ and ‘Health insurance’ are splitting the health vote. What this survey also show to me (an outsider) is that there is still strong public support for the Obama Administration in attempting to introduce the sorts of social welfare ‘safety net’ systems that we in other developed countries are so used to, that is, I note: Social Sec (66), Medicare (63), Healthcare (57) and Helping the poor (53).

Richard Heg

Good to see that the environment and global warming are classed as separate issues on this survey.

Thomas

So global warming scaremongering has been shown for what it is. Its a pity that terrorism is number three in the list as it shows both that governments won’t stop scaremongering and that people continue to fall for their lies easily. Al Qaeda are the CIA.

Roger Knights

RichieP (01:14:47) :
… countered by an ex-mouthpiece of Greenpeace (I think, name missed) who praised this great body of scientists that is the IPCC, who’ve only made a little mistake, and ,in any case, whose very little mistake was discovered by good scientists, not those terrible people on the internet whose agendas are purely destructive and suspect.

I bet that there were some contrarians who argued years ago that the 2035 date was absurd. If anyone here has a citation from a book or two, it would be helpful to put the establishment in its place.
I also suspect that someone at sometime pointed to the AR4’s source being only a WWF report, but no one picked up on it. This may only have been done online, but again a citation would be helpful to show that our side was on the ball.

Green Sand

O/T, but I think of interest, a Daily Telegraph main editorial today:-
“Climate change: give us science we can trust”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7074540/Climate-change-give-us-science-we-can-trust.html
Still pro AGW but calls for the Pachauri to resign and makes the following comment “when the fifth IPCC report is prepared for publication, any errors must be fully acknowledged and others removed. In addition, the report should contain contrarian evidence produced by scientists to demonstrate that this is a serious document, not a holy writ.”

Vincent

David,
” so it’ll be UKIP for me – that’s the only party with any courage..”
Sure, if you want Labour back in for another 5 years, go ahead and vote UKIP.

Vincent

Roger Knights,
“I bet that there were some contrarians who argued years ago that the 2035 date was absurd.”
The IPCC invite reviewers to report their findings on each chapter. The reviewers comments are filed away somewhere but are not published with the main report. From what I’m hearing, the reviewers made this exact point, that it was preposterous for these glaciers to disappear by that date. I presume these comments are filed somewhere within the IPCC bureaucracy.

Veronica

RichieP (01:14:47) :
… countered by an ex-mouthpiece of Greenpeace (I think, name missed) who praised this great body of scientists that is the IPCC, who’ve only made a little mistake,
I believe the voice we heard was Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Vice-Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).