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.
See the complete report at the Pew Research Center
h/t to Leif Svalgaard
Distribution of American population:
1. Crazy, committed, loonie, communist/socialist, “useful idiots” = 30%
2. Sound thinking, pro-business, sound minded “conservative”, “right” = 30%
3. Blissfully ignorant, don’t have a wit of understanding…sheeples.. = 70%
Thus 30% are concerned about AWG
somewhat OT but not?
see here in NYtimes. I suggest we go tell them why defending Pachauri and Gore is nuts! i already did:-)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26tier.html?th&emc=th
What I observe is the attachment of the global warming hysteria to the environments crowd. If I reject wind powered electric, I get accused of favoring pollution of water, land etc. That is not true. We will be accused of wishing for dirty water and air.
OT but significant:
A new book by AGW extremist Keith Farnish is overtly calling for terrorism against energy and technology.
“Constructive Anger, on the other hand, does achieve something useful – even if it may not be exactly what was originally intended. For instance, if all the evidence you have to hand suggests that removing a sea wall or a dam will have a net beneficial effect on the natural environment then, however you go about it – explosives, technical sabotage or manual destruction – the removal would be a constructive action. If this action was fuelled by anger then your use of explosives involved Constructive Anger.”
The four key rules of sabotage
1. Carefully weigh up all the pros and cons, and then ask yourself, “Is it worth it?”
2. Plan ahead, and plan well, accounting for every possible eventuality.
3. Even if you understand the worth of your action, don’t get caught.
4. Make the Tools of Disconnection your priority; anything else is a waste of time and effort.”
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Times-Up-Uncivilized-Solution-Global/dp/190032248X
And who has reviewed and endorses this book?
James Hansen himself.
http://joannenova.com.au/
Is it time to see AGW collapse completely or what?
tokyoboy (23:18:53) :
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??
Lobbyists have taken over directing the actions of the US Congress in some people’s minds. Instead of determining what is best for the country Congress now panders to vested interests at the expense of the good of the USA.
“…“Patton Boggs began as an international law firm concentrating in global business and trade in 1962…We were among the first law firms to recognize that all three branches of government could serve as forums in which to achieve client goals, enabling us to emerge as the nation’s leading public policy law firm, and we have developed our extensive business law capabilities into the firm’s largest practice area.” http://www.pattonboggs.com/about/overview/
Ann Veneman a member of that law firm is Member Emeritus of The IPC. “The IPC was created in 1987 explicitly to drive home the GATT agriculture rules of WTO at Uruguay talks. The IPC demands removal of ‘high tariff’ barriers in developing countries, remaining silent on the massive government subsidy to agribusiness in the USA.”
Veneman played a key role in eliminating trade barriers. She has worked closely with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, helping lead to the successful launch of a new round of trade negotiations for the World Trade Organization. She was Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture for International Affairs and then Secretary of Agriculture.
In the past 20 years, the real price (adjusted for inflation) of food for consumers has increased by 2.8 percent, while the real price paid to farmers for their crops has decreased by 35.7 percent. Guess who pocketed the difference? The IPC Thanks you Patton Boggs. http://www.clevelandfoodcoop.org/newsletters/2007/foodcoop-connect-september2007.pdf
“In effect the IPC is run by US-based agribusiness giants including Cargill, Monsanto, Bunge, ADM, the very interests which benefit from the rules they drafted for WTO trade.” http://www.publiceyeonscience.ch/images/the_wto_and_the_politics_of_gmo.doc
JohnP, I am reading the article. Lots of questions and unknowns about their study. One I have alluded to in another thread: Climate zone affects creating a non-random sample in their study. The other has to do with working with raw data telling you one thing, and the homogenized data saying something else. You cannot compare the two. Either you say something about the raw data and temperature trends, or you say something about homogenized data and trends. But one data set does not have direct connections to the other.
In all, the entire data set is so fraught with random-skewing artifacts that it would be near impossible to say anything significant about temperature trends based on ground sensors. I believe the study you linked to will be easily shot with holes.
rbateman,
Sorry to take you to task – but I just can’t let your factual error go unchallenged in this serious discussion. After all, if we’re not careful with facts, how can we expect Mann et al to be…
Backing up against a heater on a cold morning would be GLUTALwarming
not global…sheesh! (SARC!)
(I just had to do it…now to morning coffee….)
Mike
The Copenhagen Syndrome
http://www.seablogger.com/?p=19158
An example of climate zones reacting differently to atmospheric conditions would be the area around Meacham in the Blue Mountains of NE Oregon. Records are set all the time at this station. Why? It is set in a climate zone that is highly sensitive to weather. Temps rise sharper and higher, and fall steeper and lower than in other climate zones. Though the station is rural, it acts like an urban heat island some days, and the Arctic the next. There are other stations in climate zones similar to this one that probably were the seed for the movie, “The Day After Tomorrow”. In Montana, back in the late 1880’s, the temp fell 100 degrees in 24 hours. That record still stands.
Another weather-related artifact: The jet stream may be causing less variability in sensors than at other times when the jet stream and pressure gradients are more volatile. This may be due to oceanic oscillations that can have decades long periods of stability or instability.
Obviously you could identify as many as you wanted (even every one) as a “top priority”, or these numbers couldn’t work out this way –so having a great deal of overlap in topics like “health care” and “health insurance” really shouldn’t have much impact on the numbers. . . unless you have some reason to think there is a very small overlap in people selecting both (in which case it would understate the results to most people’s minds, I think).
That makes the results for Global Warming even more damning tho –it’s not like you had to give up something else to designate it as a “top priority”.
Michael (23:27:53) :
“I don’t know why Terrorism is on the list. Terrorism is a tactic.”
It may be a tactic, but it one that is used every day by many people to further their political goals.
Let us all be thankful that the AGW faithful have not as yet stooped so low. Perhaps if they lost their funding they might think it worthwhile.
Green Sand 03.25.03
The Daily Telegraph editorial falls far short of a full analysis of those parts of the sceptics case which dismembers the AGW incontravertable truths, from the infamous Hockey Stick to extreme weather events, and demonstrates it’s reluctance to spit out the sustaining nipple of The Carbon Trust and associated Big Business advertising budgets.
The following extract, which conflates anthropogenic CO2 with use of resources, is an attempt to continue the justification for action on carbon and very far from a Damascene moment.
“We have argued that a conservative case for preserving the planet’s scarce resources should support much of the action demanded by concerned scientists, whether or not the case for man-made global warming can be proved. But it becomes difficult to resist the blandishments of the sceptics if a purportedly scientific document cannot be wholly relied on. The most charitable interpretation is that the drafters were sloppy.”
The default excuse for the lack of public concern for AGW is that the message has not been loud or clear enough.
It’s been loud and clear with every newspaper and other media pummeling the public with the government and academia’s alarm messages.
It’s been rejected just like amnesty was and just as Obamacare is getting now the same.
Yet with these also the the claim was made that the publc never got the message.
Yeah, sure.
On AGW they’ll be insisting a new louder round of messaging is needed and Jane Lubchenco’s NOAA is cooking up a campaign to do so.
The top priority should be to get big govt out of our lives. The nanny state offends me. I’m sickened by the administration’s pandering to the entitlement class. Class warfare is antithetical to freedom. It’s troubling that most of the list is related to some entitlement program. My priority is eliminating most of these from the government’s control. [Sorry about the rant.]
It’s a good sign that global warming rates last on the list. Perhaps the next time the poll is run, it won’t even rate a mention.
Now, if my taxes were cut, I could better afford to heat my home this winter and maybe participate in some good old-fashioned consumerism to help out deserving producers.
JohnP (04:40:47) :
“So many posts but no reply to
http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html”
“Apparently, those “bad” surface weather stations were reporting cooler temperatures instead of warmer. Thus, the warming in the US has been slightly higher.”
“Who would have though of that? Thanks Anthony.”
John P, Roger Pielke Sr. worte about this study, and pointed out the disturbing fact that although Menne addressed Watt’s surface station project, Menne did not contact Anthony according to established scientific protocol regarding such submissions.
Despite Menne’s apparent bad behavior, a paper that had been in the works authored by Pielke and Watts, will be produced in time.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/professional-discourtesy-by-the-national-climate-data-center/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/professional-discourtesy-by-the-national-climate-data-center/
Finally, one more invented catastrophe scenario debunked, but wait….however there are a few left in the same list.
Well, our conclusion, as rational beings, should be the following:Wherever or whenever it appears before your eyes any scaring scenario, be it “Global Warming”, AH1N1 virus, or whatever, (and they will keep on changing silly scenarios) just DON’T BELIEVE IN THEM! and say NO!, just seek and you’ll find the same guys behind, drinking their favorite beverage….
They are just planning, using any means, to reach their beloved goal: “A Brave New World”. Their common characteristic: They are not specially clever, really they are fools, they are the kind of people you would never invite to your home, their invented scenarios do not stand a minimum of reasoning and, last but not least, the scared ones are they themselves, they will tremble and tumble down out of fear if you just do not believe them. The worst scenario that these fools fear the most, is being recognized as they really are: A JOKE!
Algore resort property.
Apparently global warming is of no concern to Algore. He has a low level property:
This private, peaceful ocean side haven offers bright blue waters and long stretches of beach, and is home to notables like Al Gore, John Edwards, and others who relish seclusion and natural surroundings. This 1,300 acre 5 mile island does not offer hotels, shopping centers, and tourism. However if bird watching, quiet walks and sunbathing is your strong suit you may find life here appealing. There are only 441 homes, no condos, but it does offer proximity to activity rich Wilmington, NC. Enjoy the myriad architectural styles of neatly cared for properties if you can get onto the island. If this is your style, Figure 8 Island may be your place.
This is the place to hang out if you know in your heart the oceans are not rising. If they are rising, you couldn’t sell this place and get out.
His behavior doesn’t line up with his sermons.
Anthony, a quote from the Menne paper;
“Nevertheless, we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature
trends are inflated due to poor siting.”
Maybe you ought to team up with Chiefio, and go to town on ‘Menne et al’.
the public sees AGW as the least important priority because…. ta da…. it is the least important “problem”. it has not even been proven to be a problem because we don’t now for a fact that manmade CO2 emisssions affect Global Climate, hell we don’t even know for a fact how much CO2 affect temperatures in the atmosphere. All we do know is that the IPCC models predicting dramatic temperature increases are farce. Given those facts, the public rightly says let’s wait and see. hey, there IS A CONSENSUS
Methane Causes Vicious Cycle In Global Warming
Carbon dioxide is the gas we most associate with global warming, but methane gas also plays an important role. For reasons that are not well understood, methane gas stopped increasing in the atmosphere in the 1990s. But now it appears to be once again on the rise. Scientists are trying to understand why — and what to do about it.
HERE WE GO…..GO TO NPR IF YOU WANT TO POST….
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122638800
Moderator: I don’t know if this is a double post or not – my previous post seems to have vanished. Please delete the previous post if it exists – THANKS!
JohnP (04:40:47) :
“So many posts but no reply to
http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html”
“Apparently, those “bad” surface weather stations were reporting cooler temperatures instead of warmer. Thus, the warming in the US has been slightly higher.”
“Who would have though of that? Thanks Anthony.”
John P, Roger Pielke Sr. wrote about this study, and pointed out the disturbing fact that although Menne addressed Watt’s surface station project, Menne did not contact Anthony according to established scientific protocol regarding such submissions.
Despite Menne’s apparent bad behavior, a paper that had been in the works authored by Pielke and Watts, will be produced in time.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/professional-discourtesy-by-the-national-climate-data-center
You’re about to be re-educated.
http://www.climatecentral.org/about
Climate Central is a nonprofit, collaborative group of scientists and communicators. Our mission is to create a bridge between the scientific community and the public, providing clear, honest, nonpartisan, and up-to-date information to help people make sound decisions about climate and energy.
Everything we do will ultimately zero in on a set of core questions. Among them: What do we know today about the state of Earth’s climate? How do we know it? What do we not yet know, and how are we going to try and find out? What might we do to prevent the most disruptive effects of climate change, and how might we adapt to those changes we can’t avoid? How does our use of energy, land and natural resources interact with the climate?
The answers will continue to change as observations improve, as technology advances, and as scientific understanding of the climate system deepens. Climate Central will keep the public informed about these changes through compelling stories that combine words, images and sounds to explain climate change and our possible responses to it—while remaining scrupulously faithful to the underlying science, and avoiding any sort of advocacy or partisanship. We believe good information is the best foundation for sound choices.
In order to convey that information in the most engaging way possible, our written and video pieces, animations, interactive graphics, and other features are produced by a team that includes experienced graphic artists, producers, writers, editors and correspondents. In order to remain rigorously aligned to the science, our communications professionals work hand-in-hand with Climate Central’s Ph.D.-level experts in the sciences, technology and public policy, and with an extended network that includes the world’s leading thinkers on climate science and policy. Our staff scientists are also actively engaged in their own research, and continue to publish in leading journals.
In short, Climate Central combines sound science and vibrant media to increase public understanding and attention to the climate challenge.
http://www.climatecentral.org/about/people/
Richard Somerville
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Founding Board
Jane Lubchenco
Dr. Lubchenco serves as Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Prior to her Senate confirmation in early 2009, she resigned from the Board of Climate…
Heads up on the World Economic Forum at Davos
http://www.weforum.org/en/events/AnnualMeeting2010/index.htm
Despite the WEF being ‘growthist’ they still have the mandatory nod towards climate change http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/ghg/index.htm
Unfortunately they aim for a totally contradictory position that is not achievable in any reasonable time-scale
High growth and low carbon are mutually exclusive.
Don’t worry, pretty soon the Obama Administration and the EPA will be forcing us all to wear tight fitting CO2 corsets to keep us constantly aware of our sinful carbon footprints:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/corset-reacts-to-carbon-dioxide-levels-in-the-air/
There should be a WUWT charity fundraiser ball to collect donations to buy one of these corset things for Barbara Boxer. She can wear it at the next Senate hearing so that when Gore let’s one rip it’ll put the squeeze on her and serve as a sobering reminder of our current carbon crisis.