From a press release by George Mason University:
American Opinion Cools on Global Warming
FAIRFAX, Va., January 27, 2010—Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to the results of a national survey released today by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.
The survey found:
• Only 50 percent of Americans now say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” about global warming, a 13-point decrease.
• The percentage of Americans who think global warming is happening has declined 14 points, to 57 percent.
• The percentage of Americans who think global warming is caused mostly by human activities dropped 10 points, to 47 percent.
In line with these shifting beliefs, there has been an increase in the number of Americans who think global warming will never harm people in the United States or elsewhere or other species.
“Despite growing scientific evidence that global warming will have serious impacts worldwide, public opinion is moving in the opposite direction,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change. “Over the past year the United States has experienced rising unemployment, public frustration with Washington and a divisive health care debate, largely pushing climate change out of the news. Meanwhile, a set of emails stolen from climate scientists and used by critics to allege scientific misconduct may have contributed to an erosion of public trust in climate science.”
The survey also found lower public trust in a variety of institutions and leaders, including scientists. For example, Americans’ trust in the mainstream news media as a reliable source of information about global warming declined by 11 percentage points, television weather reporters by 10 points and scientists by 8 points. They also distrust leaders on both sides of the political fence. Sixty-five percent distrust Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sarah Palin as sources of information, while 53 percent distrust former Democratic Vice President Al Gore and 49 percent distrust President Barack Obama.
Finally, Americans who believe that most scientists think global warming is happening decreased 13 points, to 34 percent, while 40 percent of the public now believes there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is happening or not.
“The scientific evidence is clear that climate change is real, human-caused and a serious threat to communities across America,” said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. “The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to educate the public about this important issue.”
The results come from a nationally representative survey of 1,001 American adults, age 18 and older. The sample was weighted to correspond with U.S. Census Bureau parameters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence. The survey was designed by researchers at Yale and George Mason Universities and conducted from December 23, 2009, to January 3, 2010 by Knowledge Networks using an online research panel of American adults.
A copy of the report can be downloaded from:
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/CC_in_the_American_Mind_Jan_2010.pdf
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Australian Newspaper asks “How much do you trust scientific projections concerning global warming?”
Completely 8.47% (537 votes)
Somewhat 11.75% (745 votes)
A little 15.19% (963 votes)
[b]Not at all 64.58% (4094 votes)[/b]
Total votes: 6339
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/be-truthful-on-climate-british-science-boss-john-beddington/story-e6frg6nf-1225824148004
Hey folks! Sorry for the off-topic, but I’m hoping someone can help me find the article here that discusses the mathematical problems with alternative energy as a replacement for fossil fuels. I remember it took a look at the actual idealized output of all major proposed alternative sources. For the life of me I can’t seem to put the right search terms together to find it.
Thanks for any help you can give me!
“The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to educate the public about this important issue.”
Again, they insult everyone by calling them stupid.
But they can’t admit that the public is educated about this issue.
Come to think of it, that’s a hard one to pull off.
This survey is a farce.
Probably half the people surveyed know that temps have gone up – a little –
so calling it global warming covers that.
If they were honest about the survey, they would have started out with calling it
man-made-global warming.
That would give an entirely different result.
Nice to see Michelle Malkin is a WUWT reader:
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/27/climate-change-republican-lindsey-grahams-cap-and-tax-retreat/
The 1/25 story is included among various other links.
The survey also found lower public trust in a variety of institutions and leaders, including scientists. For example, Americans’ trust in the mainstream news media as a reliable source of information about global warming declined by 11 percentage points, television weather reporters by 10 points and scientists by 8 points. They also distrust leaders on both sides of the political fence. Sixty-five percent distrust Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sarah Palin as sources of information, while 53 percent distrust former Democratic Vice President Al Gore and 49 percent distrust President Barack Obama.
I distrust this survey 100%.
Speaking of public opinion and global warming. I wonder if Ellie Light (of Obama support letters fame) is an alias for global warming. From the movie Deep Impact, E.L.E (Extinction Level Event) was thought to be Ellie )a female mistress) by a reporter in the movie. Ellie Light can then be global warming. The liberal environazis are writing the Obama letters.
@ur momisugly Dr A Burns (12:59:17) :
“I wonder if the 47% who believe in man caused global warming is the same group (50%) who believe in alien abductions ?
http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/
Perhaps it’s no coincidence that 50% of the population is below average intelligence ! (Median is almost identical to mean for IQ).”
I’ve no idea whether your suggestion is sound or not but, on my own experience, I’d say it’s not necessarily so. In an earlier post above I mentioned the apparently unbudgeable views of some of my friends. All of them are well above both median and mean IQ, are extremely well-educated and would simply scoff at the concept of alien abductions or similar popular fantasies.
@ur momisugly RichieP (14:41:52)
… and that’s a worry.
Regarding RichieP (12:23:11) :
I sympathize with your dilemma. I have sent my Oxford PHD daughter, Mckitrick’s two overviews of the “hockey stick”, links to the Weigman and North reports, several summaries by Lindzen and Spencer, the OISM petition overview signed by over 31,000 scientist, over 9,000 PHD scientist, and several other links.
I have told her this is just the surface of a very deep minefield. I have expressed that it does not matter if you agree, disagree or do not care, just come out of the academia Ivory Tower and see there may just be something to see, only to have her say she spoke to some science professors and they just roll their eyes and say the science is settled, the hockey stick was minor statistical disputes common with most papers, move along. This and her “Beserkley” husband I think make it easier for her to keep the blinders on and claim it is an “american” layman movement backed by those evil oil companies and republicans. Ahhggdeklfglkdsjtghjero!!
Steve Goddard (13:08:23) said:
But Steve, the warming is in the pipeline! Hide the decline!
Here it comes:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100023947/its-official-glaciers-are-disappearing/
“Just as you may have thought it was safe to go back onto the glaciers, two new reports have come out to say that they are melting rapidly after all, indicating that many will disappear within decades.”
Quite stunning in the circumstances. Cites a Prof Wilfried Haeberli. The comments are fun though. The WGMS is:
“under the auspices of: ICSU (FAGS), IUGG (IACS), UNEP, UNESCO, WMO”
Sören (12:02:36) :
Great, but this is also the nation which allegedly hardly believes in evulution. How do we know it’s not kidding this time too?
Blame the marketing of evolution for that.
I can accept evolution, with the fossil record, the species changes over time, all of that. It’s just good engineering, having systems that adapt and change over time due to changing circumstances, to increase efficiency, etc. I also believe in God, an eternal presence, that watched evolution take place, may have tweaked it a bit…
NO NO NO, that’s impossible. Why? Because there is no “god” in evolution. Not allowed. If you want to believe there was any outside involvement whatsoever, that is Intelligent Design which is creationism therefore you are a creationist. Now, note that one believes in God, it is not scientific as it is not falsifiable. You cannot prove either way that God does or does not exist. Likewise you cannot prove or disprove that a “higher power” influenced evolution. Scientifically you can state that no verifiable scientific evidence exists that shows involvement of a “higher intelligence” in evolution. It should be presented as agnostic, neither confirming nor denying, since science cannot prove either case. Instead, as it is marketed, evolution specifically excludes God. Indeed, by definition there is no higher power involved, which is then used as proof that no higher power exists. That’s the marketing, and that’s the problem.
It does not matter how scientific I am, how much I accept. If the poll question asks if I believe in evolution or creationism, which by the marketing translates as do I believe God was not involved and doesn’t even exist, or do I believe there is a God who may have been involved, I have to mark down that I believe in creationism. I have no other choice. I know many people who feel the same way, we accept evolution, we believe in God, therefore we are labeled creationists. If others wish to think that means we reject evolution in favor of the 6-day Genesis account, if they want to think us stupid, eh, that’s their problem. My conscience is clear.
The Beddington press release from the UK has made it into our local paper, The Christchurch Press. So finally the cracks are showing…
And here is a link to the pdf of the WGMS report:
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
25 mb d/load.
Ray and Steve
It’s the hypoxia (low oxygen level) that kills you when you put a plastic bag over your head, not the CO2.
Increasing CO2 levels in humans merely makes them breathe harder. It may be sedative at high concentrations but there’s little evidence for this assertion.
Just popping by – apols if this has been posted already.
I’m LOL that this is the same Bob Ward that appeared saying this
Just think what the numbers were be if the media told the truth.
Maurice Garoutte (12:17:08) :
It looks like the UN is ready to give up its campaign to get big bucks from a global transaction tax to improve the global climate. Now the UN has started a campaign to get big bucks from a global transaction tax to improve global health.
I forget, who banned DDT.
anthony, one of your WWF references included australia’s david karoly:
WUWT: The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers
Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. http://www.wwf.org.au/ publications/acg_solutions.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/#more-15636
karoly actually has input in IPCC aws well as WWF:
Wikipedia: David Karoly
Karoly has served as a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 2 and is a member of the faculty of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne.
Prior to his current position at University of Melbourne, Dr. Karoly was a professor at The University of Oklahoma School of Meteorology. He was the “Coordinating Lead Author” of a chapter in “the scientific assessment of climate change” published by the IPCC in 2001…
Karoly was awarded a doctorate in Meteorology from the University of Reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Karoly
Global warming contributes to Australia’s worst drought : climate change / David Karoly, James Risbey and Anna Reynolds
WWF Australia, 2003
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/818040
2003: WWF: Top meteorologist keen to debate climate change link to drought
Professor Karoly, whose research includes stratospheric ozone depletion, greenhouse climate change and climate variations associated with El Niño, was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society in 1999 in recognition of outstanding contributions to atmospheric and related sciences
http://www.wwf.org.au/news/n17/
WWF Praises Study Linking Human Activity, Climate Change
In comparing observed warming with patterns anticipated by climate model simulations, Hansen said the research team, led by scientist David Karoly..
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-2362143_ITM
Feb 2009: RealClimate: Bushfires and extreme heat in south-east Australia
Guest commentary by David Karoly
So, did climate change cause these fires? The simple answer is “No!” Climate change did not start the fires. Unfortunately, it appears that one or more of the fires may have been lit by arsonists, others may have started by accident and some may have been started by fallen power lines, lightning or other natural causes..
Maybe there is a different way to phrase that question: In what way, if any, is climate change likely to have affected these bush fires?..
Of course, the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on bushfires in southeast Australia or elsewhere in the world are not new or unexpected. In 2007, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report WGII chapter “Australia and New Zealand” concluded……ETC
Similarly, observed and expected increases in forest fire activity have been linked to climate change in the western US, in Canada and in Spain (Westerling et al, 2006; Gillett et al, 2004; Pausas, 2004). ..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/bushfires-and-climate/
19 Jan: Climate report reliable despite untested glacier claim: author
A claim that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 should be removed from the UN’s benchmark scientific climate change study, an Australian lead author of the report says.
But Professor David Karoly, who is listed as a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report, said the ”failure of the review process” does not mean that the main findings of the report – that carbon emissions by humans are warming the planet – are unreliable.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-report-reliable-despite-untested-glacier-claim-author-20100118-mgte.html
a neat circle.
Phil Jones makes it to lead story tonight at the Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece
Global warming?
Forecasts of the climate a hundred years out?
Horsefeathers!!
Can’t even get a forecast that’s good 12 hours out! Today was supposed to be cold, windy, with scattered light flurries. The models said so. The air was too dry for any significant snow. Trust the models. Well, two out of three ain’t bad. It was cold and windy, but what good is a lake effect snow warning when it’s issued several hours after it’s been snowing. Guess I’ll run my errands on Friday, assuming we only get a foot of snow tomorrow.
@ur momisugly Chris H (15:06:27) :
CO2 is still dangerous. See the MSDS:
Thus you can clearly see the need for extreme global vigilance with constant monitoring and strict controls, as we must ensure we never go above 20,000 ppm to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences. 10,000 ppm to stay on the safe side.
What is most interesting in the US is the decline of support despite a media blackout (for the most part). The online media has been rather effective in moving the terms of the debate.
” Sören (12:02:36) : Great, but this is also the nation which allegedly hardly believes in evulution. How do we know it’s not kidding this time too? ”
I think “believe” being used in a science discussion is a fundamental conceptual/logical fault. ??Believe in Chemistry?? ??Believe in Biology?? etc, etc . . . . ??Believe in Evolution?? If one says “believe” then we have left the realm of rational scientific discussion into the zone of nonfactual subjective supranatural wandering. If one says “believe in (any area of science)” then they are out of the sciencific zone on that science.
John
Re: the laments above about the educated classes:
George Orwell “some things are so stupid, so devoid of reason and sense, that only an intellectual would believe them.”