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.
Neo (12:32:26) :
I hope I’m not alone, but I keep getting a feeling that the whole AGW schtick is a “happy face” painted on an otherwise unhappy scenario. Sure, fossil fuels will run out one day, global oil production will (or has) peak(ed), and we are sending bucket loads of cash overseas to countries that don’t like us, but if this is the underlying story why can’t policymakers be square with us ?
Higgins: It’s simple economics. Today it’s oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then? Joe Turner: Ask them? Higgins: Not now – then! Ask ‘em when they’re running out. Ask ‘em when there’s no heat in their homes and they’re cold. Ask ‘em when their engines stop. Ask ‘em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won’t want us to ask ‘em. They’ll just want us to get it for ‘em!
Did the 1975 film, “Three Days of the Condor” so scare policymakers that they believe that they can’t level with the American people, or is it that their current strategy requires fooling the current OPEC countries until they exhaust their supplies ? The latter would explain the failure to develop domestic oil sources and concentrate on “renewables” like bio-fuels, that are carbon based and would add to AGW sources (an AGW paradox).
Or is this all merely a plot by politicians to raise taxes out of thin air ?
You are assuming some sort of rational (if immoral) motivation behind the lies – that assumption may well be unfounded.
kadaka (15:25:24) :
@ur momisugly Chris H (15:06:27) :
CO2 is still dangerous. See the MSDS:
Carbon Dioxide is a powerful cerebral dilator. At concentrations between 2 and 10%, Carbon Dioxide can cause nausea, dizziness, headache, mental confusion, increased blood pressure and respiratory rate. Above 8% nausea and vomiting appear. Above 10%, suffocation and death can occur within minutes.
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.
Well that just blows it… I was planning to set up a company to mine the various outer planets for hydrocarbons such as methane, bring it back to Earth in big tanker-ships and burn it here… now it’s just not going to happen…
Since water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas, and boiling water causes water vapor, and people boil water to make tea, why not just tax the tea and use the to fund research into instant ice tea.
It would do a lot to reduce the worst greenhouse gas and putting a tax on tea has always worked in the past, hasn’t it?
Re: Kate (17:30:08):
I don’t think the extreme ideologues like Chu and Holder and Jackson are ever going to change their minds and stop pushing radical government schemes under the aegis of “fighting climate change.”
The only way to stop them is to get this administration out of office. Short of impeachment, that can’t happen until 2012. Notice that in his interminable speech tonight, Obambi revived the ‘climate’ nonsense and Crap and Tax, which we thought was dead. But if the Republicans and energy-state Democrats can hold off that monstrosity until November, maybe we can elect enough conservatives to stop this administration from insanities like ‘carbon sequestration’.
/Mr Lynn
Loved the republican spin on the State of the Union address. They complain that the promises are just filled with hot air. Are you kidding me? They are complaining because he hasn’t fulfilled his promises??? I don’t want those promises kept! No! Nyet! Nada! Thanks anyway! Not complaining here! I’ll take my coffee plain! No icing on the cake! Just meat and potatoes! Stop complaining and just sneak out the back door. If we all just shut up ’bout the promises they will stay not met! Made me want to slap some sense into those conservative talking heads.
Frequently Asked Question 4.1
Is the Amount of Snow and Ice on the Earth Decreasing?
Yes. Observations show a global-scale decline of snow and
ice over many years, especially since 1980 and increasing dur-
ing the past decade, despite growth in some places and little
change in others (Figure 1).
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Following the IPCC report, a deep and prolonged winter arrived in London (marked by the earliest snowfall in 70 years), the Alps received the “heaviest snowfalls in a generation” (contrary to “expert” predictions that there would be virtually none in future), snow fell in Baghdad for the first time on record, 100s of snowfall records were broken in the U.S., hundreds of Peruvian children froze to death, summer arrived late and cloudy to the U.K (prompting British media to cancel the barbecue and promote vitamin D supplements), Arctic ice extent rebounded dramatically, then another bitter winter arrived early in the northern hemisphere, freezing more people to death than the preceding one.
Huge discrepancies between warming model predictions and the real-world climate have likely caused more than a few people, including myself, to chill out!
That thought has occurred to me several times. Carrying on in that vein to the next step: President Palin will provide funding to ensure that every American campus gets an Adam, Eve & Dinosaur theme park. (They deserve it.) We can stop laughing in a century or two.
Did they account for the impact of soot? Here’s the funniest comment:
Tom G(ologist) wrote:
“What I fear, and I tried warning such sanctimonious bloggers as PG mYers about several years ago, is that by linking evolution deniers to climate ‘deniers’ they are setting themselves up for a fall when the climate house of cards collapses.”
I agree that the two groups are not synonymous. There is probably considerable overlap as, by definition, skeptical individuals are more likely to be skeptical of all forms of consensus science, but there is definitely not an equivalence — plenty of evolution supporters skeptical about climate science and vice versa.
BTW, kind of funny to see the old “denier” term applied to skeptics/realists. As you know from the climate debate, using the term “denier” is a standard ploy of those who follow consensus “science.” Time to break out the ol’ mirror and have a look! 🙂
mtnrat (12:39:11) wrote:
“That study was conducted Dec 24 2009 to Jan 3 2010. I would hazard a guess that there is now a greater decline and growing”
Yes, but given the orientation/bias of the survey’s sponsor, my guess is they’ll try to find some way to … uh … hide the decline.
Thought you guys might like this shit from Senator Kerry:
Senator John Kerry (D. – Massachusetts) called on climate and clean energy legislation backers to become more aggressive in their efforts. ”If the Tea Party folks can go out there and get angry because they think their taxes are too high […] a lot of citizens ought to get angry about the fact that they’re being killed and our planet is being injured by what’s happening […] by the way we provide our power,” said Kerry.
Obama has taken a hit in the polls, esp from the areas of American society which swept him into power (As far as I can tell – Heck, where are the jobs? In Michelle’s garden kitchen?).
I don’t know much about American politics however, I now know he is cut from the same cloth as the bankers, on Wall St etc, who created the latest financial crisis.
So on one hand, he authorises the “banking welfare” taxpayer funded bailout but then condems the “banker bonuses”. He’s from the same stable as the bankers.
Who bankrolls Obama, Wall St?
I would not be surprised to find that most of the public who have seen power-plants with smokestacks spewing thick clouds of billowing white smoke (that always seem to be shown on news stories about greenhouse gases, carbon-dioxide, and global warming) automatically assume that smoke to be ‘poisonous’ carbon-dioxide smog pollution befouling the planet when in fact it is primarily condensing water vapor.
K~Bob (13:55:57) :
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!
There is this one
http://www.clepair.net/windsecret.html
So true! What I fear, and I tried warning such sanctimonious bloggers as PG mYers about several years ago, is that by linking evolution deniers to climate ‘deniers’ they are setting themselves up for a fall when the climate house of cards collapses. I have been composing my not too arrogant “I warned you” e-mail to send him as soon as I feel our momentum is irrevocable and I see the first links from the Discovery Institute stating that scientists as a class can’t be trusted and evolution is just more fabricated nonsense.
In the Promotion of Polywell research I advised proponents to avoid linking it with CAGW for that very reason. For the most part I was successful.
What I did promote was that in 100 or 1,000 years we are going to need new sources of energy and that without low cost storage wind and solar are not going to cut it.
Roger Knights (23:22:41) :
I did a riff on the comment section at:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/01/two-new-reports-say.html
and my response to the comment you liked went as follows:
Hamish Redux on Jan 27th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
I’ve heard that by 2035, or possibly 2350, there will be no polar bears in the Himalayas.
Hamish, it is worse than we thought. They are already gone.
I believe the replacement of fossil fuels is not so much a matter of mathematics as it is a matter of consequences. Once these fuels are exhausted, we will have only two choices, solar power or nuclear power. With nuclear power, the primary issue or challenge will be finding a safe method for continuously sequestering waste products that may remain radioactive for well over a hundred thousand years.
I note that one of the CRU emails attempts to justify going ahead with the project even if the science is wrong because the same measures will be required to manage the dwindling availability of fossil fuels. I do not think it makes any moral sense to invent a false crisis to scare the public into doing what you think is a correct action.
I agree. I don’t want Obambi to fulfill any of his promises, made or implied, especially any having to do with ‘climate change’.
“That government is best which governs least”—Henry David Thoreau
/Mr Lynn
At levels above 5% (50,000 ppm) CO2 is toxic. The current official measurement is ~380ppm.
“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.”
*Snicker* Since the best estimate of CO2 during the Cambrian peaks at 7,000 ppm, and that’s twenty times the current level, the “strict controls” are totally unnecessary.
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.
Looks like the “consensus about there being a consensus” is taking a big hit. But the poll was probably somewhat weighted against interviewing only those delivering the MSM “news”.
” I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are [sic] the right thing to do for our future…” President Obama
His advisers have not been honest with him. While providing incentives for energy INDEPENDENCE will produce jobs, security, cleaner air, etc. – painting with the climate change brush is no longer viable. Not only because the science is flimsy, but further association with climate change will lead to embarrassing if not criminal connections.
It’s a little like saying “I know some of you don’t believe that organized crime has benefits – but it’s the best way to go.”
kwik (12:32:03) :
No, I got it!
-Plant Food Information Agency ! PFIA</em?
I like Plant Food Understanding Institution! PFUI
A C Osborn – this is the only one I have.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/climategate-how-did-climate-change-come-to-this/
I did run across a detailed analysis of Germany’s “savings” from alt en but I didn’t save it.
RichieP (12:23:11) :
“….I’m afraid I’m not so sure, though there’s undoubtedly plenty of room for optimism at the moment. I have several highly intelligent, long-term friends, who from time to time I try to cajole to become more sceptical about AGW. It’s a deeply demoralising experience most of the time….”
RichieP, Tell your friends Global warming propaganda is a CIA plot! The ultra rich are transferring the wealth, factories and industry of the USA, EU and Canada to the south because we are at the end of this interglacial and they are preparing for the coming Ice age. Global warming and Cap and trade are diversionary tactics to prevent the unwashed masses from having the money, means or motivation to migrate to the tropics.
Media propaganda about “Global Warming” started in the seventies after the 1974 CIA report. The report stated interglacial periods last ” 10,000 to 12,500 years” and “never extend beyond 12,500 years…climate change at the end of these interglacial time periods is rather sharp and dramatic…Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate the northern regions such as Canada, the European part of the Soviet Union and Major areas of northern China will again be covered with 100 to200 feet of ice and snow. That this will occur within the next 2,500 years they are quite positive, that it will occur sooner is open to speculation.”
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
This is recognized by both sides of the Global Warming question:
Validation of Milankovitch theory of Ice Ages:http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html
Research by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution shows the transition ti and Ice Age can occur within ten years. http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046
An interesting graph superimposing all the Volstok interglacials including the current interglacial can be seen at this blog : http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2008/04/20/worlds-oldest-tree-discovered/
I do not think this is actually true but It might get them interested in reading something besides Al Gore’s tall tales. An Ice Age Cometh, the only question is how soon that fact has been completely over looked thanks to the AGW hysteria.
You might like to employ, somewhere, the mocking phrase, “organized clime.”
K~Bob (13:55:57) :
I found this about the economics:
The problem is that Copenhagen is so highly orchestrated that any such inconvenient information will be buried: such as a recent report, Economic Impacts from the Promotion of Renewable Energies: the German Experience. This thorough study of German electricity production found that its promotion of renewable energy is “a tale of a massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits”.
The total cost of German subsidies for wind power, which produces 6.8 per cent of the nation’s electricity, is estimated at 20.5 billion euros between 2000 and 2010. But that is peanuts compared to solar power, which will have swallowed 53.3 billion euros while producing only 0.6 per cent of Germany’s power. Colossal amounts have been wasted, without much benefit to the environment or the country’s energy security.
The real “elephant at the summit”, however, is population growth. …………. And if this problem is not confronted, all those hours spent agonising over reducing greenhouse gases and setting carbon emission levels will have been superfluous.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6781985/Copenhagen-climate-conference-Who-will-dare-mention-population-growth.html