Multiple indicators show less concern, more feelings that global warming is exaggerated
by Frank Newport, Gallup News
PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup’s annual update on Americans’ attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.
These results are based on the annual Gallup Social Series Environment poll, conducted March 4-7 of this year. The survey results show that the reversal in Americans’ concerns about global warming that began last year has continued in 2010 — in some cases reverting to the levels recorded when Gallup began tracking global warming measures more than a decade ago.
For example, the percentage of Americans who now say reports of global warming are generally exaggerated is by a significant margin the highest such reading in the 13-year history of asking the question. In 1997, 31% said global warming’s effects had been exaggerated; last year, 41% said the same, and this year the number is 48%.
…
Americans Divided on Causes of Global Warming
In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.
In 2003, 61% of Americans said such increases were due to human activities — in line with advocates of the global warming issue — while 33% said they were due to natural changes in the environment. Now, a significantly diminished 50% say temperature increases are due to human activities, and 46% say they are not.
Americans Less Sure About Scientists’ Beliefs
Since last fall, there have been widespread news accounts of allegations of errors in scientific reports on global warming and alleged attempts by some scientists to doctor the global warming record.
These news reports may well have caused some Americans to re-evaluate the scientific consensus on global warming. Roughly half of Americans now say that “most scientists believe that global warming is occurring,” down from 65% in recent years. The dominant opposing thesis, held by 36% of Americans, is that scientists are unsure about global warming. An additional 10% say most scientists believe global warming is not occurring.
The percentage of Americans who think most scientists believe global warming is occurring has dropped 13 points from two years ago, and is the lowest since the first time Gallup asked this question back in 1997.
Implications
The last two years have marked a general reversal in the trend of Americans’ attitudes about global warming. Most Gallup measures up to 2008 had shown increasing concern over global warming on the part of the average American, in line with what one might have expected given the high level of publicity on the topic. Former Vice President Al Gore had been particularly prominent in this regard, with the publication of his bestselling book, “An Inconvenient Truth,” an Academy Award-winning documentary movie focusing on his global warming awareness campaign, and Gore’s receipt of a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
But the public opinion tide turned in 2009, when several Gallup measures showed a slight retreat in public concern about global warming. This year, the downturn is even more pronounced.
Some of the shifts in Americans’ views may reflect real-world events, including the publicity surrounding allegations of scientific fraud relating to global warming evidence, and — perhaps in some parts of the country — a reflection of the record-breaking snow and cold temperatures of this past winter. Additionally, evidence from last year showed that the issue of global warming was becoming heavily partisan in nature, and it may be that the continuing doubts about global warming put forth by conservatives and others are having an effect. A forthcoming analysis here at Gallup.com will examine shifts in global warming attitudes in recent years among various demographic and political groups.
…
Read the entire poll results at Gallup News
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is a poll on taxes and warming from July 2009:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/56_don_t_want_to_pay_more_to_fight_global_warming
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken since the climate change bill was passed on Friday, finds that 21% of Americans are willing to pay $100 more per year for cleaner energy and to counter global warming. Only 14% are willing to pay more than that amount.
Ah. It looks like it was worse than I thought.
Why do you pay so much attention to these polls? They tell us little about the state of the science.
I consider it highly egotistical that man should take responsibility for this latest beneficial trend of warming (although even that may not be there afterall; it may consist merely of increased CO2 alone) when Mother Nature has provided us with many such warm periods in the past without the slightest assistance from man.
Ah man, what art thou but a mere spec in the cosmos?
That applies to Earth, too.
From Enviroment Canada – “The most recent winter data, while particularly extreme, suggests to Phillips that the definition of the typical Canadian winter may be changing. Seasonal temperatures have increased about 2.5 degrees over a 63-year period, Phillips said, adding the rest of the world has warmed more slowly with an average of three-quarters of a degree.
Phillips said this year’s balminess can be explained by El Nino, a shift in wind and ocean currents in the Pacific, but there’s no doubt Canadians have begun to notice a difference in the season most closely associated with their homeland.
“Old-timers used to say to me years ago ‘ya know, winters aren’t what they used to be.’ And I’d say ‘nonsense, you’ve just got a bad memory.’ And now, they’re proven right, Canadian winters are not what they used to be,:
Great cartoon, the best by Josh so far!
Lubos Motl hits the nail right on the head!
And the public knows it.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/richard-lindzen-v-hadi-dowlatabadi.html
Perhaps, it is time to demand firing those most notorious climate scientists who are known to deceive the public that funds them. First step could be demanding from the government to put a ban on funding climate modeling and GW related activities of those involved in C-gate in NASA, NOAA and the Universities. There is a legal provision for ban on government contracts, at least, for the private companies who are found to mismanage government funding or commit fraud. I believe that they should continue their climate activities in the privately funded organizations.
Concerning “gullible Americans” (Sou 04:04:50), I would say two things: 1) Americans are educated for smartness more than for facts because smartness always makes money and knowing where and what Budapest is rarely brings a penny; and 2) regardless of how uneducated or stupid, or gullible the layman is in the eyes of academic scientists, the layman pays the bills and, thus, has the right to choose what is worth of funding and who is fired.
Although not relevant; however, I would like to add to the American education issue. The democracy is strong only when education of people is high. This is known fact. My hypothesis is that the education for smartness (and this is American type of education) has higher weight in democracy foundation than education for facts. People in the USSR and China were highly educated for facts; however were unable to produce robust democracies.
Innocentious (06:00:26) :
“While science is not ruled by polls ( thank goodness ) Politicians are. —-”
Your comments are sensible and well said.
I believe that the CO2 levels follow the theory given the other day that levels and temp have an exponential relationship, which is realistic.
The “warmists” just extrapolate the the initial CO2 rate of increase in a linear trend and immediately jump to the conclusion that the end of the world is nigh.
AND– they will not entertain any other theories or ideas.
To them, the “science is settled”.
That is what makes all of us upset.
WE are NOT the deniers. We are the skeptics. The Warmists are the deniers. They DENY any other possible scenarios.
ohnny Canuck (05:04:41) :
HELP!
I cannot open Climategate.com anymore.
I went to Google and found the listing, but it was blocked when I tried to open it.
I tried it on “BING” — same thing.
This only started happening since yesterday or the day before.
Has anyone an explanation?
I suspect chicanery’
—————–
Wow! The domain name appears to have been stolen. When I Googled Climategate.com (which I have looked at fairly frequently in the past) the top listing on Google is now a website devoted to links to alternate energy resources and technologies!
While poll results may vary dramatically according to how questions are asked, you can’t go broke in this country by underestimating the scientific illiteracy or general ignorance of the American people.
Our public education system is broken.
The American public happens to be right about the AGW issue, but probably for the wrong reasons. The average guy on the street can see that the worst predictions aren’t coming true. The average guy also doesn’t buy into global warming causing droughts and floods and more snow and less snow all at the same time.
But if the rest of the world really was burning up, would most Americans notice?
gcb (05:38:35) :
re Climategate.com: This looks like a case of insidious censorship. What a way to try to skew public opinion! How can domain names expire within a period of less than a year – I would assume that domain names rights are created and registered for year-long blocks? Very disturbing.
OT and with apologies, but I don’t know how else to bring this to your attention; at
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100312/tsc-climate-change-pushing-bird-species-e123fef.html
there is a story from US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
Wonderful stuff.
Sou (04:04:50) :The problem is that “americans” (more precisely US citizens) believe in STATISTICS, so you can cheat them on any issue if you tell them ANY statistical “truth”.
This kind of thinking has destroyed any possibility of perceiving reality as it is, only the more instructed among them are suspecting something of the kind is really happening. Fortunately the climate-gate scandal is making them doubt about those “truths” their so called “learned men and women” , the so called “scientists” and cleptocratic politicians tell them everyday, through what they call “media”.
This doubt is becoming greater everyday and it will surely end endangering the otherwise “comfortable” and happy life of those in power.
Ref – gcb (06:33:06) :
@Pascvaks (06:06:55) :
“But.. the American Education System, that’s a different story. Nobody, nowhere, nohow, nowho, nowhat, nowhen (lately), and nowhy likes it.”
So does that make the Education System like the weather – everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it?
If that’s the case, can we expect “Anthropogenic Global Stupiding” to be the next big media feeding frenzy?
🙂
_______________________
One can only hope:-)
Climategate editor hadn’t made any posts since 9 March.
Supposedly John O’Sullivan called it quits with the following description on Sedo “This domain name had a web site with 570 posts, 6000 comments, a PR4 rating and Alexa rank of about 70,000, when I parked it on 3/11/10. I started the site in December 09. Just got burned out with such a popular site and had to move on to other things. The entire WordPress site is still on my server and will be saved for a buyer if they are interested.
First $100,000 takes it.”
http://www.sedo.co.uk/search/details.php4?domain=climategate.com&language=e&et_sub=49&partnerid=14460&et_cid=13&et_lid=17473
vigilantfish (07:08:53) : Yry this one:
http://www.climate-gate.com/
gcb (05:38:35) :
“Looks like the domain registration expired or they’re in a dispute. When I go to climategate.com now I get the sort of “generic page” that you get when the domain registrar is looking for someone to buy it”
Thanks for that.
It appears that the “Warmists” have bought out the opposition.[Climategate.com] and turned it into a site for “Renewable Energy”
http://www.climategate.com/
That looks like an act of war to me.
How did this happen?
In retrospect the Copenhagen ‘summit’ will mark the point where the bubble was at its maximum inflation before it had no other option than to burst.
The similarity to other scares and hypes (Anthrax, .com, WMD’s, SARS, XYZZY-flu) is striking. At the exact moment that politics, the media and every Joe Sixpack are full of it while skeptics stand up, you can be sure that the tide will turn.
I suppose that the Judith on the cartoon is not Judith Curry, is she? 😉
These Gallup polls show how poor the public debate on AGW really is!
1) Thinking about what you have heard or read, is the seriousness of global warming: a) generally exaggerated, b) generally correct, or c) generally underestimated?
Environmentalists have created an UN-backed “scientific” organization (the IPCC) whose principal job is to dominate the news and promote international agreements to restrict emission of greenhouse gases. Many of its principal scientists, like Steven Schneider, openly advocate telling “scary stories”, while politicians like Al Gore indoctrinate our citizens with scary movies. And only 48% of the public gave the right answer to this question???? [The previous question in the survey must have been something like: “Will your house or the house of any of your friends be under water after the Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps melt?]
2) …. do you believe that increases in the earth’s temperature are more due to: a) the effects of pollution from human activities or b) natural changes in the environment that are not due to human activities?
a) In a courtroom, one could object that the question assumes facts not in evidence. What warming? Does the responder even know what SIZE increase in temperature they are speculating about? Interestingly, the best answer – Who knows? – not among the choices.
b) What is this “pollution from human activities” Gallup talking about? When nature emits far more carbon dioxide and methane than man, Gallup has no right to call these GHG’s “human pollution”. Gallup must have been very disappointed when almost half of the responders failed to take their hint and associate bad effects with the word “pollution”, especially when the responders were prompted to give: “just your impression”.
3) Which is more accurate: a) Most scientists believe global warming is occurring, b) most scientists believe global warming is not occurring, c) or most scientists are uncertain about whether global warming is occurring or not?
The correct answer is obviously a). The IPCC has been SHOUTING the answer to this question for decades, but the public seems to have stopped listening. (I’d like to believe that the public recognizes that too many climate scientists lost their credibility by acting like politicians and lawyers, but I suspect this is simply a reflection of political polarization.)
Most scientists would want to know what the phrase “global warming” implies before venturing an opinion. Are UHI’s and land use changes part of global warming, or should does the surface record need to be corrected first? How big is the uncertainty? All scientists know that GHG’s absorb outgoing infrared radiation, but the real question is HOW MUCH?
Polls affect climate… not at all!
Poles, however do! Both poles are now nominal in regards to sea ice. Quite remarkable considering the purported warm temperatures, and the alarm AGW convinced, are screaming.GK
Anthony has played a big part in making this happen.
Oldseadog (07:15:40) :
OT and with apologies, but I don’t know how else to bring this to your attention; at
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100312/tsc-climate-change-pushing-bird-species-e123fef.html
there is a story from US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
Wonderful stuff.
This is indicative of the research being used as evidence for the harful effects of global warming: There is a premise; study a subject based on that premise.
For example, “What is the effect of global warming [climate change] on the Puffin population?”
Regardless of the result, the premise is that climate change is affecting the Puffin population. The result is going to be either the population increases, decreases and, mostly unlikely, stays the same. The conclusion will be that “Climate change is causing an increase(migration)/decrease in the puffin population.” This research is performed by specialists in the Puffin field, but there is zero evidence demonstrating a causal effect. Such papers are held up as part of the scientific consensus on Anthropogenic influence on our climate.
Additionally, there is little identification of Environment Verses Climate. While it may be true that there are environmental concerns, by attributing an environmental effect to a climatic effect, you really do a disservice to subjects under scrutiny.
Most telling, where I live in the SC Low Country, we have a significant problem with mercury contamination. The reasons for such damage (perceived, potential and real) are being attributed to climatic changes, in the mistaken belief that the GW bandwagon will push funds to pet environmental projects. It’s tragic that funding will be directed to line the pockets of a few in the name of ‘climate change’ where the real environmental hazards will not actually be addressed.
The scientists, biologists and researchers genuinely studying environmental impacts on our environment don’t realize they are pawns in the great global warming swindle, that their expectations for the future are completely different from those funding them.
Ref -Steve Goddard (07:59:56) :
“Anthony has played a big part in making this happen.”
_______________________
So true! And more than most can imagine or will ever truly appreciate!
Thanks again, Anthony, and all your faithful helping friends.
So the warmists used the argument from authority. All scientists agree warming is the calamity du jour. So now are they planning to place the same weight of authority on the prevailing opinion for warming being a genuine non event?
Neurotics build castles in the sky
Psychotics live in them
Psychologists colect rent.
I see the days of the greenie weenies collecting rents or shakedown monies for carbon credits are about over. There is stuill an apparent surge.