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.
“a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming”
No time for leisure pontificating any more, their target demographic is getting older.
As people get older, they tend to be less gullible.
Plus, they have had more exposure to “science” being wrong.
Don’t eat eggs – never mind
This pill will help you loose weight – dead people weigh less
etc etc etc
Learning that the more desperate the predictions, the less likely they are to be true.
Mostly it’s just been there, heard that before.
How difficult is for co2 alarmists to tamper with satellite data used by institutions like UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville) to compute global temperature?
Mainly Man Made Global Warming (MMMGW) is a politician´s wet dream: History shows the insatiable lust for oppressive power that politicians often have, MMMGW is a politician´s wet dream: It gives them enormous, global, insane opressive power plus trillions in taxes while allowing them to pose as the planet saviors while in fact they are indulging their insatiable extremely destructive lust for power, control and money.
Lying is small potatoes if the prize is so big. Can people at NASA tamper with temperatures that are used by UAH for building their satellite record? MMMGW gives such a gigantic humongous prize to politicians and others that a little lie here is nothing for such a trillionaire prize.
To that you must add that United Nations (U.N.) power is the MOST dangerous power that exists, there is a free world because people could flee oppressive regimes -like European monarchies in the 1700s or URSS in the 1900s- to relative free places like USA or Switzerland and so places like USA or Switzerland blossomed because so much people and capital went there. But U.N. seeks WORLD power, the most dangerous power because it could want to establish universal oppression i.e. it could want to establish a system where there is no free place left to flee! U.N. has alleged for several UNIVERSAL oppression schemes like universal taxes, taxing immigrants that leave their “tax hell” countries and U.N. has even make attempts at controlling the internet, internet is a tyrant WORST DREAM, it is well known that tyrants fear enormously free information flow and the internet is the summum of free information flow, the internet is a tyrant´s WORST nightmare come true.
Would like to read some opinions, thanks in advance
Pamela Gray (05:46:40) :
Just my opinion bout mother seals, but I would rather pup on a warm beach than ice any day.
(…)
And thank you for my “most potentially disturbing” mental image of the day. 😉
However, I thought the trend in “natural childbirth” was right in the water. Cleanup would be easier, although seals might worry about attracting sharks and killer whales.
Also, are you sure about that choice? Some little bits of snow and ice, or warm sand; which would you rather have on the newborn when it is time to lick it clean?
The Met office says the case for global warming is stronger then ever, following their barbecue winter.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1971702,00.html
Vincent (12:41:57) :
Icarus,
“Climate scientists consider all kinds of possible scenarios, but not to the point of denying the laws of physics.”
That’s right Icarus, the laws of physics (presume you are referring to radiation physics) tells us to expect a temperature sensitivity of about 1.2C for a doubling of CO2.
“Of course people are free to dispute how this might proceed in the future, and bring up all sorts of different scenarios.”
These are the playstation scenarios that conjure up warmings of up to 6C or more, based on their magical multipliers. This of course, is not science.
Would you like to explain why investigating natural feedbacks would be ‘not science’?
“but the fact remains that all other things being equal. . . ”
All other things are not equal in a chaotic non linear system where parameters interact in myriad different ways. Ie, the earth-as-a-flask model is a naive conjecture unsupported by evidence.
The only energy the Earth receives is radiation from the sun. The only energy it loses is radiation to space. If the one exceeds the other, the Earth will warm up. Agreed?
Vincent (12:41:57)
‘Icarus,…………………………..the earth-as-a-flask model is a naive conjecture unsupported by evidence.’
Very well put. thanks
Now we just need a few more politicians to have doubts, and at least take a serious look at the ‘evidence’.
Here in the UK all three main parties are fighting amongst themselves to introduce the worst, most expensive and crippling way to ‘fight’ AGW.
After all the revelations over the past few months you would think that politicians would at least hesitate before implementing policies which could tip the country over the edge.
__________________
Obama still seems hell-bent on introducing cap-and-trade, again despite the lack of hard evidence. They used Spain as a shining example of how to develop energy policies, so were a bit upset at a report saying each green job in Spain cost 800,000 dollars and caused the loss of 2.2 other jobs. Instead of learning from the report they are out to discredit it and carry regardless. [Actually, considering Spain has 20% unemployment and a dire economy, perhaps it is not such a bad example.]
It really is insane.
From Wikipedia :’He [Don Quixote] has become obsessed with books of chivalry, and believes their every word to be true, despite the fact that many of the events in them are clearly impossible. Quixano eventually appears to other people to have lost his mind…’.
If you substitute ‘AGW’ for ‘chivalry’ it just about sums up the politicians, except Don Quixote fought windmills and our Don Quixotes build them!
As further indication of the impact of ClimateGate and related stories questioning the veracity of the AGW arguments, I was totally shocked to read the editorial in the April issue of Motocycle Consumer News when it arrived today. David Searle, the editor, devoted the entire editorial, entitled “White Lies”, to the subject of AGW, the misrepresentations, the fact that the science isn’t settled and the need for everyone to educate themselves beyond what they’ll hear in the MSM.
His closing paragraphs reads thusly, “The implications are serious, and not just for our pet subject, motorcycling, but for industrialized society in general. The debate is being heard now. We still live in a democracy, not under a world government. Your voice can make a difference.”
The April issue and its editorial are not yet online at http://www.mcnews.com, but I expect they will be soon.
Perceptions are indeed changing!
Icarus (14:13:38) :
(…)
The only energy the Earth receives is radiation from the sun. The only energy it loses is radiation to space. If the one exceeds the other, the Earth will warm up. Agreed?
Nah. We get heating from the decay of radioactive elements. Stick the Earth inside a giant Dewar flask, no incoming solar radiation, it’ll warm up.
Besides, we are fixated on the temperature where we live, on top the solidified scum floating on a ball of magma. In that Dewar flask, where we previously could have lived would be rather toasty from the temperatures equalizing. Thus from our perspective, the Earth’s molten interior alone would cause significant warming.
Now, I will assume you only meant that if the first one exceeds the other then we will have warming, as assuming if the second one exceeded the first then we would have warming, seems ridiculous. Well, within a narrow band we can take in more energy from the Sun than is released into space and still not warm up. Because the excess energy gets stored, by plants. We are currently using previously stored solar energy in our society, namely fossil fuels. There are also some naturally-occurring endothermic chemical reactions soaking up energy. So your statement is not absolute.
Do you wish to clarify that?
So even with Climate gate 52% of Americans do not believe Global warming is generally exaggerated. I suppose this is because the MSM did not cover it very well in the US. and/or it may be that an average IQ of 100 is not much higher than my dog, and/or perhaps it’s the brainwashing going on in schools. Good grief.
Gail Combs (05:16:34) :
Michael (03:00:45) :
“Here in the USA “Grace Commission report notes that 100% of personal income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt, the lion’s share of which goes to the banking cartel that we know as the Federal Reserve.” http://www.bloggernews.net/17032”
This is not correct. The Federal Reserve returns the interest less expenses (including the 6% dividend to shareholders which are the commercial banks). But they don’t actually make many loans directly to the government anymore (loans in which they create money out of thin air). Instead, the principal dealers (who are also partly owned by those owning the major commercial banks) find investors who do not have to return the interest on the loans (government debt). This includes China and other central banks.
Our money is instead created by commercial banks in the form of loans. Also, the Fed monetizes bad debt from 3rd world countries (that started in the early 80’s to bail out our banks who made these loans) and more recently toxic waste (mortgage based securities) from financial investment firms. It would never sustain an audit, but Congress has no power to audit them (only partial audit allowed). Of course, the Fed pays 3rd party accounting firms to perform said audits, but you know how those go (wink, wink).
China is an interesting case though. It’s manufacturers collect USD from sales to the US of their goods. They then exchange these USD for RMB to pay local expenses. Chinas central bank happily gives them the RMB by using their own printing press (creating it out of thin air). They then use the USD which they obtained by printing up their own money (at no interest), and loan it to the US and get interest they do not have to return to the US government (instead they can reinvest the interest and earn more interest). Heck, the Federal Reserve could do that, and did do that before they had to return the interest. Good deal for China (of course, how we lost China in the first place is an interesting story as well).
The key thing is all of the Central Banks are controlled by the BIS in Switzerland in Basel (the central banks own the BIS. Congress did not approve the Fed to invest in 1930, so the largest banks owning the Fed invested directly, shortly after it was formed the global recession turned into a Great Depression).
It was the Basel Accords, I (1988) and II (2008) which set the table for the current financial storm. Our current USTS worked for BIS and the IMF. BIS BTW was Hitlers banker, and following WWII the UN ordered it to be disbanded. This was ignored.
You never hear anything about BIS in the US MSM, just like you probably don’t hear much about Climategate. BIS and AGW are indirectly related, as AGW is simply a tool for global control, as are Central Banks under BIS .
If people only knew.
kadaka (15:15:00) :
Icarus (14:13:38) :
(…)
The only energy the Earth receives is radiation from the sun. The only energy it loses is radiation to space. If the one exceeds the other, the Earth will warm up. Agreed?
Nah. We get heating from the decay of radioactive elements. Stick the Earth inside a giant Dewar flask, no incoming solar radiation, it’ll warm up.
I assumed everyone would know that geothermal heating is tiny (~0.07W/m²) and therefore negligible compared to solar forcing (~1368W/m²).
…
Well, within a narrow band we can take in more energy from the Sun than is released into space and still not warm up. Because the excess energy gets stored, by plants. We are currently using previously stored solar energy in our society, namely fossil fuels. There are also some naturally-occurring endothermic chemical reactions soaking up energy. So your statement is not absolute.
That’s an interesting point, but irrelevant to the issue of the additional ~1.6W/m² of anthropogenic forcing creating a TOA radiative imbalance. I’m sure you’re not arguing that plants are going to decide to photosynthesise faster in order to save us from global warming.
“R. Gates (11:17:00) :
[…]
We’ve not had a positive anomaly in arctic sea ice since 2004…and this is constitutes as trend.”
Really?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
“Icarus (10:25:32) :
[…]
Climate scientists consider all kinds of possible scenarios, but not to the point of denying the laws of physics.”
Gerlich and Tscheuschner surely have a very different opinion about that.
http://www.schmanck.de/0707.1161v4.pdf
The truth they don’t want you to know, (because they don’t know it either..)
http://research.aerology.com/
If it sounds different than what you were expecting, check it out, I did.
“Bill Tuttle (11:35:15) :
The flip side of that coin is that cold weather generally means there’s less bird food available for the graminivorous species, so smaller birds will have a survival advantage”.
Bill that’s true for birds that survive the nest but it’s the smaller ones that lose that initial battle when it gets colder as they can’t compete effectively with their larger siblings for the rationed food in the nest, so they never get to the stage of the lifecycle that you describe.
kadaka (15:15:00) wrote: “We are currently using previously stored solar energy in our society, namely fossil fuels.”
Don’t be so sure of that:
There are several specific identified possible chemical reaction processes for the formation of hydrocarbons from constituent precursor minerals within the Earth’s deep crust and shallow mantel.
On the other hand, not one specific chemical reaction process has been identified for the so-called “fossil” theory beyond the two-step “diagenesis” and “catagenesis” hypothesis, which when closely examined turns out to be a generalized qualitative description, not an identified specific chemical reaction process.
So, on the one hand, there are possible quantified chemical processes identified, and, on the other hand, there is a generalized qualitative description.
Which should be given more scientific probability of validity?
DirkH (17:10:30) :
“Icarus (10:25:32) :
[…]
Climate scientists consider all kinds of possible scenarios, but not to the point of denying the laws of physics.”
Gerlich and Tscheuschner surely have a very different opinion about that.
http://www.schmanck.de/0707.1161v4.pdf
So they may do, but they’re at a loss to explain how a planet covered by an atmosphere that is transparent to visible light but partially opaque to longwave radiation can have the same surface temperature as a planet covered by an atmosphere that is transparent to both visible and longwave radiation.
“Most banks did not go crazy hiring carbon traders,” just because Obama was elected, said George Stein, managing director at New York’s Commodity Talent.
The strategy to keep lean means young graduates who had wanted to combine an interest in environment with making money may have to adjust.
“I get young people coming to me saying they are looking into oil and gas trading. Carbon jobs just aren’t out there,” said Global Change’s Fusaro,
http://www.smh.com.au/business/us-carbon-traders-fear-pink-slips-20100312-q2cr.html
@Dale Rainwater A Burns (12:55:13)
It’s easier to understand more US Americans not being as aware of what is happening because many of them don’t have easy access to news from outside their borders, and a lot of them are happy to adopt as their own, the opinions of Fox shock jocks and the like. Also, the schooling in many parts of the USA is not all that hot compared to the rest of the world. As someone on this thread observed, learning how to find out facts is not encouraged as much as being ‘smart’.
In Australia, it’s harder to understand because the record heat, droughts, floods, downpours and fires are occurring with increasing frequency and are so ‘in our face’ that it’s impossible to ignore unless you’re too young to remember past climates or stay inside all day in the city. As you’ve pointed out, we have our share of shock jocks as well, but more of us are skeptical of those who try to foist extreme opinions on us. We did get Pauline Hanson and Steve Fielding though, I must admit, but not that many of us tolerate their strange view of the world.
I notice that women in both the USA and Australia are more attuned to the changing climate than are men, and keener to do something about it, according to polls.
http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/100204%20Climate%20Change%20+%20CPRS.pdf
It’s interesting that the percentage of persons that believe that Global Warming is caused by human activities is about the same percentage of persons that believe that UFO’s are extraterrestrial in origin. I suspect a very large overlap in persons belonging to both groups.
Icarus,
“Would you like to explain why investigating natural feedbacks would be ‘not science?”
I never said that investigating natural feedbacks is not science, I said that treating the output from a climate model projection the same as if it was observed data, is not science. In fact, they don’t investigate natural feedbacks at all. They actually select only the feedbacks that conform to their predetermined ideas and ignore any countervailling feedbacks.
“The only energy the Earth receives is radiation from the sun. The only energy it loses is radiation to space. If the one exceeds the other, the Earth will warm up. Agreed?”
Agreed, but so what? I never refuted that greenhouse gases don’t lead to a rise in temperature. It is the feedbacks that are important. If feedbacks are positive, temperatures will reach a higher level; if feedbacks are negative, temperature rises will be less than the 1.2c predicted for a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks.
@ur momisugly James F. Evans (00:21:01) :
Oh yeah, I know about the possible abiogenic (not life-based) origins of hydrocarbons (and boy is that a fun Wikipedia article to wade through). You can just look at all the liquefied hydrocarbon gases on Titan.
But currently I cannot see how they could account for all the petroleum reserves, certain complex molecules, and some other things. Coal definitely has layers, fossils, and otherwise shows its organic origin rather clearly. Coal also has bitumen, coal tar, a somewhat-liquid hydrocarbon mix, and I do not find it credible that a fuel with clear life-based origins somehow always ended up mixed with abiogenic petroleum. To account for both and an abiogenic-only origin for petroleum, you’d have to show that coal is also from an abiogenic source, in a way that accounts for the layering and the fossils within.
Likely there is some abiogenic generation of hydrocarbons going on, as in the lighter ones, as seen on Titan. But the “fossil fuels” we come across show lots of evidence of overwhelmingly being just that, former old organic matter, stored solar energy.
Vincent:
“All other things are not equal in a chaotic non linear system where parameters interact in myriad different ways. Ie, the earth-as-a-flask model is a naive conjecture unsupported by evidence.”
Icarus:
“The only energy the Earth receives is radiation from the sun. The only energy it loses is radiation to space. If the one exceeds the other, the Earth will warm up. Agreed?”
Vincent:
“Agreed, but so what? I never refuted that greenhouse gases don’t lead to a rise in temperature. It is the feedbacks that are important. If feedbacks are positive, temperatures will reach a higher level; if feedbacks are negative, temperature rises will be less than the 1.2c predicted for a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks.”
———–
IOW, the “simple physics” model overlooks or underplays the effect of the earth’s built-in thermostat.
Here’s a WUWT article decrying simple physics thinking:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/27/the-unbearable-complexity-of-climate-2/
Sou (06:09:39) :
I notice that women in both the USA and Australia are more attuned to the changing climate than are men, and keener to do something about it, according to polls.
So, by “being more attuned to climate”, I assume you mean they realize there hasn’t been any warming for the past 15 years, and that we have actually cooled some since about 2001, so have taken to donning sweaters more now, being more highly “attuned”, and “keener to do something about it”?
The fact that the climate alarmism so rampant in the rest of the world didn’t quite catch on here (though it came close) certainly speaks well of the general populace’s ability to spot BS, and a dogged, even stubborn refusal to be told what to think.
maybe people are paying attention to the weather and not the ‘scientists’