While Waxman and Markey continue to try to salvage the EPA in hearings on the hill, the public shift clearly says “we aren’t buying it anymore”. This quote from Gallup last year pretty much sums it up
“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.”
Last year:
Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop
Multiple indicators show less concern, more feelings that global warming is exaggerated
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.
This year:
More Than 4 in 10 Say Seriousness of Global Warming Is Exaggerated
The plurality of Americans continue to believe the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated in the news (43%) rather than generally correct (26%) or generally underestimated (29%). This is the third year in a row that a substantial plurality has believed global warming’s effects are not as bad as they are portrayed, a departure from prior years, when Americans were about evenly split between the three points of view. The percentage who think global warming’s effects are exaggerated is down a bit from last year.

=================================================================
Last year:
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%.
Fewer Americans Think Effects of Global Warming Are Occurring
“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.”
Many global warming activists have used film and photos of melting ice caps and glaciers, and the expanding reach of deserts, to drive home their point that global warming is already having alarming effects on the earth. While these efforts may have borne fruit over much of the 2000s, during the last two years, Americans’ convictions about global warming’s effects have waned.
A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years. That percentage is dwindling, however. The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming’s effects have already begun or will begin shortly.
Meanwhile, 35% say that the effects of global warming either will never happen (19%) or will not happen in their lifetimes (16%).
The 19% figure is more than double the number who held this view in 1997.

This year:
While Americans’ self-professed understanding of global warming has increased over time — from 69% saying they understand the issue “very well” or “fairly well” in 2001, to 74% in 2006 and 80% in the current poll — their concern about global warming across several measures is generally in the lower range of what Gallup has found historically.
For example, 49% currently believe the effects of global warming have already begun to happen, similar to last year’s estimate and one point above the historical low from 1997. Just three years ago, 61% thought the effects were already occurring. Over the same time, the percentage doubting global warming’s effects will ever happen has increased, from 11% to nearly 20%, including 18% this year.

==================================================================
Last year:
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.

This year:

Read the entire poll story from 2010 here
…and from 2011 here
======================================================
NOTE: The first published version of this article was incomplete and did not have comparisons from last year’s poll to this year as was intended. This was a consequence of have two browser windows open with editing capabilities, side by side, so I could do comparisons and then cut and paste portions, and the wrong one got published accidentally. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused in the 45 minutes or so the incomplete story was up. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Smokey Said:
Yes, indeed. I was going to say something similar but you beat me to it. It saddens me that people will stoop to such levels to manipulate the truth for their own ends. Of course, eadler makes no mention of the poll of 30,000 scientists who were against the notion of AGW.
If you are referring to the famous Oregon petition, it was not a poll, did not actually contain signatures of 30,000 scientists, and was obtained by fraudulent means.
eadler, you’re losing it, bud. Try to work on your reading comprehension, and reply to the right commentator. You’re wrong about the rest of it, too. Fair question: are you really Barrie Harrop?
Smokey,
Sorry,
about the misattribution in my post
“eadler says:
March 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm ……”
I overlooked the ========, and I should have attributed the statements to Vince Causey.
It’s a plateau. I’d call it a topping pattern.
Ghosts, Flying Saucers, 2012, Astrology, Perpetual Motion, Magic Fuel Pellets, 100 mph carburetor, Algier Hiss and Rosenburg innocence, 9/11 Inside Job, JFK killed by everyone except Oswald, Cheney/Haliburton Conspiracy, Bush 41 SR-71 to Iran, Nostradamus, Ethanol, Windmills and Solar Cells (for replacement instead of supplemental use) … yep, these folks exist and show up in every poll. They show up all right, they are the AGW constituency. These shallow thinkers are either the originators or enablers of countless crackpot diversions and AGW is only the latest. I assume you have manufactured for yourself a safety cushion of cognitive dissonance to allow yourself denial of this, but rest assured, the overlap of all these listed groups is probably 90%, and those people are the AGW cheerleader base. As I said in another thread: You can find them by day wearing sandwich boards along Times Square stating ‘The End is Near, by night they’re busy phoning in to ‘Coast to Coast’ or Alex Jones.
That herd will unquestionably, inevitably and indubitably land on the wrong side of an issue, especially the big ones. What more proof is needed than their attempt to rob Trillions of dollars from the taxpayers to theoretically decrease the average temperature by less than a single degree! If this last description of the plan sounds incorrect to you, how would you summarize the net result? [see recent thread by Willis].
When do you know that public opinion is turning against the scam?
Ans. When you have your national leader declaring that
“No opinion poll can change the fact that climate change is real”.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/its-carbon-price-d-day-warns-gillard/story-fn6bfkm6-1226022760465
eadler,
“If you are referring to the famous Oregon petition, it was not a poll, did not actually contain signatures of 30,000 scientists, and was obtained by fraudulent means.”
Fraudulent. Hmm, I remember that word. Something to do with hockey sticks and hiding the decline wasn’t it? Or is fraud something that only sceptics engage in?
Thirty-one Republicans on the House Energy And Commerce Committee — the entire Republican contingent on the panel — declined on Tuesday to vote in support of the very idea that climate change exists.
Democrats on the panel had suggested three amendments that said climate change is a real thing, is caused by humans and has potentially dire consequences for the future.
If these amendments had passed, there would be no need for the scientific community any longer.
Cut eadler some slack, he’s suffering from a bad case of cognitive dissonance. He’s not himself.
Had to chortle though over the “…and was obtained by fraudulent means” regarding the petition.
Yes, those 30K people that made the choice to respond (including Freeman Dyson), that filled out the forms, bought a stamp, and put them in the mail were defrauded. Let’s get a lawsuit going to get each one that 39 cents back. /sarc
Anthony,
Last time I used a stamp it was $.44 to mail something via the US Postal Service. Speaking of surveys, I would be interested in a survey of all the experts WHO publically supported CA’s efforts to reduce our carbon dioxide footprint by asking those experts the following questions-
Pease rate your response on a 1-10 scale with 10 meaning you completely agree with the statement- 1 meaning you do not agree with the statement at all.
1) Dr. Mann’s original published hockey stick graph influenced my position to support the urgent need to reduce manmade CO2.
2) I have reviewed the methods that Dr. Mann used to “hide the decline” and I agree that the approach taken by Dr. Mann with the data was acceptable in the world of Post Normal Science.
3) I have reviewed the data and methods originally used by Dr. Mann and would classify the methods he used as confirmation bias.
4) I would of supported the urgent need to curb manmade CO2 generation with the same public statements if I had been aware of the methods used by Dr. Mann.
5) I have reviewed the methods that Dr. Mann used to hide the decline and I feel that his methods should be classified as unethical per the traditional scientific method.
6) I would of retracted my support of CA’s approach to reducing man made CO2 if I had been aware of how the hockey stick data was generated.
Look at the first graph, showing the period 2001 to 2006. The figure went from 30 through 38 and back to 30 (generally exaggerated.) 38 was in 2004. What increased the skepticism between 2001 and 2004? What turned it around again. These results are being carefully watched by the manipulators, and they have control of most of the tools of opinion. I find the decrease in skepticism over the last year particularly disturbing.
The dark side is clawing it back. It seems beyond comprehension. Never underestimate the power of an endlessly repeated lie. Never underestimate the power of “scientific consensus,” even and especially on scientists.
Anthony Watts,
eadler was once a member of a skeptic forum who was banned for being too far into the AGW pseudoscience. I was also a member of that same forum. Having to deal with people like him was difficult.
Believe me, he is too far gone in the head to ever be honest or rational here.