Americans believe climate change is occurring, but disagree on why

This must be “polarization week” in social science, as this is the second study published this week on political polarization of the global warming issue. See the previous story on WUWT: Democrats and Republicans increasingly divided over global warming

=============================

From the UNH Carsey Institute:

Disagreement on causes based on political views, not science

DURHAM, N.H. – Most Americans now agree that climate change is occurring, but still disagree on why, with opinions about the cause of climate change defined by political party, not scientific understanding, according to new research from the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.

Republicans most often point to natural causes of climate change while Democrats most often believe that human activities are the cause. The greatest polarization occurs among people who believe they have the best understanding.

“Although there remains active discussion among scientists on many details about the pace and effects of climate change, no leading science organization disagrees that human activities are now changing the Earth’s climate. The strong scientific agreement on this point contrasts with the partisan disagreement seen on all of our surveys,” said Lawrence Hamilton, professor of sociology and senior fellow with the UNH Carsey Institute.

“However, most people gather information about climate change not directly from scientists but indirectly, for example through news media, political activists, acquaintances, and other nonscience sources. Their understanding reflects not simply scientific knowledge, but rather the adoption of views promoted by political or opinion leaders they follow. People increasingly choose news sources that match their own views. Moreover, they tend to selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into their pre-existing beliefs,” Hamilton said.

A series of regional surveys conducted by Carsey Institute researchers in 2010 and early 2011 asked nearly 9,500 individuals in seven regions in the United States about climate change.

Key findings include:

  • Most people say that they understand either a moderate amount or a great deal about the issue of global warming or climate change.
  • Large majorities agree that climate change is happening now, although they split on whether this is attributed mainly to human or natural causes.
  • Level of understanding about climate change varies considerably by region.
  • Beliefs about climate change are strongly related to political party. Republicans most often believe either that climate is not changing now or that it is changing but from mainly natural causes. Democrats most often believe that the climate is changing now due mainly to human activities.
  • Political polarization is greatest among the Republicans and Democrats who are most confident that they understand this issue. Republicans and Democrats less sure about their understanding also tend to be less far apart in their beliefs.
  • People who express lower confidence also might be more likely to change their views in response to weather.

“If the scientists are right, evidence of climate change will become more visible and dramatic in the decades ahead. Arctic sea ice, for example, provides one closely watched harbinger of planetary change. In its 2007 report the IPCC projected that late-summer Arctic sea ice could disappear before the end of the 21st century. Since that report was written, steeper-than-expected declines have led to suggestions that summer sea ice might be largely gone by 2030, and some think much sooner,” Hamilton said.

“We will find out in time—either the ice will melt, or it won’t. The Arctic Ocean, along with other aspects of the ocean-atmosphere system, presents an undeniable physical reality that could become more central to the public debate. In the meantime, however, public beliefs about physical reality remain strikingly politicized,” he said.

###

The complete report about this research is available at http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/IB-Hamilton-Climate-Change-2011.pdf.

This research was supported by grants from the Ford Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Neil and Louise Tillotson Fund, New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, Office of Rural Development in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, UNH Sustainability Academy, and the Carsey Institute. The UNH Survey Center conducted all telephone interviews.

The Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire conducts research and analysis on the challenges facing families and communities in New Hampshire, New England, and the nation. The Carsey Institute sponsors independent, interdisciplinary research that documents trends and conditions affecting families and communities, providing valuable information and analysis to policymakers, practitioners, the media, and the general public. Through this work, the Carsey Institute contributes to public dialogue on policies that encourage social mobility and sustain healthy, equitable communities.

The Carsey Institute was established in May 2002 through a generous gift from UNH alumna and noted television producer Marcy Carsey. For more information about the Carsey Institute, go to www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu.

The University of New Hampshire, founded in 1866, is a world-class public research university with the feel of a New England liberal arts college. A land, sea, and space-grant university, UNH is the state’s flagship public institution, enrolling 12,200 undergraduate and 2,300 graduate students.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Steve in SC

Some people are not only just wrong but they are evil as well.

Dodgy Geezer

“…“However, most people gather information about climate change not directly from scientists but indirectly, for example through news media, political activists, acquaintances, and other nonscience sources….”
And therein lies the flawed assumption underlying this whole item. It assumes that there are designated scientific authorities whose job it is to tell people ‘what the answer is’.
In reality science is a process which anyone can undertake. If it becomes a hierarchical structure with given beliefs, it becomes a religion.

tadchem

“opinions about the cause of climate change defined by political party, not scientific understanding”
This study is flawed by the post hoc fallacy. In any individual all of the above – opinions about the cause of climate change, political party, and scientific understanding – are framed by a far more fundamental skill.
Critical thinking is the *common cause* of skeptical opinions, conservative political attitudes, and scientific savvy.
A lack of skill in critical thinking leads to credulity, emotional politics, and gullibility to the rhetoric of junk science.

I am writing ‘Climate Change by Nature’ article (available soon) with data of a natural mechanism casting a totally new light on events affecting the N. hemisphere’s climate.
Full explanation and details for:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO-ENSO-AMO.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
will be included.

Michael in Sydney

Once you can classify those that think a certain way then you can marginalize and persecute them. Just a natural (or actually anthropogenic) progression for the debate to go.
Cheers
Michael

Mustafa

Very Interesting! The debate could be over soon if Joe Bastardi is right that Arctic Ice is now on an upward growth path. No ice-free Arctic, no AGW. God is good!

Wow. The Ford Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Neil and Louise Tillotson Fund, New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, Office of Rural Development in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, UNH Sustainability Academy, and the Carsey Institute all funded this stuff?
Will future generations quote the momentous findings of this study until they become household truths? Will they marvel at the quantum leap in insight, understanding and knowledge that the study reveals to the world?
Nope. This study and others like it are the inevitable consequences of meetings between unnecessary solutions and aimless feel-good funding.

John Marshall

The argument is not about climate change as the sane amongst us, and I include all at WUWT, know that climates change. The argument is as to whether we, humans, are responsible.
Firstly the change in climate over the past couple of hundred years is within natural variation. How is it possible to state that man has any input into this natural system? It is not.
Secondly, to ascribe the rises of temperature of recent times to human produced fossil fuel CO2 is ridiculous given that our production of this trace life giving gas is but 3-4% of total annual CO2 production.
Thirdly, the theory of GHG temperature increase violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Jeff Larson

Since that report was written, steeper-than-expected declines have led to suggestions that summer sea ice might be largely gone by 2030, and some think much sooner,” Hamilton said.
I think Hitler said something about “the bigger the lie…”

Climate changes. It changed before humans inhabited the earth. It changed after human habitation began, but before the industrial revolution. It continued changing after the onset of the industrial revolution. It is changing now. It will change in the future.
Scientists do not completely understand why climate changed before man, or during the period post man and prior to the industrial revolution. However, many scientists believe, or at least assert, that they understand why climate is changing now.
Some scientists even deny that certain relatively recent changes (MWP & LIA) occurred, in an attempt the increase the importance of the change currently underway. Interestingly, they are not referred to as “deniers”, or accused of being “anti-science”. “Velly intellesting!” (Apologies to Arte Johnson.)
I believe that the distinction drawn between Republicans and Democrats is fallacious. The distinction, rather, is between liberals/progressives/socialists/communists and conservatives/libertarians; that is, between those who believe, or at least assert, that man is incapable of rational action without the guiding hand of government and those who believe in human creativity and industry.

Frank K.

This is all I need to know…
“This research was supported by grants from the Ford Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Neil and Louise Tillotson Fund, New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, Office of Rural Development in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, UNH Sustainability Academy, and the Carsey Institute.”
“The Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire conducts research and analysis on the challenges facing families and communities in New Hampshire…”
Unfortunately, some of MY New Hampshire taxes helped to fund this “research”…

Theo Goodwin

According to the article:
“Most Americans now agree that climate change is occurring, but still disagree on why, with opinions about the cause of climate change defined by political party, not scientific understanding, according to new research from the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.”
Well, Duh! Because there is no science that explains the causes of climate change, no one can hold a view of climate change based on science. More idiocy from the world of social science.

Gaylon

Their key findings could indicate that climate scientists were the only subjects that participated in the survey. sarc/off
It is unfortunate, but IMO premeditated, that the focus once again is on the perception of a set of information. I mean, this is how propaganda works right?
The scientific data is not definitive, and the further they stray from the scientific method the less definitive it becomes. Since the CAGW meme is political in nature: to sieze power of global energy production / availability; the battle lines drawn must be by political demarcation, otherwise it would defeat the purpose, right?
It also explains why the scientific method was intentionally abandoned to begin with (by Hansen, Mann, Briffa, et al): scientific data, hard unyielding observational data are non-partisan by nature…right? If this were not a purely political issue would anyone really be arguing about a 0.7C temperature increase over the last 100 years?
It will also be very interesting to see what the final word will be on sea-level rise after recent developments. I know it’s too early to tell but if the negative trend is confirmed…? And the disappearing act the IPCC tried to pull…? Seems these guys can’t take a step without stepping, or tripping over, their own two feet. :0)

The Expulsive

It’s the same in Canada – if you are “green” you vote NDP or maybe Green and you are adamant about man being the cause – if you are “blue” you vote Conservative and think that maybe the bureaucrats (in league with the enviros, the CBC, the Suzuki foundation, et al.) are overstating the cause and effect so that top down big government can regain the “command economy” power that was ceded since the Trudeau era. Fact is that the oil sands are not the Devil’s cauldron made out by some, that fraking gas may cause some harmful side effects, cities and land use change can dramatically affect the surrounding area, etc. My biggest concern about the environment has always been about the control of pollutants that degrade water and air, like you might see now in parts of China, and lately the advisability of building large industrial wind factories in the country near migratory routes.

John Q Public

Here’s a simple explanation: Democrats mistrust humanity and its place in nature and Republicans trust humanity and its place in nature.

Jeff L

What they fail to realize is the reason people are divided along political lines is because this is fundamentally a political issue first and a scientific issue second. AGW is just a means to an end for the left & the right realizes that. Why do you think there is such extreme alarmism in trying to “promote” the AGW point of view? The fact that the authors don’t seem to grasp this obvious observation is either a stunning lack of perception or clearly showing their bias for the left wing AGW position.
WUWT’s strength is in trying to flip the debate – put the science first & the politics second.

Dave Dardinger

If this were an accurate analysis of the situation the thing to be done is pretty obvious. Scientists should be making themselves available for the less sure to question carefully to find out the truth. So where are they?
Answer: They show up here occasionally and get their clocks wound.
Answer 2: The article above (at least the part quoted above), is full of weasel words:

Although there remains active discussion among scientists on many details about the pace and effects of climate change, no leading science organization disagrees that human activities are now changing the Earth’s climate.

1. How can details about pace and effects be under active discussion and “leading science organizations” agree it’s human activity causing cc? Shouldn’t they demur from having an opinion? Doesn’t this sound like it’s the leadership of the organizations who feel it’s important to get ahead of the discussion? Why?
1a. Note the use of the word “disagrees”. If one leading organization agreed and the rest didn’t voice an opinion (as they shouldn’t), then the statement would be logically correct but entirely misleading. Why the attempted confusion of the reader?
2. As people here know, there are many “human activities” including land use and urbanization which can change measured climate change, and not just human CO2 production.
3. How is it determined that an organization is a “leading” one? Three guesses and the first two don’t count.

most people gather information about climate change not directly from scientists

4. Why is “scientists” the word used rather than “climate scientists”? Does being a scientist give you more knowledge of “climate change” that say being a engineer, or economist or statistician?
5. Why do people insist on publishing such rubbish?

Slabadang

Whats the real true differences behind the gap?
The answer is simple. For conservatives around the world. They base thier decicions on facts reason and responsability.
Social liberals base thier on ideology and beliefs. Thats the real true difference between the basic values all ower the worlds.

Mike Bromley

“If the scientists are right, evidence of climate change will become more visible and dramatic in the decades ahead. Arctic sea ice, for example, provides one closely watched harbinger of planetary change. In its 2007 report the IPCC projected that late-summer Arctic sea ice could disappear before the end of the 21st century. Since that report was written, steeper-than-expected declines have led to suggestions that summer sea ice might be largely gone by 2030, and some think much sooner.”
Where is Hamilton getting this info?? Granted, the IPCC crystal-ball is known, but “some think much sooner”?? That’s such claptrap. More cut-and-paste, it seems.

Deanster

Well .. .hey … the AGW crowd has had meeting after meeting regarding their “communication” of alarmism to the public. Rekon this piece is a fruit of all that??
The article missed the primary objection of “skeptics” … it’s not that the globe has warmed, and it’s not so much why .. but will it be catestrophic. Until the climate exceeds the natual limits that have occurred before, … I think the answer is no.

JJB MKI

It very much suits alarmists, for want of credible evidence of anything ‘unprecedented’ happening, to paint this as a party political issue.

Gayle

The cartoon gave me a great laugh this morning. Love it!

Rick Bradford

What tadchem says.
You have to take one more step further back and consider the personality types that vote Right-Wing (self-reliant, productive, free-market types) as opposed to Left-Wing (collectivist, inclusive, victim culture, PC) and you have the AGW yes/no split.

Bomber_the_Cat

“If the scientists are right, evidence of climate change will become more visible and dramatic in the decades ahead. Arctic sea ice, for example….We will find out in time—either the ice will melt, or it won’t.”
Yes, but if the ice does melt is that because of human activity or natural climate variation?
We know that ice ages come and go with regular period of about 100,000 years. This is a pattern that has been repeated many times ( about 30 ) over the last three million years on our planet..This is ‘settled science’ and it is not controversial. We also know that these ice ages are separated by inter-glacial periods such as the one we are in now. Inter-glacial periods typically last between 15 and 20 thousand years. We have been in the present one, the Holocene, for say 18,000 years.
So what do we expect to happen due to natural variation alone? What is the ‘null- hypothesis’? Well, fortunately, because the pattern over the last few millions years is so well established and repeatable, it is reasonable to expect the Earth to continue to warm throughout the Holocene until the onset of the next ice age. Evidence of a warming planet, ice melting, glaciers receding etc. is simply evidence of the natural cycle.
What were conditions like in the previous inter-glacial, the Eemian? Wouldn’t this be a good guide as to what to expect in the Holocene? Well, in the Eemian conditions were warmer everywhere than at present, the Arctic Ocean was ice free and the northern tree-line was 800 km further north (according to the IPCC). So this current inter-glacial has some warming to do in order to catch up with the pattern of previous natural variations.
I am always surprised that evidence of a warming world, meting ice etc. is used by some as evidence that human kind must be responsible for the climate changing. This is a process that began 18,000 years ago – we surly were not to blame then.

kim

Hamilton, for example, gets his iconic Arctic Ice example completely wrong.
What is it with the cognition of the alarmists? It’s as if life won’t go on if they can’t take on a lot of guilt. Maybe we’re responsible, but it isn’t shown yet.
===========

Marion

I believe whenever these surveys are carried out they should include a specific definition of what exactly they mean by Climate Change. It seems to me that there has been deliberate obfuscation of this term, something which I believe scientists such as Roger Pielke and Richard Lindzen have already pointed out. It is fundamentally dishonest to infer that respondents do not believe in ‘Climate Change’ when it may be that it is simply Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming in which they do not believe. Many of these surveys seem to be deliberately vague in some respects.
For example this one –
“I would like to ask you some questions about the issue of global warming or climate change”
Are they equating ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ or not. It seems to me that these surveys would be far more meaningful if they were much more specific.

Gaylon

Jeff L says:
April 20, 2011 at 5:39 am
“…The fact that the authors don’t seem to grasp this obvious observation is either a stunning lack of perception or clearly showing their bias for the left wing AGW position…”.
Agreed, ‘showing their bias’ by continuing the propaganda for their left wing power grab…
I think that what is ‘stunning’ is that they continue to seemingly extol the now blatant tactic of ‘repeat it until they believe it’, in face of the fact that so many are now aware of their motives.
They are either incredibly stupid (my vote), or can they really believe they can win this thing through attrition? This tactic worked brilliantly for the Nazis but this is weather / climate right…I mean we can all see it, right outside the window. I mean, c’mon…

I wonder if this spate of ‘studies’ is a direct response to all the Alarmist hand-wringing over their failure to ‘communicate’ the urgency and ‘truth’ of ‘climate change’ (i.e. CAGW). Someone fed these academics a bunch of grant money and said, “Time for some studies! Blame it on the Republican ‘deniers’! Tout the ‘consensus’! Appeal to authority, dammit!”
This is essentially the same topic as the earlier one today on the ‘left-right divide’, so with moderator’s permission, I will refer to my comment in that thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/19/democrats-and-republicans-increasingly-divided-over-global-warming/#comment-645154
/Mr Lynn

Pamela Gray

If there ever was a scientific discipline at risk of research bias, it is opinion survey research by sociologists, and readily shows up in their peer-reviewed articles. Their own bias is nearly impossible to eradicate from their endeavors. It would be rather interesting to analyze such articles for evidence of opinion and fact “spin” compared to other scientific disciplines. Anyone in need of a self-submarining Ph.D. sociology research project? If you get it passed your doctorate panel and manage to publish, you will never work again in the field.

Jeremy

“Wow. The Ford Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Neil and Louise Tillotson Fund, New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, Office of Rural Development in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, UNH Sustainability Academy, and the Carsey Institute all funded this stuff?”
As I have posted many times before, there are corporate wealth funds which are providing fuel for the organizations that are trying to influence us all with respect to the environment.
Sadly, this website refuses to investigate this aspect of the big propaganda gamw.
Why are these huge corporate wealth funds doing this?
Why did the Economist turn distinctly pro CAGW once it was acquired by the Rothschild’s?
What is Ted Turner’s actual agenda ?
This is the CAGW elephant in the room, IMHO. The money behind all the dire predictions and all this propaganda designed to create fear and, possibly, to control or influence outcome in the commanding heights of the economy!
Just think about Lenin’s desire to control the commanding heights, isn’t the current attack on private industry just the same wolf but in different clothing. After all, what are the preachers asking for? They are asking for more control over industry (for the sake of the planet or so we are told)!

DonS

How sad that this study was done by sociologists and not by scientists. What do the sociologists know about climate change and how did they learn it? This study is a continuation of the socialist methodology of ideologically corralling groups of people so that they can be managed by the state. There ain’t no science involved that wouldn’t be fully understood by any high school clique.
There’s nothing here that WUWT contributors don’t already know. Every time a phrenologist weighs in on these issues the water just gets muddier.

jack morrow

Gas $5.00 in lots of places. US debt is soaring and the S&P rating of US just lowered, Europe falling into economic crisis, and the Mideast is afire. These things are going to stop all the talk about “Global Warming” and all other such stuff. The magnitude of these things are going to be the only news shortly.

Richard M

You can tell the bais of the researches when they use the ambiguous term “climate change”. Anyone with half a brain knows climate has always been changing so a good researcher would NEVER use that term. End of story.

What total drivel.
There is something special about climate change and how people think about it?
One could rewrite this article on economic change, or religious tolerance change, or attitudes toward legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling….and on and on forever. Change just a few words and you get the exact same conclusions.
People get info from sources they trust and are aligned with their personal belief systems and are biased in their conclusions as a result. The most polarized and vocal opinions come from the people who believe themselves to be best informed. The final judgment is always meted out by the real world when actual results trump theory…or at least for the few years that it takes for people to forget the past and condemn themselves to repeating it.
This “study” has diddly squat to do with climate change. This is how people are on every issue you can think of. This is just an article trumped up to make climate change look special. The authors who no damn well this is the case stand convicted of joining that long list of pigs shouldering their way to the public trough to gorge themselves on other people’s money while pretending that they’ve done something special.

randy

People were asked “Is the climate changing?”?
Well duh. Today, yesterday and tomorrow.
I would like to see them ask instead “Do you believe the normal state of climate is 100% static”.

Martin457

What I know about climate change; it happens.
What I know about AGFW; the UN wants more money.

Douglas Dc

jack morrow- agreed the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room is Iran. He is about to let wind (methane) and the world is going to have to deal with him (meaning the USA)
It is August 1939,not October 1929…
Prediction: in a few weeks the least of our worries is going to be AGW..

Olen

Rigging and kissing.
They said, “no leading science organization disagrees that human activities are now changing the Earth’s climate”.
Aren’t the leading science organizations government organizations having been caught rigging their research and reports to agree with their political benefactors?
They continued, “The strong scientific agreement on this point contrasts with the partisan disagreement seen on all of our surveys”.
Why use the word partisan, and why add it to disagreement? I would say the survey is a partisan survey. And what strong scientific agreement are they talking about, consensus maybe.
From a special dictionary: consensus equals kissing the hand that pays you. Or knowing which side of the bread the butter is on.

Alan the Brit

The strong scientific agreement on this point contrasts with the partisan disagreement seen on all of our surveys,” said Lawrence Hamilton, professor of sociology and senior fellow with the UNH Carsey Institute.
As I said a little further down the blog page in the previous post, he has “Scientist” tagged on to the end of his “Sociology” bit of his qualification! My recollection of Sociology students at Kingston college was that they were out all night, every night”socialising” in the pubs & bars around Kingston. During the day they seemed to hang around campus supposedly spending time in the library (pronounced “bar”) reading. We engineering students went out for a few drinks on a Wednesday eveing, & Friday & Saturday evenings. All other times we had assignments to get in every week for 10 subjects. Sociologists seem to me to spend a lot of time analysing “feelings”. Very scientific I must say.

bubbagyro

Many here have missed the point of the article. The NH Senate is voting this week on the RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative),. The House has resoundingly supported the Bill at a 2:1 rate. The Bill would have New Hampshire withdraw from the Massachusetts promulgated RGGI and be a first nail in the coffin of the EPA ruling.
Now that we Scientists (I put us here with a capital “S”) know the above little extra fact, what is your hypothesis as to what this article is all about? What is your hypothesis as to why this article came out now? I’ll let you all have 3 guesses for each query, first two don’t count.

Charlie Foxtrot

The authors of this survey are clearly biased in favor of AGW. Like all surveys, the devil is in the details. I don’t have the time or curiosity to delve into the guts of the survey, but based on the tone of the authors, I am skeptical of the accuracy and fairness of the results. On the other hand, the results sound like what I would have expected. Getting anyone who has invested time and effort into personal research on climate to change their mind will not be easy.

DD More

People increasingly choose news sources that match their own views. Moreover, they tend to selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into their pre-existing beliefs,” Hamilton said.
So normal people’s ‘bull-hat meters’ really do work.

greg holmes

Wonderful, now we have a socialogist stating “facts” which are not correct.
Have a gentle look around at society today, you will see the results of socialogy and I would guess, nay I know that their models 20 years ago would not even be close to reality.
Forget this twaddle and move on folks. AGW is a myth.

James Sexton

Most Americans now agree that climate change is occurring, but still disagree on why, with opinions about the cause of climate change defined by political party, not scientific understanding,…….
==============================================
Well, with an opening statement as such, I can see where they’re trying to go with this tripe. Most of us rational people know the climate as always changed. And there isn’t anything that has changed about that. They’re arguing semantics as understanding.
Now agree? We’ve always agreed. It is simply the way it is worded.
“However, most people gather information about climate change not directly from scientists ….. Well, if we did, then we’d know winter snow is both increasing and decreasing because of CAGW. And that CAGW simultaneously causes both floods and droughts in the same places. And saltier oceans and desalinized oceans……. and my favorite term, climate change causes “warmcold”.
Warmcold is the fruition of Arthur Blairs dystopian vision……….
“But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
This is what you’d have to believe if you were to believe the information of CC from climatologists.

D Matteson

This is most likely the same UNH Institute that has a very unreliable record as a polling organization.
In the 2010 MA election of Scott Brown (R) vs Martha Coakley (D), they predicted the looser Coakly would be the winner.

Patrick Davis

“jack morrow says:
April 20, 2011 at 6:45 am”
Perfect timing for a royal wedding, a distraction, taxes and laws past without constiuent input.

Frank K.

jack morrow says:
April 20, 2011 at 6:45 am
“Gas $5.00 in lots of places.”
Remember when that used to be a crisis??
Gas prices rattle Americans
By Judy Keen and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY
Updated 5/9/2008 11:16 AM
“Record high gas prices are prompting Americans to drive less for the first time in nearly three decades, squeezing family budgets and causing major shifts in driving habits, federal data and a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll show.”

“Dawn Morris, a consultant in Dover, Del., is blunt about how gas prices are affecting her family.”
“It’s killing us,” she says. She and her husband often stay home on weekends, and when she balances her checkbook, “every third line it says gas: $20, $30, $50.”

Nowadays, it simply means we need to buy a new “green” $40,000 electric vehicle…
And this is but one of the fruits of the current CAGW scientific/political cult…

NikFromNYC

JohnQPublic wrote: “Here’s a simple explanation: Democrats mistrust humanity and its place in nature and Republicans trust humanity and its place in nature.”
Not if you are a biologist who wants to create a new stem cell line in order to keep up with the rest of the world in the most cutting edge science of all.
Not if you are a geneticist studying ancient DNA in ways that support instead of deny Creationism.
Not if you are a nutritionist trying to point out to people the errors of the Ancel Keys “processed grains are good for you and fat is bad” food pyramid.
Republicans continue to be Bible thumpers, basically, and Global Warming caused by man rubbed them the wrong way, as especially does Darwinism. They are an “enemy of an enemy” rather than a particularly good friend.

NikFromNYC

[Not if you are a geneticist studying ancient DNA in ways that support instead of deny Creationism]
typo word flip: support/deny

old construction worker

Do I believe in climate change? Yes. 120,000 years ago my house would have been under a lot of ice. Now it is not. About 9000 years ago we had a cold spell followed by a warm spell. Then this happened again about 5000 years ago, the Minoan warming followed by cold spell, roman warming followed by cooling and MWP followed by LIA
The Real question is “do I believe in CO2 induced global warming?”. NO.
Don’t let them change the question.