From Angus Reid Public Opinion:
Half of respondents in the two North American countries think climate change is a fact and is caused by emissions—fewer Britons concur.
While Canadians continue to be more likely than Americans and Britons to blame global warming on man-made emissions, they are not as unwavering about it as they were last year, a new three-country Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
Overall, half of Canadians (52%, -8 since October) and Americans (49%, +7) say that that global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities. Only 43 per cent of Britons (-4) agree with this assessment.
In the United States, one-in-five respondents (20%, -5) think that global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven, along with 20 per cent of Britons (+2) and 14 per cent of Canadians (=).
More than half of Canadians (55%, -6) believe it is more important to protect the environment, even at the risk of hampering economic growth, while 22 per cent (+4) would prefer to foster economic growth, even at the risk of damaging the environment.
In the United States, 47 per cent of respondents (+2) would emphasize protecting the environment, while 26 per cent (-4) would foster economic growth. The biggest change since last year comes in Britain, where only 40 per cent of respondents would protect the environment (-11) and 33 per cent would prefer to foster economic growth (+11).
Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)
h/t to WUWT reader JB Williamson
petermue says:
“It is the nature of science that theory is always and forever subject to new information and can be invalidated by new evidence only so long as a more useful theory comes as a result of that evidence.”
A theory or hypothesis can be invalidated without a replacement theory or hypothesis. We generally (outside of climate science anyway) design experiments to test a hypothesis’ validity and that test does not always lead to another hypothesis per se.
For example let’s say my car doesn’t start, my initial hypothesis (guess) might be that the battery is dead. I could then test the battery and discover that it is indeed in good condition. My hypothesis is invalidated while only eliminating one of many other possibilities leaving me without any further hypothesis from the evidence that the battery is good alone (other than it’s not the battery).
Although, the CAGW theory of High Sensitivity Climate has been invalidated and replaced with Low Sensitivity Climate Theory by several lines of evidence including Trenberth’s: Earth’s Energy Balance
Which provides us with the total near surface downward heat flux of 494 W/m2 resulting in an average temperature of 288K; so, the climate sensitivity was 288/494 ~ 0.6K / W/m2 on average for the period of observation over the entire heat flux range. Even though the heat flux to resulting temperature is NOT a linear relationship it’s still useful to know the average for comparison to sensitivity claims. The farther one claims sensitivity is away from 0.6K / W/m2 the more skeptical I become.
With all ‘polling’ one must check the fine print.
Methodology: From August 25 to September 2, 2010 Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 1,001 Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panellists, 1,000 American adults who are Springboard America panellists, and 2,005 British adults who are Springboard UK panellists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.1% for Canada and the United States, and 2.2 per cent for Great Britain. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure samples representative of the entire adult population of Canada, the U.S. and Great Britain. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.
Does anyone here actually belong to one of these ‘Panels’?
What matt v. said. The CTV and CBC have been in our faces so long that a lot of people believe everything they say. Even so called conservatives. And the newspapers are probably the worst. As others have said only the National Post, Sun tv news and Quebecor media go after this lie in this country. There are some good blogs as well. Kate at Small Dead Animals is one of the best blogs at exposing this garbage among other things.
Here in Canada, the official news agency TASS, err oops, I mean the CBC 😉 has their own CAGW propagandist-in-chief David Suzuki celebrating the apparent lower level of skepticism in Canada:
http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/09/12/itunes-back-to-school-series-david-suzuki/
“Suzuki points to the deep level of skepticism in the U.S. about climate change, as opposed to Canada, where an “overwhelming majority of people know that something is going on.””
Yeah, “something is going on” all right. Just follow the money.
If everyone had been allowed to hear as much about the lies, cheating and falsehoods put out by the so called AGW ‘expert scientists’, and slavishly accepted by almost every media outlet, as they do about the false claims put out by the AGW cult, then I’m sure the results of the poll would be very different indeed. Balanced arguments are an anathema to the press which consistently turns a deaf ear to logical scientific papers that dispute the AGW dogma on the subject. In these very unbalanced circumstances therefore, I think the poll results are surprisingly good for the sceptics and far from being the results that the cult would have liked to have seen; polls that will go even more against the accepted doctrine as the months and years progress.
Here in the US I believe that many still get their ‘news’ form TV sources such CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. A growing number have abandoned these sources of bias / propaganda reporting. It is possible that the poll results are heavily weighted by the views of those that still follow the mainstream media. I don’t believe that the results would be nearly as favorable for the AGW warming tilt as would be if both sides of the debate were presented.
The MSM is often laughed at by most within my circles with their exaggerated level of reporting and bias. The ridicule is often a topic of comical conversations (i.e. what will they say next?). The TV and many newspapers are quickly becoming irrelevant. This shows in their circulation totals.
It is true from my observations of human folly that there will be some who are so convinced in their views regarding CAGW that everything that happens is a result of global warming. If they want it to be the hottest summer that they can ever remember because of several 95 degree days, then “it’s global warming and don’t tell me about any of the other summer temps”. If they want it to be global warming and you express how cool it has been this summer where we live, they quickly point out the drought and fires in Texas, having nothing to do with the conversation at hand. If you point out the frigid winters and lots of snow the past few years, you get the “that’s what global warming does” pitch. If you suggest checking out a web site for a little more perspective on AGW, you get the “you can’t believe what you read on the internet”. I could go on but this is enough. The reliance of ‘TV news’ has caused quite a bit of confusion in the populace and in my opinion is influencing the decay of this country. The press / MSM should be ashamed.
To the editor’s in the mainstream media I suggest this; you have done a good job of controlling the debate with your clear bias and now fewer are listening to you. You are now preaching to the choir. But at least attempt to be somewhat truthful to those who will still listen. After all, they still trust you.
Oh dear. It would appear that the Angus Reid Forum Panel is not exactly a random sample. According to their Rules and Regulations (available here: https://www.angusreidforum.com/skin/images/en-ca/rr.pdf)
the panel is composed of self-selected volunteers who are paid for participating in the surveys. They may try to balance their survey respondents based on demographic data, but the bottom line is that the panelists are motivated respondents.
In great Britain maybe only 43% of the people ‘believe in AGW’ but unfortunately all MPs (ie government and opposition) do believe in it; and there is only one Green Party MP among the lot of them. On the matter of renewables (the economically bankrupting unspeakable windfarms) we are being dictated to by the EU; and anything they tell us to do we jump.
1.Those who wish to vote against the UK climate bill, might I suggest e-petitions (epetitions.direct.gov.uk), you might even enjoy yourself looking through some wild, wacky and worthy petitions to Parliament.
2. I despair of the BBC and it’s current climate/weather site, it is completely biased,
3. Finally, I hear dire and grim winter forecasts for the UK partly based on the shifting gulfstream which appears to have gone west, can anyone enlighten me?
jeff says:
“In the United States the question [CAGW] has become a proxy for whether you support a gasoline and electricity tax hike.”
My guess is you are right, but I suggest you should also note that the playing field of CAGW concerns in the USA is exploding. In the past few weeks CAGW has emerged as a key media litmus test for 2012 Republican and Democratic candidates. That means the USA is about to engage in a presidential political debate that will include a sharp focus on CAGW. Wherever one stands on the issue, it will be an excellent chance for major constructive changes in climate science and its public policy implications.
The WUWT website and its entire contributor community deserve exuberant high fives for their roles in giving the rest of us this marvelous opportunity.
To see how deep Big Green is playing in Canada check how Andrew Weaver is playing politics in BC: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/clarks-hydro-policy-threatens-to-collapse-climate-change-progress-scientist-says/article2157488/
They present him as a Nobel award winning without the precision that he won it with the IPCC and that it was a political award not a peer scientific one. Already the utility company promotion was given to Hoggan and his public relation firm. He is the owner of Desmogblog and chairman of the David Suzuki Foundationand taxpayers spent in excess of $500 million in 8 years in advertisement while the supposedly smart meters are supposed to bring the same savings in 20 years!!!
Weaver like Jaccard have unduly influence on BC politicians: school boards have to pay some government trust to compensate their CO2 emissions! Jaccard has brought the BC Carbon tax and if the Aussie one is useless, imagine what the BC one is!
Weaver is also using attack lawyers against Tim Ball and in their brief they dare presenting him also as a Nobel winner without distinction between the political Peace Prize and the real scientific award. Weaver is Hansen’s north! LOL
Springboard America panelists are not a random sample. They are invited to join the organization for the purpose of completing on-line surveys on matters of interest to them. For each on-line survey they complete they are credited with “Survey Dollars”. When they reach 50 Survey Dollars, the credits can be redeemed for cash or merchandise.
This is hardly a scientific “poll”.
https://www.springboardamerica.com/PORTAL/support-and-faqs.aspx
pauline says:
September 13, 2011 at 10:11 am
3. Finally, I hear dire and grim winter forecasts for the UK partly based on the shifting gulfstream which appears to have gone west, can anyone enlighten me?
It’s probably due to reduced solar activity allowing increased cloud formation from aerosols produced by cosmic rays, This in turn leads to global cooling – see Henrik Svensmark and Cern ‘Cloud’ experiment.
BC Hydro 2011 versus 2010: for the same amount used, + 9%
“In the United States, 47 per cent of respondents (+2) would emphasize protecting the environment, while 26 per cent (-4) would foster economic growth.”
It is an online survey so i don’t know ho valid it is.
Check these polls same time next year they WILL down!
Here in Canada we still have the green wash mentality at the Provincial (State) and Municipal government level. They push Carbon taxes, wind-power, run of the river projects and solar At 6+ times the cost of hydro or gas Electric production plus the wonderful world saving Smart meters and the Mercury laden light bulbs. Our Media seems to love pushing the doom and gloom climate scenarios. and don’t forget the alarmist in chef David Suzuki and his Foundation who owns multiple homes (Mansions) and is on of the founding members of the million mile air club to promote the warmist don’t fly ,don’t drive ,don’t breath agenda for the little people.
That’s a crock poll on Canadians – that is a poll of Ontario and no doubt the hard Leftists in British Columbia, the home of David Suzuki, the Canadian fool, Al’s little buddy. BTW, Ontario residents a few days of plus 30C in Toronto doesn’t signify Canada warming – and this is strictly for Toronto residents only – Canada is the second largest land mass on planet earth – Toronto is the pimple on Canada’s – well you know what I want to write. Western Canadians are not that stupid. Why? My temperature dropped to -1C last night – extremely early for temperature of this type. Believe me this is gonna be one heck of a cold winter. BTW, ice comes and goes as it has done for millions of years and the planet earth is still standing and doing very well.
Moreover, can anyone in their right mind find fault with a slightly longer growing season for FOOD? Anyone? I’d love to ride my Harley a few days more than I do in Canada – heck I want it as warm as it was when dinosaurs roamed North America all the way to the Northern land mass – they thrived.
If you changed the question to dangerous or catastrophic warming which is really the point, it would no doubt be much lower.
What’s hilarious is that the “mitigation” strategies, if you get down to the fine print, hope only to reduce the increase by a few % of 1° given realistic CO2 cuts, and even less if the self-protective intransigent sanity of China and India are accounted for. The actual impact, IOW, of “mitigation” will be below the LND (Least Noticeable Difference) threshold for both humans and crops.
The positive sign in this survey is the trend of these numbers . Despite the massive sanitization of climate news by the mainstream media in Canada , the public is gradually not buying the flawed AGW science nor the biased reporting. A similar survey done by the same firm in 03/22/07 found that 77% of respondents think the science behind climate change estimates is real . This latest survey shows that only 52 % think that global warming is a fact and caused by man and this latest number is down 8% from just last October
The only good source of news that Canadians have is CBC (our national broadcaster) and CBC is notably and obsessively politically correct with a few exceptions such as CBC radio’s Ideas show. One of the really huge failings in the whole AGW farce has been the unwillingness of reporters to actually look into the scientific literature to present a balanced picture. Maybe reporters are just too scientifically illiterate to be reporting on important matters?
As usual, the correct answer is not amongst the options. How about:
The planet has experienced well over a decade with no global warming. No knowledgeable person would express any certainty that the globe is currently warming (well, except for the IPCC liars, but they are lying). The most recent data actually shows that the sea level has started to fall. Sea level is determined primarily by the thermal expansion of the oceans (secondarily by ice melt). Dropping sea levels are a very strong indication that the oceans are starting to cool, and for all intents and purposes, ocean temperature IS planetary temperature, as the vast majority of the eco-sphere’s thermal energy is stored in the ocean’s, with only a relatively tiny amount stored in the atmosphere.
Those are very interesting statistics. 3-4 years ago, a British friend of my acquaintance liked to mock US climate skeptics as conclusive evidence of (from his view) proto-typical anti-science know-nothingism in the US. He was very proud of how the British public (at that time) accepted the obvious scientific truth of AGW and liked to compare stats on the matter at every chance.
These stats confuse me.
People say support for AGW is plummeting.
Yet these stats show about half in each of the three countries say there is change and blame humans.
Perhaps it is the question asked – some surveys ask to rank in importance, the economy and other immediate issues usually come first.
We have a long way to go to convince voters.
Scarcely any of the AGW climate-catastrophe proponents consider trying to convince people to voluntarily work towards reducing the purported threat of global warming. They could lay their cards on the table, openly discuss the science, debate the skeptics and encourage a dialogue about the problem and possible solutions. Instead they want to ridicule and silence skeptics, denigrate any industry they cannot co-opt and force big government solutions upon us.
The market will respond if people believe there is a real problem. They won’t have to regulate light bulbs if they can sell the problem and the solution to us. Companies sell billions of dollars of “green” and “environmentally friendly” products to people who choose to buy them.