Got some vikes, AB, and a nap for my ear infection, decided to check email, found a link to this poll so figured I’d better pass it on. I was surprised.
Here’s question 88:
88. Which statement comes closest to your view about global warming? 1. Global warming is caused mostly by human activity such as burning fossil fuels or 2. Global warming is caused mostly by natural patterns in the earth’s environment. or 3. Global warming does not exist.
And here’s the results:
12 percent don’t think global warming exists. 42 percent say it’s man-made and 33 percent say it’s natural. 7 percent say it is a mixture of both, and 6 percent are in the “I dunno” or didn’t answer category. With only 42 percent saying it is human caused, that puts it in the minority view.
But what I think is even more telling is the fact that it didn’t even show up on the radar in question 3, which asks:
I’m sure “global warming” was in there somewhere, perhaps in the 14 percent of “other” responses seen near the end, but even with Al Gore’s recent media event to try to bring it to the forefront again, it appears to have had zero effect. Also telling: “Environment” gets less than 1 percent.
It’s jobs and economy which get the lions share of concern, which just goes to show that if people are poor, out of work, and hungry, they don’t have time to worry about elitist causes like Al Gore’s global warming crusade.
The poll with all questions is here: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/250094/new-york-times-cbs-poll-results.pdf
The NYT news story on it is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/us/politics/obamas-support-is-slipping-poll-finds-but-his-jobs-plan-is-well-received.html?_r=1
Allanj says September 18, 2011 at 2:51 am: “It is unfortunate because the world human population and human use of energy is growing.”
Yes, it is unfortunate because there are a host of environmental, energy, and population issues that should garner serious attention, but the insane anti-CO2 cult is sucking the life out of every other issue.
Surely the 7% who attribute some human causation to AGW must be added to the 42%, making 49% who follow the “concensus”? The half-and-half split is still a lot better for the scientific argument v the political argument than the figures a few years ago. Isn’t the current scientific evidence-based opinion that there is a human-based contribution to global warming, but the amount cannot be quantified and is likely to be so small that it is largely lost in margins of error of empirical data? Or have I misunderstood current sceptical hypothesis (is)
Bradley J. Fikes says:
September 17, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Bradley,
What an excellent job you did on your local news outlet. And people wonder why I don’t listen to news channels anymore. They can’t even get the basics of their job down. It’s like hiring a carpenter who can’t saw straight.
Keep it up, maybe someone out there will actually start thinking.
John W:
“Very relevant, because it’s difficult to pass “draconian” regulations without support from the voters.”
The experience of the voters of their governments in the US, the UK and other members of the EU is the opposite based on the last 25 years (and particularly since 9/11).
The New York Times now openly employs Johann Hari.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/books/review/three-famines-by-thomas-keneally-book-review.html?_r=1&nl=books&emc=booksupdateema3
This is after Johann Hari, gave the Orwell prize back, seems he made the stuff up. Seems he made lots of stuff up. Seems he writes nasty comments about people on there wiki pages.
Here’s an article by him about so called deniers.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-much-proof-do-the-global-warming-deniers-need-2063077.html
The New York Times is now a JOKE.
Surprising that Louise invokes a Reuters Poll here (September 18, 2011 at 1:03 am) when she is usually amongst the first to attack the messenger with personal remarks and ad hominems whilst ignoring the message.
Can Louise be ignorant of the fact that the Reuters News Agency, like Google and Wikipedia, is signed up to promote alarm over Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Come, come, Louise, exercise some consistency in your approach to propaganda, please! Even better, read some genuine non-alarmist research rather than warmist crib sheets to keep up to date with the rapidly changing developments in climate science.
Public opinion has indeed turned against the IPCC’s “man-made global warming” line but that is neither here nor there. What matters is, are climate research “findings” soundly based? All the rest is blather.
…and then came the lawyers and then came the rules. (Telegraph Road, Dire Straits)
Comparing the laws of physics (or more broadly, the laws of nature), with the legislated laws that govern societies, is comparing different concepts.
When we demise, the laws of nature will relentlessly persist,….. anthropologically uninfluenced.
Therefore, the earth is in no peril from the lawyer dominated politician’s intent to manipulate the natural laws, only the human race will suffer.
BigWaveDave says:
September 17, 2011 at 7:04 pm
“The only way to fix the economy and create more jobs is to start using our own energy resources: instead of pissing our money away on toys and foreign oil.”
Right on! Though I would edit your statement as follows:
“…instead of pissing our money away on worthless climate research and ‘green’ energy boondoggles and foreign oil.”
Of course, I’m still waiting for the CAGW climate
hypocritesscientists to stop all use of petroleum products…still waiting.Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
September 17, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Viva Climate Family Feud! *) Long live to polls!
Sure! It is extremely interesting what morons on the street think about climate!
Mr. Watts, how long yet will you feed WUWT pages with this sh** of polls and what for?
You are confused Mr. Pawelczyk. The issue here is not science, but government propaganda. Propaganda is designed to create a public wide consensus to meet some underlying and unstated purpose. Consensus is both the aim and the lifeblood of propaganda. It can be countered only, repeat only, by counter-consensus. The latter can be achieved (albeit rarely) by members of the public employing logical argument, which will always require bravery on the part of those prepared to make the effort. The need is for the Anthony Watts of this world (may his tribe increase) to stand up and draw the public’s attention to the logic. There can be no victory, none at all, until a counter consensus, the new consensus, has been established.
Sadly, consensus among a select group is of no avail, no matter how knowledgeable the group. Consensus requires morons on the street like me to believe in what the consensus is. The esteemed Mr. Watts and his like minded fellows need us morons simply because there are just so many of us.
I have found it pleasantly surprising that Mr. Watts has tolerated many of us morons for so very long. I suspect that he is wise enough to appreciate that his audience needs to be a wide one.
I think that the growing Solyndra Scandal (aka Solargate) is giving people a very negative opinion of the links between the “green” movement (which is joined at the hip to CAGW climate science) and government. Here’s the latest…
“So now it turns out that the Obama White House was warned privately in no uncertain terms last January against a fresh infusion of taxpayer cash to financially beleaguered Solyndra.”
“Indeed, according to newly released e-mails, a top career official at the Office of Management and Budget warned that the rapidy deteriorating Solyndra situation could damage the president politically.”
“But the solar-paneling company — a centerpiece of President Obama’s “green jobs” initiative — pleaded that it was in danger of collapsing without new capital.”
“So the money went through — and Solyndra went belly-up two weeks ago, after burning through $535 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees.”
From Star Trek “The Movie”
LIA PROBE: “The Creator has not answered. The carbon-units infestation is to be removed from the Creator’s planet.”
I beginning to suspect that Al Gore and his Probes have been sent by the Creator to eliminate all “carbon units” from Earth.
That would explain the Gore Probe’s attempt to label CO2 as a deadly pollutant. Take away CO2 from carbon units and you eliminate their infestation of Earth.
Polling indicates that the public may not be aware of the danger, but their plans move forward.
How big are the underground caverns they are building? And what do they really mean by sequestering Carbon? Carbon Units too?
Earth to Kirk, Earth to Kirk … return to Earth.
V’ger hasn’t been stopped.
R. Gates says:
September 17, 2011 at 9:05 pm
For those who wish to use their view of the “science” to move the political football one way or another for their team, the results of such public polls must be encouraging or discouraging, depending in which team you’re on. For others, perhaps its all too depressing and sign of the sad state of America and the pending dark ages…
============================
“For those who wish to use their view of “science” to move the political football one way or the other”????
Cue Charlie Brown laugh: Hahahahaha.
That remark coming fromYOU has the level of believability comparable to that of a serial killer on the witness stand who tries to opine about the virtues and sacredness of life.
He just has lost all credibility…but yet he just keeps talking…and talking….and talking…incapable of change.
And on your last part, I would add: “And even for others, perhaps it is all to exciting and a sign that not all Americans (and others across the world) have lost their ability to reason.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Marchesarosa – I posted a link and quote from a poll, that is surely as valid as that of the opening post on this thread, without further comment.
Please point out how this leads to your accusing me of “attack the messenger with personal remarks and ad hominems whilst ignoring the message”
BTW – didn’t your own post in effect amount to an attack on Reuters (and me) without mentioning the message?
As the AR5 preparation team reads news of polls like this one from CBS/NYT they know they need to make AR5 alarmingly more alarmist than AR4 in order to have any chance to save the CAGW pseudo-science.
Now they have to increasingly escalate the option of favorably adjusting the scientific peer review process and positioning sympathetic science journal editors.
Exposure of the AR5 process is a high priority.
John
Frank K. says:
September 18, 2011 at 5:35 am
“So now it turns out that the Obama White House was warned privately in no uncertain terms last January against a fresh infusion of taxpayer cash to financially beleaguered Solyndra.”
=================================================================
So our government gave them our money….
…..that they turned around and donated to Obama’s campaign
David L says:
The number of believers still needs to be much smaller. It’s only a few points away from being a majority. Which leads me to the problem of democracy: a system where 51% tells the other 49% what to do.
=======================================================
I don’t know if you are American or not, but many (including a sad number of Americans) do not understand basic civics. A democracy is not 51% wins; that is mob rule. Democracy is majority rules with RESPECT TO MINORITY RIGHTS, and I do not mean racial minorities, but anyone who finds themselves outside of the consensus. In the US, we went one further and became a representative republic to help avoid the “mob”. Leftists want the mob rule because mobs, by their nature, do not think for themselves and are easily led. This is why people like the Goracle tell everyone, “Don’t look into this, we have done it for you and the science is settled.”, and, “Do not listen to those deniers”. ie, quit watching this hand and look over here, look over here at this hand.
The result is consistent with Rasmussen findings over the last several years. It is remarkable, given the constant drumbeat from the media and the government. One must say that without the internet, the alarmists would control pretty much all the organs of information.
Solargate is the poster child example of how our society has been hood winked by fraudulent politicians and their lobbyists friends.
Democracy is rotten to the core. It may be Dems implicated for supporting and enriching their Green socialist friends, but the flip side is no better with defence contractors on the gravy train.
Sarah Palin is far from being the sharpest tool in the shed but one has to resonate with these comments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html?_r=1&ref=sarahpalin
David L says:
September 18, 2011 at 2:33 am
The number of believers still needs to be much smaller. It’s only a few points away from being a majority. Which leads me to the problem of democracy: a system where 51% tells the other 49% what to do.
______
This is a rather skewed vision of what a democracy is, but let’s go with it. It the best case scenario of a pure democracy, you could have 99% of the population telling 1% what to do, and in the worst case, you could have 51% telling 49% what to do (let’s forget tenths of percentages for the sake of argument). So what are the alternatives? Dictatorship where less than 1% (i.e. one person) tells the remainder what to do?
As it stands however, the U.S. is only a Republic in name, but a Plutocracy by practice. The majority of our lawmakers are rich and well connected to their Corporate masters whose lobbyists write the wording in the majority of our laws. So in practice, while the mob gets to “vote”, they get to chose among the rich and corporate backed stoogies. No matter what party you vote for, it’s really just a matter of which Corporation get’s to have their stoogie in office for that term. Until we have true campaign finance reform, term limits, and separate the lobbyists from the seats of government, we currently have maybe 1% (i.e. lobbyists and special interests) telling 99% of us what to do. But so long as the shelves at Walmart are stocked with plastic crap from China and tasty goodies, Americans pretty much like it that way.
I was once polled by Harris and back then I was so excited to be polled I answered all the questions. Later I met someone who worked for Harris and she told me that when she got too many answers she didn’t like, say too many people saying they liked Reagen., she just marked what she thought they should say. The polls were audited but if she didn’t do it too often she could get away with it, and push the poll a few points towards being more liberal. Now days I never answer polls, so my correct thinking is not reflected in the polls.
Question #3 has 14% saying other so Global Warming could be at 14% thinking it is the most important issue. Foreign policy is at less than 1% but considering that foreign policy helps determine which wars we fight or have to fight and how much we spend on defense, I would think it would get at least 1%.
I don’t automatically believe anything I see in the NYT or on CBS, and I have never believed their polls.
Polls are manufactured news.
The public is finally waking up to the fraud behind “climate change you can believe in”. Using “green” as a smoke screen to funnel taxpayer’s money to folks that contribute large to re-election. Stimulus 2, just in time to reward those who contribute to most to the next election. Paid for in jobs exported to China.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0918-20110918,0,6401818,full.column
>> “With only 42 percent saying it is human caused, that puts it in the minority view.”
Uh, if you add the “doesn’t exist” and “natural causes” categories it comes out to 45%. Even so, the “human causes” category has the single highest percentage of any group. The statement above seems a bit of a stretch. Not that the polls mean all that much to me either way.
Anyway, the polls do matter somewhat for policy implications. Speaking of which, say hypothetically the world is warming primarily due to human causes and we are on track for a serious temperature rise of 6 degrees Celsius. What policy would be the best?
To note that of the 42% only 2% were right at the front of new communism, where the other 98% where left behind following as per usual, never mind the issue.
Finally, a scientist that actually gets a prediction right:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391859/The-math-proves-Obama-set-scandal-SOON.html