While paid political activist Bill McKibben wails about the “new normal” of supposed climate change driven severe weather stated here on CNN, buoyed by emotion but which is totally unsupported by the data, we have this new inconvenient truth:
Climate Change Poll Finds Most Americans Unwilling To Pay Higher Energy Costs
WASHINGTON — Only one in five Americans would be willing to pay significantly more for gas or electricity, even if they were assured that it meant solving the climate change crisis, according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted this week.
Most Americans, according to the survey, believe that climate change is occurring and that it causes serious problems, including more frequent and severe natural disasters. But only 21 percent said they would be willing to pay 50 percent more at the pump or for electricity bills to fight it. Fifty-four percent say they would be unwilling to do so. The rest were unsure.
The reluctance to pay significantly more for energy to stop climate change isn’t limited to deniers or to those who think it’s an insignificant problem.
More here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=2067125
Remember these sorts of pronouncements post hurricane Katrina?
Hurricanes were supposed to get bigger and more frequent, instead we’ve had an unbroken 7 years long drought for major Cat3-5 hurricanes, and Sandy wasn’t even a hurricane when it made landfall. The last Category 3 or stronger storm to make landfall was Hurricane Wilma making landfall on October 24, 2005. The more than seven years (2568 days as of today – ref here) since then is the longest such span in over a century.
Challenge to readers: find a similar buzzword statement of “new normal” made in the press on on blogs post-Katrina
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Paying more may not even reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide. It would shift who can afford to burn the carbon. More power and wealth would be consumed by government frauds and wars.The climate change crisis cab be solved without any cost because it is an imaginary crisis created by propaganda.
This part made me laugh:
OPPENHEIMER: We need to make it more difficult for people to situate infrastructure right on the coast. Actually, we shouldn’t allow it unless it’s absolutely necessary.
AMANPOUR: So ban it, bring everything in from the coast?
OPPENHEIMER: Everything. It needs — and all new buildings should be in.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1211/02/ampr.01.html
Tell that to Al Gore, Mike. Here are some old news reports (back when few had even heard the phrase climate change) of storms battering Montecino, California where Gore bought a $9 million ocean view villa.
Storm Socks California With Unexpected Fury
Ellensburg Daily Record – Dec 16, 1988
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=G4pUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=do8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5222,8734497&dq=montecito+california+hurricane+%7C+storm+%7C+typhoon&hl=en
Week’s Fourth Storm Hits Southern California Coast .
Youngstown Vindicator – Jan 29, 1983
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ACRAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=klgMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3815,4546385&dq=montecito+california+hurricane+%7C+storm+%7C+typhoon&hl=en
California Floods Make Thousands Leave Homes .
Palm Beach Daily News – Jan 27, 1969
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ahIuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=F5cFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2015,4851377&dq=montecito+california+hurricane+%7C+storm+%7C+typhoon&hl=en
Rains Let Up In California
Milwaukee Journal – Jan 27, 1969
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=uwMqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HSgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3382,3321742&dq=montecito+california+hurricane+%7C+storm+%7C+typhoon&hl=en
Storm Caused Slides Hit California Homes
The Spokesman-Review – Nov 10, 1964
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ahdZAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8ugDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6868,3515002&dq=montecito+california+hurricane+%7C+storm+%7C+typhoon&hl=en
Only one in five Americans would be willing to pay significantly more for gas or electricity, even if they were assured that it meant solving the climate change crisis, according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted this week.
Most Americans know full well the worth of the promises of politicians, and mere assurances are worth less than that (if possible).
But only 21 percent said they would be willing to pay 50 percent more at the pump or for electricity bills to fight it. Fifty-four percent say they would be unwilling to do so. The rest were unsure.
The “willingness” of the citizenry is a nebulous concept, with a working definition of being willing to be forced by strength of law and arms into obedience to governmental mandates. Since this is not assured, (C)AGW-pushing activists instead push for those mandates “for the greater good”, “for their own good”.
Such acceptable abuse of the language is seen in recent campaign ads, where Obama speaks of “asking the wealthy to pay a little more”. When the consequences of not acceding to such a gentle request are intrusive audits, life-wrecking investigations, government confiscation of wealth, and jail time. If I was one of the wealthy, I wouldn’t even wait for the final election results, I would have started evacuating my wealth to somewhere sane the moment I heard “asking”.
What does “willingness” matter when sacrifices are demanded on the altar of “The Greater Good”? The real message of McKibben and cronies, is that it doesn’t. Plus it must be mutual sacrifice. Gore and McKibben will not surrender a single ox from their vast herds, until it is mandated the poor little guy must give up one of his two remaining chickens. And that guy must go first so G&M are assured it won’t just be they who are slightly inconvenienced.
Steve Oregon says:
November 3, 2012 at 2:11 pm
You’re getting at something there. McKibben’s 350.org is funded by the Rockefeller foundation.
Rockefeller Family Foundation >> Sustainable Markets Foundation >> 350.org
>> “It’s hot in here” (Youth lunatics)
http://compleatpatriot.blogspot.com/2009/10/peer-reviewed-earth-sciences-literature.html
The new normal for me is going naked on hurricane insurance on my home in SW Florida. I’m putting two thousand dollars a year for the past 3 years where my mouth is, or rather where my wallet is. It helps for me not having a mortgage, therefor I’m not required to buy hurricane insurance mortgage companies require.
I’ve been following solar activity and science on WUWT since a few months before US House passed the 1,300+ page Cap and Trade carbon tax Bill on June 29, 2009. It was the energy tax assault on me that gave me the motivation to fight it with every fiber of my being. I was armed with solar science knowledge and after discovering the Sun was experiencing a solar minimum, I was armed with a bazooka.
Every year for the past 5 years I’ve been telling family and friends with their own houses, there will be zero hurricanes in SW Florida, and that means I don’t have to put their hurricane shutters up, thanks to the extended solar minimum. I plan on milking the extended solar minimum saving me work and money for many years to come. And that from a person who rode out and lived through Hurricane Charley that hit me in my neck of the woods back in August 2004.
Sure, I believe that up to 80% of the population is unwilling to pay the price of addressing AGW. We are, indeed, a nation of sheep that will listen to the most powerful forces especially when their message is so soothing (don’t worry be happy). The fossil fuel industries have such a strong death grip on our political system that very few electred officials dare to mention the words, man-caused global warming.
And many on this web site attribute this statistic to the “intelligence” and “common sense” of Americans. That is, the public supposedly “knows better” than the professional climate scientists of their own country. What hope is there for such a ship of fools? It should never be said that we do not deserve what we are headed for.
Another good one is that when it is finally very obvious to all that we are in too deep to get out, the likes of Anthony Watts will be blaming the scientists of the world for not issuing the warmings suffeiciently clearly. In the meantime, Anthony, congradulations!! You and you fossil fuel friends are indeed winning the most important argument human beings have ever had. I hope your grandchildred remain proud of in a couple decades.
The disconnect is palpable. The questions are pretty leading, though:
In your opinion, is global warming occurring, or not?
Global warming is
occurring 61.3% (D-83.6%, R-44.5%)
Do you think that the storm affecting the East Coast this week is related to global warming, or not?
Is related 31.9% (D-50.7%, R-13.2%)
Do you think changes in the global climate are…?
Related to more
frequent and
severe natural
disasters – 51.2% (D-71.6% R-24.8%)
If it meant we could stop climate change, would you personally be willing to pay 50 percent more on your gas and electricity bills?
Yes – 21.1% (D-34%, R-5.8%)
Notice that, despite all the palaver, hype, and hoopla, only 31.9% of respondents say Sandy is related to global warming.
The real doozy of a leading question is the 3rd – Are changes in global climate related to “more frequent and severe natural disasters”? It simply assumes that natural disasters are becoming both more sever and more frequent – a complete lie.
The differences in the answers between Democrat and Republican are striking.
michaelwiseguy says:
November 3, 2012 at 3:33 pm
I fear you might have it wrong. We are still at a high temperature plateau and probably falling back into cooling (see Bastardi’s “TripleCrown Of Cooling”). With cooling comes a return to the higher hurricane frequency of the past. If I were in your position I’d consider getting the insurance again. Hurricane strikes were far more frequent before 1960 – when it was cooler.
It’s not absolute temperature that drives them but temperature differences. Just my opinion.
If given 4 more years, it will not be a poll…….
Starzmom says: I note that the loudest screaming out of the Sandy-stricken area is from people who want energy to be available.
—————————-
I noticed the same thing. When the power is back on, this event will immediately transition to the back pages (so to speak). I’m in Michigan where a proposal to modifiy the constitution of Michigan to mandate 25% “renewable” energy to produce electricity by 2025 is on the ballot. Renewable means “wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower”. But as we in Michigan are in the process of removing dams left and right, pretty much hydropower is out. As we are in the far north and with frequent cloudy conditions, solar is pretty inefficient. I don’t believe it will pass as most people realize that this will raise electric rates substantially. I think this supports the poll that most people are not willing to pay more to save the world.
It’s not just a drought of Majors making US landfall.
The last ATLANTIC Cat 5 was Felix in 2007 (there were two in 2007 – Dean and Felix). Can’t find any reference of ATLANTIC storms becoming Cat 5’s after then.
There have been only one PACIFIC Cat 5 since then: Celia in 2010.
True, this season’s not over yet…
ericgrimsrud says:
“Sure, I believe that up to 80% of the population is unwilling to pay the price of addressing AGW.”
That is because 80% of the population is smarter than you.
First off, there is ample evidence showing that fossil fuels are the primary reason for our standard of living and the reason for our increasing lifespans. You, being a hypocrite, will not give up the use of fossil fuels. You will justify it in your own mind somehow. But you will still be a hypocrite.
And also: there is no empirical evidence showing that AGW exists. It’s like a guy lying in bed at night in a dark room. He is certain that a black cat is under his bed. He can almost hear it breathing. But when he turns on the light… there is no cat. And there never was.
Wake me when/if you find any empirical evidence showing a direct connection between human CO2 emissions and [currently non-existent] global warming. Until then, you are no different than Chicken Little. The sky isn’t falling. You only got hit on the head with an acorn.
I’d be willing to pay a carbon dioxide tax based on the global average temperature increase. But I doubt that my government is willing to refund my money when the temperature drops.
By the way, I pay a carbon tax already, and I am very angry about that (are you listening premier Chrisy Clark)
http://www.canada.com/news/national/Alberta+election+wizard+shares+winning+tricks+with+Liberals/7458221/story.html
ericgrimsrud says:
November 3, 2012 at 4:37 pm
“And many on this web site attribute this statistic to the “intelligence” and “common sense” of Americans. That is, the public supposedly “knows better” than the professional climate scientists of their own country. What hope is there for such a ship of fools? ”
The professional climate scientist knows very well that climate models do not have predictive skill. But why tell the public as long as the money flows?
I find it amusing how ericgrimsrud sounds like Gary Lance after one too many drinks when he gives up suppressing his foreign accent. “You fossil fuel…” “In couple years when your grandkids…” “We see how long you keep deny when sea rise up and you strangle on kelp…” Repeat for forty sentences or 4 paragraphs, whichever comes first, and repeat the same thing for the next five comments. Hilarious.
Anything wrong with laughing at that?
ericgrimsrud:-
Obviously you are a lot smarter than Anthony or the people who post here. What I don’t understand is why you waste your valuable time trolling this blog.
Why don’t you use your time to build a chain of natural organic no-carbon gas stations? After that you could set up a non-fossil electric utility and put our evil coal mining funders out of business. We are waiting. Show us.
ericgrimsrud says:
November 3, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Can you substantiate that please?
As far as I can see, all the oil & gas industries are backing the AGW meme to the hilt.
That leaves coal which is suspiciously quiet. I guess their markets are secure whatever happens.
DaveE.
Thanks. But upon re-reading I see I messed it up! Here’s a do-over …
I wonder why McKibben, President DingleBarry, Mayor Doomberg and Governor Krispy Kreme are not telling the blackout victims to man-up and be thankful that they are saving the planet by going full-green?
ericgrimsrud says:
November 3, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Sure, I believe that up to 80% of the population is unwilling to pay the price of addressing AGW.
Why should they? Global warming is obviously not catastrophic. The 1998 mark is still not beaten on four major data sets. As well, six major data sets have 2012 in 10th place and with just a few months left, the relative ranking will not change much.
Due to Sandy, apparently immediate action is to be taken. But spending billions of dollars on carbon capture to potentially reduce the global temperature by 1/1000 degree in 100 years is not the immediate action that is required. Instead, a few million dollars should be spent to make sure the backup generators in the hospitals do not fail should another “Sandy” come next year.
Werner Brozek says: November 3, 2012 at 8:48 pm
“…. Instead, a few million dollars should be spent to make sure the backup generators in the hospitals do not fail should another “Sandy” come next year.>>>”
Damn right. Money would be better spent on more efficient and resilient infrastructure. Energy is still needed, things still must be transported.
If they really want to save energy then simply make the systems more efficient!
Why has Mitt Romney not pointed out that the money wasted on Wind Turbines and other useless green projects should have been spent on improving flood defences for places like New York and New Orleans ?
Ross Lea says:
November 4, 2012 at 3:01 am
“Why has Mitt Romney not pointed out ”
Why hasn’t BHO?
The article said “…But only 21 percent said they would be willing to pay 50 percent more at the pump or for electricity bills to fight it. Fifty-four percent say they would be unwilling to do so. The rest were unsure…”
To which ericgrimsrud replied (November 3, 2012 at 4:37 pm)
“…And many on this web site attribute this statistic to the “intelligence” and “common sense” of Americans. That is, the public supposedly “knows better” than the professional climate scientists of their own country. What hope is there for such a ship of fools? It should never be said that we do not deserve what we are headed for…”
Maybe you’re right. Let that 21 percent of the people who want to pay 50 percent more at the pump do so. Give them special badges that allows them to pay that special price, while the fifty-four percent who say they would be unwilling to do so continue to pay the normal price.
Then we’ll see about the remaining 25 percent who are unsure. Let’s see what side they decide to fall on then.
Better yet, force all people to pay the higher price. Tell the people in Hawaii who are currently averaging $4.23 a gal that you want them to pay about $6.34 a gal because the global temperatures have risen about a degree in the past century. See if they’re intelligent enough or have the common sense to see through that argument.
Blade said (November 3, 2012 at 8:45 pm)
“…I wonder why McKibben, President DingleBarry, Mayor Doomberg and Governor Krispy Kreme are not telling the blackout victims to man-up and be thankful that they are saving the planet by going full-green?…”
Good question. They can do what I do every year for Earth Day, when they ask us to turn out our lights for an hour – I tell them that after Katrina my power was off for a month. By that account, I’ve made up for the next 720 “earth days”.
As with countless similar polls, the questions are skewed in favor of CAGW, which means that had they been honest questions, the results would have been even more dire for the poor erics of this world. Imagine what a terrible burden they must bear, when, even in a CAGW-inspired poll, only slightly more than 1/3 of his Democrat buddies would be willing to pay 50% more for energy if it meant “stopping climate change”. Such hypocrisy can’t be good for the psyche.