Brookings Institution survey: Public Concern over Climate Still Bottom of the List
Guest essay by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Public opinion surveys are notoriously easy to manipulate. Depending on how you ask the survey question, you can get just about any results you want.
A recently publicized Washington Post – ABC News poll, timed to coincide with the recent announcement of the Obama EPA proposed power plant CO2 emissions regulations, found a majority of Americans supported CO2 restrictions on coal-fired power plants. But the way the question was asked minimized the supposed cost, and maximized the supposed benefit, of such restrictions on the American economy.
Quoting from the HuffPo article about the survey results:
“Asked whether Washington should still go forward with limits if they “significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly energy expenses by 20 dollars a month,” 63 percent of respondents say yes, including 51 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents and 71 percent of Democrats.”
Hell, even *I* would probably support $20 more a month if it “significantly lowered greenhouse gases”, just to be on the safe side. But it’s NOT going to significantly lower greenhouse gases (on a global basis, which is what matters), nor is it going to cost only $20 a month.
The poll question was so poorly worded and misleading, I think the pollsters should be ashamed of themselves.
A more recent survey of American attitudes on immigration and other matters (including how the various news outlets rank for trustworthiness) was just announced yesterday by the Brookings Institution, and buried in it was the following chart that showed how Americans with different political leanings ranked various concerns.
As is usually the case, “climate” comes in dead last with all groups except self-described “liberals”:
Clearly, jobs and the deficit — basically, “the economy” — is the main concern that most Americans have. And the proposed EPA regulations will hurt far more people than they would help…especially the poor.
Generally speaking, the public has lost faith in scientists whose profession requires them to sound the alarm over global warming climate change climate disruption. Most Americans understand that forecasts of gloom and doom as predicted by “scientific experts” are not as reliable as predictions of, say, this afternoon’s weather.
In fact they have a history of almost zero reliability.
We can predict the time of sunrise in Podunk, Michigan on July 17, fifty years in advance. But not all scientific disciplines are created equally, climate prediction is still in its infancy, and fortunately the public understands that.
Dr. Roy Spencer writes regularly here, please add him to your bookmarked list of sites to visit.
=========================================================
Related:
John Holdren’s ‘personal’ Bi-Polar Vortex video
Quote of the Week – dictators and climate change
I find the location of morals far more informative than the location of climate. It would appear that the more you agree with Adam Smith, the more you consider morality to be important. It sheds light on the antics of some people in this debate.
This liberal does not have climate change on the top-10 list of even environmental issues. For many folks like me, sustainability is the (unassailable) goal, which means the fossil fuel economy does need to be dismantled. But we don’t need the false urgency of climate change.
I wouldn’t pay $1 a month more for costs related to reducing GHG’s. Two reasons: 1) not that stupid, 2) I know people, good people, hard working people, who would have to decide to cut down on buying milk to send in an extra $20 for supposed GHG reduction.
“The poll question was so poorly worded and misleading, I think the pollsters should be ashamed of themselves.”
The author of this post is confused. The survey authors have a great deal of which to be proud:
“Sir Humphrey Appleby demonstrates the use of leading questions to skew an opinion survey to support or oppose National Service (Military Conscription).”
Just sayin’
I like the third column where Liberals rate climate above morals.
I guess Peter Glieck is not alone.
Ah ha! No wonder when survey folks find out its me behind the door they throw eggs while making a fast retreat!
Roy,
When you say Podunk, Michigan, are you referring to the metropolis of Dafter?
Yes, the pollsters should be ashamed of themselves, but they aren’t- they are getting paid to do what they do. Likewise, some journalists should be ashamed of themselves, but they aren’t- they also are paid to do what they do.
I agree that climate science has become somewhat tarnished by the climate alarmism. Those responsible do not slacken their efforts, and now it is the prez who does it. What a world- a modern day witch hunt led by the Pres of the US.
Government can only lower morality it can never improve on it. China / Taiwan is a good example of that. Generally the same body of ethnicity with the primary difference is how corrupted the system of governments. The government of China for decades set up a system if you lived strictly by their laws you would starve to death by not making ends meat with the cap on income.
Citizens of China got around it by creating a huge black market. When your whole livelihood is based on criminal activity morality is based on the thug mentality.
We as consumers can visually see the results of morality on items we buy coming from both countries with Taiwanese products being of better quality.
Better quality items at similar costs should give more jobs unless there is an artificial set of rules to buy from the thug mentality as is happening with the trade we are seeing today.
Perhaps the question could have been framed more correctly:
“Would you agree with CO2 limits on coal plants of the affect on global temperatures was an immeasurable 0.003 to 0.01 degrees, would increase your electric bill by 80% (Obama’s number), result in more than a hundred thousand jobs lost, and cost many tens of billions of dollars?”
@ur momisugly Dave –
Funny, that… Dafter is almost directly due north of Hell.
It’s very telling that only one group is more concerned about the climate than they are about being honest, having integrity, being truthful.
LeeHarvey says:
June 11, 2014 at 9:47 am
@ur momisugly Dave –
Funny, that… Dafter is almost directly due north of Hell.
True, but my hometown is way closer to Paradise, which also has a certain amount of podunkness too…
Hell, even *I* would probably support $20 more a month if it “significantly lowered greenhouse gases”, just to be on the safe side.
Sir, you have forgotten the folk up here in Podunk land don’t have an extra 20 to throw at lowering gases. Especially gases that help the hay, oats, wheat, and corn grow.
which means the fossil fuel economy does need to be dismantled.
========
assuming the fossil fuel is created from fossilized dinosaurs.
however, if fossil fuel is in fact recycled CO2 (limestone) and water, reduced by iron and heat inside the earth to form hydrogen and carbon and rust, then fossil fuel is the ultimate sustainable technology. and it is all natural.
Thanks, Roy.
“Asked whether Washington should still go forward with limits if they “significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly energy expenses by 20 dollars a month,”
Academics often use hypotheticals to give the impression of inescapable conclusions in class rooms.
Or, maybe it is an example of the dialectic process.
REF: Twisting Truth through Group Consensus: “Tension, created by diversity, is essential to the dialectic process. It energizes members and — when manipulated by well-trained facilitators — produces synergy. You can’t guide people toward synthesis (compromise) unless there are opposing views — both “thesis and antithesis.” That’s why the consensus process must include all these elements:
a diverse group
dialoguing to consensus
over a social issue
led by a trained facilitator
toward a pre-planned outcome.
The true dialectic group never reaches a final consensus, for “continual change” is an ongoing process: one step today, another tomorrow. To permanently change the way we think and relate to each other, our leaders must set the stage for conflict and compromise week after week, year after year. Dialectical thinking and group consensus must become as normal as eating. Eventually, people learn to discard their old mental anchors and boundaries — all the facts and certainties that built firm convictions. They become like boats adrift, always ready to shift with the changing winds and currents.” http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/dialectic.htm
Roy
You said
“Generally speaking, the public has lost faith in scientists whose profession requires them to sound the alarm over global warming climate change climate disruption. Most Americans understand that forecasts of gloom and doom as predicted by “scientific experts” are not as reliable as predictions of, say, this afternoon’s weather.”
This post by a blogger named Pat on an earlier track perhaps illustrates why the public now mistrusts what climate scientists say.
1 June 2014: Washington Times: Rowan Scarborough: Pentagon wrestles with bogus climate warnings as funds shifted to green agenda
Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.
Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.
None of that has happened…
The report also became gospel to climate change doomsayers, who predicted pervasive and more intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts…Doug Randall, who co-authored the Pentagon report, said, “Even I’m surprised at how often it’s referred to…
Asked about his scenarios for the 2003-2010 period, Mr. Randall said in an interview: “The report was really looking at worst-case. And when you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.”…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/1/pentagon-wrestles-with-false-climate-predictions-a/?page=all
This Pentagon climate report speaks to the heart of false climate science alarmism that is rampant to day .These alarmist climate science reports are meant to exaggerate , scare and mislead people only and are rarely credible , but the public was never told … This survey again makes a false or unsubstantiated assumption that the US action would significantly lower greenhouse gases at a minor cost to the public when the evidence in other parts of the world is that energy costs double and tripled . In Germany and Denmark the cost of electricity has gone to 35-40cents perkwh compared to the US average .
Fascinating survey. But one has to ask why liberals and democrats care about the deficit? Their man is in charge and he loves it! That is the only explanation of the reason he has added so much to it!
What is really surprising however is the closeness of the conservatives and moderates. They have more in common with each other than with liberals.
Perhaps we should add that even the Brookings Institute does not believe that there is any merit to looking for global benefits while imposing all the costs for the Social Cost of Carbon and closing US power plants on Americans. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/06/04%20determining%20proper%20scope%20climate%20change%20benefits%20gayer/04_determining_proper_scope_climate_change_benefits.pdf
Strikingly enough the metaphor used is wide open US borders or transferring societal resources to non-US citizens.
This is the blurb from Brookings on the paper linked above. This really is a big deal, especially since the administration once again misrepresents the nature of laws, regulations, and case law in the way of policies it seeks to implement. Par for the course in my professional experience.
President Obama’s proposed rule for limiting carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s power plants is estimated to have a compliance cost $7.3 billion dollar while providing a climate benefit of $30 billion in 2030. But a new working paper from Ted Gayer and Kip Viscusi suggests that the EPA’s methodology for calculating the benefit represents a shift away from typical practice. A more traditional cost-benefit analysis would estimate climate benefits of only $2 billion to $7 billion – less than the estimated compliance cost of the rule.
The authors write that the assessments used to determine benefits for Obama’s rule has, like other recent EPA proposals to limit greenhouse gases, shifted to a global benefits approach. Rather than considering only the benefits to U.S. citizens, the analysis considers benefits for other countries while Americans bear the full costs.
The implications of this shift go beyond calculations of climate rules. Gayer and Viscusi write that “[I]f applied broadly to all policies, [this practice] would substantially shift the allocation of societal resources.” For example, a global perspective would likely shift immigration policy to one of entirely open borders, would shift away from transfers to low-income U.S. citizens and towards transfers to much lower-income non-U.S. citizens, and would substantially alter U.S. defense policy.
I meant to add that in Germany and Denmark where green plans were implemented the cost of electricity has gone to 35-40 cents per kwh compared to the United States national average of 12.26 cents per kwh.. Some. regions in US are already paying 20 cents per kwh like the state of New York. The average rate for Europe is already 20 cents per kwh. In Ontario , Canada where significant cuts in the use of coal were made and replaced by renewables , the cost of electricity doubled and is about 14 cents per kwh( I pay 17.2 cents per kwh)..Ontario has been told that a 33%increase is coming in 3 years and various analysts are projecting the rate to double again in this decade. So an increase of only $20 a month is far from the truth when a doubling or even tripling in some regions could be a possibility.
“””””…..Matt Skaggs says:
June 11, 2014 at 9:11 am
This liberal does not have climate change on the top-10 list of even environmental issues. For many folks like me, sustainability is the (unassailable) goal, which means the fossil fuel economy does need to be dismantled. But we don’t need the false urgency of climate change……”””””
Well Matt, I’m not going to ask for details on what about your philosophy causes you to self label yourself, as “liberal”, or “a liberal”. I’m never sure what that means, other than , “liberal with other people’s money or property.”
But your use of that word “sustainability”, does immediately set off sirens, and alarm bells; particularly when YOU choose to follow it with your CURE or FIX..
I’m sure there is some old saying about burning your bridges behind you; but you evidently want to burn them up front.
One thing we DO know about the current mix of economy supporting energy options, is that exactly what we have now and have had in the past have ALREADY proved themselves to be sustainable.
Well that’s how we got here from picking figs all day long, up in the trees. We bootstrapped the entire world economy, and world human population, to its present sustained level, using available new energy sources, as we learned of them, and took advantage of them.
Without actually doing the experiment, we are pretty damn sure, that the free clean green renewable figs, would NEVER have gotten us to this 7 billion world population level. I’m quite certain that the figs could not sustain what we now have.
It was stored (renewable) chemical energy, from fossil fuels, that made it all possible, and sustained it, with minor help from various solar based, short term renewables. Edible plants, and animals, plus water power (hydro), and some others.
So we have an existence proof that we followed a sustainable path to the present state. Despite population decimating disasters (epidemics), the system was always able to recreate the growth; and we are here as proof of that.
So I believe it is entirely reasonable, that BEFORE we dismantle ANY infra-structure, we should pretest each of the proposed substitutes, for proof of self sustainability.
What better test of sustainability, is there, than to have each candidate system, simply duplicate itself; by itself, without any aid and assistance from that which we propose to dismantle.
Ergo, we should immediately cease all subsidies for purported “alternative” or “renewable” or “sustainable” replacements for what we now have.
Inability to sustain oneself, by oneself, is the litmus test of unsustainability.
So Matt, please don’t go around liberally smashing up any of the stuff of our economy, until your sustainable alternatives have proven themselves to be sustainable, without support from that which already is sustainable.
So far, turbo-wind, and PV-solar have not proven themselves to be sustainable. How many non-businesses have gone out of non-business, in “alternative renewable” energies, losing billions of dollars obtained from already sustainable sources; and often complaining, that their “competition” for the exact same non-business, was selling their product too cheaply. They are openly declaring up front that their process is not sustainable.
Warmers believe this (or any other amount you can name) is worth it despite the non-compliance of the other greenhouse gas producers, and they justify the expenditure by two philosophies: precautionary principle (“just to be on the safe side”), and the notion that the U.S. should “lead the world”.
I am well-aware that you are one of the bulwarks against the extremists, Doctor. But conceding that ANY tax to this fraudulent scare is a no-brainer. I mean “no” as in No, no, no!
There are hundreds, (perhaps thousands?) of government workers, scientists, researchers, environmentalists, teachers and professors, textbook-writers and publishers, foundation-bursars, lawyers and journalists, who claim they have a particular triangulation on the shifting middle ground in this argument, but they all have one thing in common: their livelihood depends upon an existential threat posed by global warming.
It appears that you really believe: there is an existential threat, that mankind is the cause of it, and that there really is no solution because China, India and other developing countries are inexorably polluting the world with their CO2. It must be a rough and scary (middle) road that you walk.
The “bigger picture” of focusing on climate change is to appease and fire up the core extreme fringes of the democratic alliance. Since the administration is spent on any agenda that could pass through Congress in the election cycle anyway. Climate Change allows for dictatorial “executive actions” such as the EPA rules as well as international bribery and grandstanding with other deluded political cousins in the EU.
There is a huge low-information voter base as the 44% approval rating demonstrates. AGW links the media left, academic left with the aging greenshirt base such as the Sierra Club etc. in a crusade of hate against evil coal and oil interests in the narrative. Basic, traditional class war politics wrapped in green save-the-earth latex.
So while nothing is likely to get done on any front and focusing on any other topic will only highlight the historic failure of this administration, choosing climate was a shrewd tactical political choice. Losing the Senate will change the entire dynamic and the focus on climate will be seen as the Waterloo for this failed administration priorities. We are at the precipice of even greater foreign policy disasters and monetary inflationist hegemony (QE Era) must eventually fail.
The food and drinks on the Titanic were great by all accounts but that’s not what we generally remember, “Climate Policy” reflects the abstract absurdity of the state of U.S. social and political decline. No matter what media operatives attempt it can’t be spun or concealed.