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
Dave, no, Podunk is near Ann Arbor:
http://www.weatherstreet.com/weather-forecast/Podunk-MI-48158.htm
And, for those who are upset with me for saying I would pay and extra $20 a month…that’s IF it actually significantly reduced global CO2 emissions. Which it won’t. I still suspect more CO2 is better for life on Earth…but if $20 would make the alarmists go away…
…which it won’t…
@Roy Spencer – I think they call that $20 “greenmail”. 😉
Everyone cares about the economy. It is good to be rich.
No-one cares about immigration. Everyone is welcome to come and be rich.
Climate is irrelevant except to “Liberals”. And they don’t rate it highly.
Interestingly the middle dog-whistle words are Morals and Healthcare. As a Brit I can’t see how the two are distinguished. Leaving people to suffer just because they are poor seems to be a moral issue, to me. But I recognise the terms mean different things to different people.
Do all Americans think “Morals” refers to the same issues?
“global warming climate change climate disruption” Oh, dear, you are behind the times; it’s “carbon pollution” now.
Sustainability is a ridiculous notion when the economy is thrown into the abyss . It only is viable when it can fully replace the fossil fuel power we need today. Setting deadlines is not the way to do that.
A program that promotes development without mandating use until it is viable is the sensible approach.
The approach of the American administration is directly out of the Communist play book. Central control of energy, and government mandated goals have bankrupted every nation that attempted it. It becomes obvious that this is the path they have chosen
OMG! I forgot “carbon pollution”! My bad. 🙁
Dave says:
June 11, 2014 at 9:26 am
Roy,
When you say Podunk, Michigan, are you referring to the metropolis of Dafter?
===============================================================
And here I thought he was referring to the former metropolis of Detritus,…. I mean Detroit
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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am with george e. smith. We are not going to run out of fossil fuel for a very long time, perhaps hundreds of years. Extraction and production costs may become an issue if new forms of energy are developed but in the meantime, King Coal will be back. Look at know reserves and production just in Alberta.
http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/coal/643.asp
The world has lots of coal that with new technologies can be converted into many products when prices and the political environment are right. No one should have to starve in the dark. (Some Canadians might get the reference. 😏)
Sustainability is poorly defined and not attainable. The goal moves endlessly into the horizon. But it does appear to involve using science positions to transmit wild fears to people who do not know better.
But that is not science, it is an old profession called sorcery, which creates extremely negative, physiological reactions to that which is beneficial or neutral, through the use of innuendo, rumor, and the power of suggestion. It is sometimes as simple as repeating the phrases “dirty” and “toxic.” This level of talk is the intellectual equivalent of putting a neon green Mr. Yuck sticker on agriculture and energy.
The next step in the process is and economic trick, in which that which works, is abundant and plentiful – and is already available widely to all levels of society – is banned, or turned into a criminal activity. The replacement does not work, is extremely expensive, and places the products out of the reach of various parts of the citizenry. What the politicians and scientists replace it with are products which they themselves have already become owners or investors in. This has been called “environmental capitalism.” But it is never, ever capitalism when purchases are involuntary. Ever. Besides, that is not economics, it is an old art called iniquity. It is iniquity to use laws to seize property, command its use, and condemn and criminalize useful economic and social activity, such as personal transportation and farming. Repent, and turn to the light.
Do liberals really believe wind power & solar power, etc. are sustainable? Enough to increase the cost of electricity to the point people can’t heat & cool their homes when they want to? There is no climate warming or climate warming threat, and yet they are willing to distress the whole country over a pretend idea? Mind boggling. I bet China would laugh its a** off.
Climate more important than morality to liberals!
We don’t need to guess how Mann, Lewandowsky, Cook, Nuccitelli, Gleick, Connolley et al vote!
========================================================================
Hmmm….doesn’t wind power require a changing climate to produce the wind?
So if they achieve their goal of keeping the climate from changing then they’d be rendering wind power “unsustained”.
“significantly lowered greenhouse gases ”
I am assuming that this refers to the 30% reduction in co2 proposed by EPA.. In checking other sources to verify what “significant ” means , The Breakthrough Institute estimates that shutting down the 37 coal fired plants to curb emissions of smog forming pollutants and toxic smoke stack emissions would reduce all US emissions by 1% Complyingwith rules to curb air pollution in states downwind from the coal fired plants and shutting another 31 plants would approximately double the previous figure
This “push” poll appeared to be contrived and released to support this administration’s announcement of the new proposed EPA regs. My definition of sustainable development is “what the market will bear”. Clearly the warmists are attempting to change the nature of the market.
The only person REALLY tacking this problem head on is Steven Goddard the man has got all the proof from way back. He has kept all the records of mallfaissance. LOL THIS IS WHAT WILL COUNT IN THE END OF AGW.
Thanks, Dr. Spencer. Good digging.
You write that “the proposed EPA regulations will hurt far more people than they would help…especially the poor”. I do agree that this EPA “carbon reduction” action will hurt people, but I fail to see whom would be helped by it.
The survey question was worded exactly as intended. WashPo & ABC are waterboys for Pres Obama. Nuff said…
Shutting down the proposed (32+36=68) coal driven power plants to reduce emissions will take out about 8% or 25,000 MW of power from the US coal generated power capacity enough to supply 22 million homes . EPA estimates that the industry will spend $11 billion dollars to comply with the new regulations . I am dubious of any figure coming from EPA. The Overnight capital cost of most gas driven power plant options is $1000-2000/kw. Wind turbine route would be about $2200/kw. Kansas recently gave a go ahead for a 895 MW for $2.8 billion power plant coal driven. So the $11 billion is suspect to replace 25,000 MW. My point is that the higher the real capital cost, the higher will the real electrical rate increase be and not just $20 extra per month
I’ll repeat a suggestion I seen several times and with my own little spin …..If the eco-freaks want to live an alternative sustainable energy life, so they can sleep well at night, then they should rid their lives of EVERYTHING where the electricity to produce the product was generated using fossil fuels and NEVER purchase another product produced with electricity from FF. Oh, and by the way, they can’t use open fires for anything (to include cooking) since it dumps all that nasty carbon into the atmosphere.
Here is what happened. People did not see the predictions panning out. Cold winters was the killer I’m afraid. I too would laugh at these fools in the face of extreme cold when I remembered that my children would not know what snow is. The whole thing was destined to fail because it was based on bullshit.
Note to moderators: The link to the Brookings Institute report takes you to the results for a poll regarding immigration reform.
The evidence so far says yes.
3,2,1 “But the ice is melting and sea levels are rising!” The ice has been melting and the sea level has been rising for well over 12,000 years. “But………” no buts, get you stuff together first.
“Hell, even *I* would probably support $20 more a month if it ‘significantly lowered greenhouse gases’, just to be on the safe side.”
I wouldn’t. Because climate prediction based on known natural history and astronomical facts (as opposed to grant-whoring and computer-aided numerical masturbation) strongly suggests we might end up pumping out as much GHG as we can muster in a (probably vain) attempt to keep most of the Northern Hemisphere from being scraped off the map by the (overdue) next Ice Age.
Sustainability is in the same neighborhood as Utopia only it’s further down the road near the more expensive homes.
The two planned Manitoba hydro projects + the Muskrat Falls project + Ontario Nanticoke project can go a long way towards covering the U.S power plant closures.
Then there are other sources of power from Ontario such as nuclear,gas, hydro and wind that can be sold to the U.S..
Manitoba would supply the mid-west. Muskrat Falls to supply the U.S.east coast. Nanticoke to supply Pennsylvania.
So Obama knows he can shut down power plants and still get electricity from Canada.
Jimbo says:
June 11, 2014 at 4:26 pm
“Here is what happened. People did not see the predictions panning out. Cold winters was the killer I’m afraid. I too would laugh at these fools in the face of extreme cold when I remembered that my children would not know what snow is. The whole thing was destined to fail because it was based on bullshit.”
=================
The really sorry part, is that nobody is even reading this shit.
They will do less so, unless the language gets cleaned up.
I can curse with the best of them, but it adds nothing does it ?