From Rasmussen Reports:
Voters strongly believe the debate about global warming is not over yet and reject the decision by some news organizations to ban comments from those who deny that global warming is a problem.
Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say the debate about global warming is not over. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters think there is still significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming, while 35% believe scientists generally agree on the subject.
The BBC has announced a new policy banning comments from those who deny global warming, a policy already practiced by the Los Angeles Times and several other media organizations. But 60% of voters oppose the decision by some news organizations to ban global warming skeptics. Only 19% favor such a ban, while slightly more (21%) are undecided.
But then 42% believe the media already makes global warming appear to be worse than it really is. Twenty percent (20%) say the media makes global warming appear better than it really is, while 22% say they present an accurate picture. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.
Still, this is an improvement from February 2009 when 54% thought the media makes global warming appear worse than it is. Unchanged, however, are the 21% who say the media presents an accurate picture.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It really is amazing to me that the number of those that are skeptical of the catastrophic claims is so high considering all the time and resources that governments and their allies http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85066 have put into the effort to convince people!
@rah – but mother nature refuses to back up the government, and people deal with her every day.
When you consider the hardcore 20% who generally think “science is settled”, skeptics should be banned and the media makes warming less of a problem you are talking about the core left-wing of the U.S. Sadly, this 20% will be disproportionately “academics”, “scientists”, “journalists” and other “opinion makers” with platform access. Then there are government workers, rent seekers of all sorts and all associated to free lunch wealth redistribution that is central to climate “policy”.
That’s how “20%” dedicated ideologists get social domination. If the other 80% can’t coordinate their thoughts the tyranny is established.
It is obvious that CAGW and AGW have not been robustly confirmed. Science requires subjecting theories which have not been robustly confirmed to skeptical scrutiny. Therefore, anyone who has a policy of trying to stifle skeptical arguments against CAGW and AGW is anti-science.
What percent approve of book burning and policy taunts of skeptics by elected leaders?
Mark W. writes: “It really is sad when bigots come out to play.”
Let’s be clear. I’m a bigot because I think the belief in as Wikipedia defines them, “humanoid forms with feathered wings on their backs and halos around their heads,” is half way to nuts? The intolerance I would submit is on your end. Which is to say I’ll continue to strenuously defend your right to believe in whatever you want, including angels, even if you don’t seem to recognize my right to laugh.
“Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over”
Wait, what? There was a scientific debate? When? Where? What did I miss?
@Pokerguy – “I was referring to the dust ups of several notable skeptics recently. Notably about temperature adjustments and TSI and a notch filter.”
I see, Phil, My quibble is I wouldn’t call it a catfight, or a sign somehow that the skeptics are winning. Robust debate is good of course, and to be expected in a healthy environment in which the goal isn’t “consensus” but the ongoing struggle for clarity and truth.
@Pokerguy – I agree with you. I am cursed by my short answer again.
The dustups (or cat fights) are signs they have TIME to critique the work of other skeptics. Which means that the alarmists have not been putting up much of anything (science wise) that merits their attention. The disagreements are good and is what science is about. The fact that they can take the time to disagree is the indication.
@Pokerguy – No one contests your right to laugh, you should remember, though, that being an a** is optional.
I don’t agree with Mark W’s use of the term ‘bigot’, but I think it would be wise of you to step back and take a look at how you come off when you make a comment like you did. Same tactics employed by the warmists.
I don’t think you understand the situation. Rasmussen polled common people — you know, mundanes who don’t count at all. If Rasmussen would poll The Team and Algore’s pals they would discover that 97% agree with the BBC entirely. (The other 3% are too drunk to answer the poll)
Simple really.
Rasmussen is not as good a source for polling, they have a liberal bias in their results since Scott R. left the organization. These can be seen in Obama polling numbers. So the results above are best case. Could be 5 points worse (69 and 60).
@GoHome
***
That’s interesting. So likely an even a worse result if you’re Barak Obama than it looks.
I’d give a lot to be a journalist at one of his press conference. My question might be, “So Mr. President, given that 60 percent of the American public don’t agree with you that the debate is settled, do you stand by your statement that doubting CAGW is akin to believing the moon is made of cheese? And if you do stand by it, are you at all worried that you’re calling almost 2/3 of the country “stupid?”
Why are American journalists such drones? Why can’t they come up with stuff like that?.
@Pokerguy – job security. You could ask that question once. But they would bar you from any future press conference. And of course no one else would report it.
BBC .what a joke they really are. I thought they were meant to be impartial. My ass. We pay £150 a year to hear their lies.
cAGW proponents mounted high horses to advance their noble, but misguided cause. They can no longer avert the inevitable, but seem to be dreading a payback. If so, it’s in vain IMO – at this stage they instigate vicarious embarrassment only.
The US might join Australia & Canada with at least partially skeptical political leaders after the 2014 & 2016 elections, with Congress maybe more likely than White House, but at least there’s a chance. Politicians of all stripes however can gain from Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism, although Tea Party types less so.
Publicly stated opinions of two senators running for president:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/22/cruz-to-cnn-global-warming-not-supported-by-data-cnn-political-ticker-cnn-com-blogs/
Dunno if anyone has ever asked Rand Paul if he thinks that CO2 is a pollutant.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/204235-paul-science-behind-climate-change-not-conclusive
philjourdan says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:12 am
@rah – but mother nature refuses to back up the government, and people deal with her every day.
===================================================
But Phil they convinced a plurality to re-elect the current president! 😉
@rah – true – but just once. LOL
The debate being over is anti-science and garbage. The debate has NEVER been over and, as a matter of fact, is only just hotting up (pun intended). Well it’s not hotting up in the atmosphere and the longer the hiatus the hotter the debate. There is no getting away from this simple truth – thus their desperation (caused by the hiatus). It is as clear as daylight to me, thus the debate is over nonsense.
Merchants of doubt.
For the BBC it’s about their pension money. They could loose untold millions in this co2 gamble. I showed yesterday that they also invest their pension money in oil and gas companies, so it has NOTHING to do with being concerned about ‘acting now’ and the alleged ‘planetary emergency’. It’s always been about the MONEY. Follow the money as they say.
BBC Pension – Top equity Investments at 31 March 2013
Altria Group [Tobacco]
Drax Group [Electricity generation]
BHP Billiton [Oil & mining]
British American Tobacco
BG Group [Oil & natural gas]
BP [Oil & natural gas]
Royal Dutch Shell [Oil & natural gas]
Imperial Tobacco
Centrica [Natural gas & electricity]
Reynolds American [Tobacco]
Petrofac [Oilfield services]
Occidental Petroleum [Oil & natural gas]
The above list “Does not include any assets held in pooled funds.”
It could be worse than we thought! Follow the money.
The other poll says the pols, bureaucrats and media members don’t care what the ignorant, unwashed masses think. They’re going to shove the message down our throats, cut off debate and not cover any stories that don’t conform to their beliefs.
“The BBC has announced a new policy banning comments from those who deny global warming”
This is simply untrue. The BBC has not made any such announcment.
Indrid writes “I don’t agree with Mark W’s use of the term ‘bigot’, but I think it would be wise of you to step back and take a look at how you come off when you make a comment like you did. Same tactics employed by the warmists.”
If it’s obnoxious to tell the truth, then I plead guilty. But I reject your assertion that’s somehow a warmist thing….telling the truth that is.
OTC, we’re Doubters of Merchants.
Why is it an improvement when more people buy into a lie? Biased much??
As a poster above noted, Obama’s popularity numbers stayed abnormally high after Scott left the group. They are an outlier now.
I think a more neutral phrasing of the 3rd question in the poll would be:
“Do you favor or oppose some news organizations having banned persons from presenting their views on global warming because these persons were on a particular one of the two sides of the global warming debate?”
pokerguy says, July 11, 2014 at 7:59 am:
“Of course, nearly 80 percent of Americans believe in angels, so not sure what we can take from such polls, other than lots of people believe in wacky things. Then again, this is ultimately a voting issue. So from that point of view, this strikes me a pretty big win for the skeptics..
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/”
I agree that angels exist, and I am convinced that I have felt their presence. Especially when shopping for clothes for family members, especially when of the other gender.
However, I see a matter that angels are a matter of the science of theology. That science may be about as advanced as chemistry was back in earlier parts of the times when it was known as alchemy.