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.
john robertson says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:01 am
The debate and discussion is yet to begin.
When the unengaged tax payers, who have up to this point in time paid no attention to the CAGW scheme perpetuated at their expense by their governments, start to feel the hurt.
Then the true discussion begins, it is approaching quickly.
Consumer goods, utilities, taxes, fees, all have been rising steadily even though the local economies are stagnant.
=========================================================================
Very nice point. I would agree with you on that. I come from a large family. We all received decent education. Yet all of my brothers and sisters were taken in with the promotion of the global warming story. My son, who has 4 children, had a good education ‘in Colorado’. He can do some levels of programming and knows more on maths than I do, yet he also believed in global warming. At least until last year when he drove some of my storage up to the mountains for me. In 5 minutes I had him questioning what he formerly thought was indisputable science, mainly by showing him the many correlating graphs and charts which I have received mostly from here. And I also have a way of connecting and imparting understanding at times. The point to that is the average person can not make the connections to further comprehension of this story without help.I would bet that it mostly first impressions from any given individual as to which way they view the climate chnage/CAGW story.
@pokerguy…
I see that it is, once again, futile to point out the obvious to someone who stubbornly refuses to remove their blinders. One can assert their viewpoint (not truth) without being an ass…also notice, YOU were the one who broached the subject. Warmists don’t engage in truth, they engage in opinion and blind faith…just as you have. You have no more truth than any other person when it comes to matters of which you bloviated. Good day.
pokerguy takes issue with Mark’s “bigot” comment ‘cos he thinks it’s about angels.
Maybe, it’s about people who don’t think AGW is a problem.
A Harley biker is visiting Taronga Park Zoo, Sydney, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lions’ cage.
Suddenly, a lion grabs her by the jacket and tries to pull her inside, in full view of her terrified, screaming parents.
The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.
Whimpering, the lion releases the girl and recoils, and the biker returns her to her terrified parents who thank him again and again.
A reporter has watched the whole event. Addressing the Harley rider, he says: “Sir, that was the bravest thing I’ve seen a man do in all my life.”
The Harley rider replies, “Why, it was nothing, really. The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and did the right thing.”
The reporter says, “Well, I’ll make sure it won’t go unnoticed. I’m a journalist, and tomorrow’s paper will have this story on the front page. So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?”
The biker replies, “I’m an SAS soldier just returned from Afghanistan and I’m against the political global warming nonsense.”
The journalist takes his leave.
The following morning the biker buys the paper to see news of his actions, and reads on the front page:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2014/07/modern-journalism-meets-a-lion-of-a-man/#more-19381
@ur momisugly mwhite says:
July 12, 2014 at 2:51 am
Thanks for the humor. I have seen that joke in many forms, but that was a new one and very good!
SAS soldier assaults African immigrant and steals his lunch
Thank goodness that Mother Nature does not watch BBC or similar major and public tv networks nor read some of these alarmist mainstream papers that hide the truth from the public . Regardless how and what climate truths they try to cover up, the cooling of the planet will continue to 2100 and it will be increasingly difficult to pretend that alarming heating of the planet is happening. There is a lot of global cooling coming down the pike.for the next many decades. The 2013/14 winter and cool spring and now summer is just a dress rehearsal of what may be the norm in the years ahead.
The only place where this type of news censorship has taken place is in former and some still current Communist or Nazi based governments. One would not expect this from nations that value freedom of information. Our war veterans gave their lives to preserve such freedoms. Something is seriously wrong with our mainstream media. They demand freedom of the press for them selves and yet deny the most basic of freedom of information to the public just to support special political and business interests. One can see the meaning of the phrase ” green” on the outside but” red” inside.
Trulyfreethinker: “I see that it is, once again, futile to point out the obvious to someone who stubbornly refuses to remove their blinders. One can assert their viewpoint (not truth) without being an ass”
I think in this case given that from a scientific point of view, angels are no more likely to exist than the Easter Bunny, I can with reasonable confidence say that I’m speaking the truth. Is it *possible* that angels (and unicorns and UFO abductions) exist? I suppose so inasmuch as it’s not possible to absolutely prove a negative. But the chance is vanishingly improbable.
As to your point about being an ass, I don’t disagree. If I’ve been impolite.., .and some appear to think I have,,, I apologize
pokerguy says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:03 am
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?
——————————-
So your source for theological concepts is Wikipedia?
I don’t know a single Christian who believes in angels as per that definition. Even children know better.
And I also don’t know any single Christian who believes this is a scientific topic.
I don’t know if misrepresenting what other people believe to be able to sneer them and talking about something one knows nothing about is “bigotry”,
But it surely looks like what warmists do all the time.
As it turns out, Wikipedia is blameless this time around (I checked only after posting the above comment).
Here is the complete definition there:
“An angel (from the Greek ἄγγελος ángelos, “messenger”[1]) is a supernatural being or spirit, often depicted in humanoid form with feathered wings on their backs and halos around their heads, found in various religions and mythologies.”
You know that a spirit cannot have wings etc., right?
What part of “often depicted” you don’t understand? Or you believe people think that “Love” is a small winged child with a bow and an arrow? Or that “Justice” is a blindfolded woman with a scale in her hands?
Misquoting / trimming definitions to suit one’s argument is also something warmists are fond of and adept at.
The BBC have not decided that anyone who refuses to accept the alarmist version of global warming shall be denied any appearance on the BBC. What may have been decided is that anybody they deem to be a non-scientist who rejects the alarmist version of global warming is not allowed to appear. However, will that mean that in future they will give access to scientists who reject the alarmist version of global warming? Don’t hold your breath.
Unfortunately, the BBC and the New York Times are of the same ilk. They’ve sold out their journalistic integrity for some odd liberal love affair with saving the planet. But the planet doesn’t need saving. It’s like the editiorial board at BBC and NYT are suffering from some weird 60’s generation pollution-guilt thing. At least the Washington Post allows coherent and insightrul columns by Charles Krauthammer, who calls BS on this “it’s global warming and we’re all going to die” madness.
rah says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:51 AM
But Phil they convinced a plurality to re-elect the current president! ;-)””
rah, as I understand it. The Obama administration gave away 5 million cell phones
then won the election by 3 million votes.
When a reader repeatedly does not agree with the articles they are reading or programs on TV, they stop reading/watching. Evidence – when global warming propaganda is displayed on TV, people switch to another channel. In Australia, there are two large press groupings, the ones that are failing and dying such as the Fairfax group, who believe in Global Warming, and those that don’t and will publish both sides, such as the News Corporation.
If I was the BBC, I would be worried. The loss in viewership could eventually lead to the loss of funding, as the Government of the day realises only a few left wing loonies believe what it says anymore.
Will the shining whits of comedy bring their talents for mockery, irony and satire to bear on the BBBC (=biase obviously)?
Well certainly not the likes of Marcus or Dara or Mark Steele or indeed any of them. Why? I would be inclined to say follow the money. But deeper down they are usually the product of the same kind of university system. They are universal green materialist anti-theists.
Don’t Silence Lawson: We Can’t Leave Climate Policy To The Scientists – City A.M. 14 July 2014
http://www.cityam.com/1405359599/don-t-silence-lord-lawson-we-can-t-leave-climate-change-policy-scientists