Climate FAIL: Gallup poll shows global warming concerns dead last

Climate message only reaching the already converted – Americans worry least about global warming

trends-in-enviro-opinionEric Worrall writes:

Gallup Inc., the management consultancy famous for its well known and widely trusted opinion polls, has published a summary of environmental concerns, which make grim reading for anyone hoping to spark public interest in climate scare stories.

The poll summary is divided between Republicans and Democrats, and compares responses in the year 2000, vs responses in 2015.

Amongst Republicans, the percentage of people who are worried about climate change has plummeted, from 29% to 16%.

Amongst Democrats, concern has risen, but only slightly – from 48% to 52%.

trends-in-enviro-opinion2
According to Gallup, the implications of this finding;

“Americans’ concern about a series of potential environmental threats remains on the low end of what Gallup has measured over the past 25 years. Last year’s increased worry proved temporary, rather than the start of a trend toward renewed concern about environmental problems.

That diminished concern has both positive and negative aspects for those favoring tougher environmental policies and regulations. The diminished concern may mean the policies and regulations in place are working to protect Americans from environmental threats. However, because of that, and because Americans are less concerned about environmental matters in general, they may be less willing to support policy changes to make those regulations even tougher if they don’t perceive pollution and other environmental threats as imminent.”

“Democrats worry more than Republicans about all of the issues. Notably, Democrats are more worried about global warming now than they were in 2000, perhaps reflecting the shift in the focus of the environmental agenda toward this issue.”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182105/concern-environmental-threats-eases.aspx

The inescapable conclusion, in my opinion, is that there has been no climate “breakthrough”, and there is unlikely to be a significant rise in support for climate alarmist policies in the foreseeable future. Climate scare stories are only reaching people who are already worried about climate change.

This failure represents a catastrophic return on an awful lot of invested effort. Billions of dollars poured in alarmist propaganda, by politicians and vested interests in the renewables industry, and over a decade of time, might as well have been tossed down the drain. The only result of this stupendous attempt to mobilise public opinion, has been a barely measurable increase in support, amongst people who were presumably already sympathetic to the climate alarmist message – and a massive drop in support outside this magic circle of fellow travelers.

 

Advertisements

111 thoughts on “Climate FAIL: Gallup poll shows global warming concerns dead last

  1. Probably explains the constant dribble of alarmist drivel from the usual suspects. There is a ready market out there for about half the ‘Democrat type’ voters. Aprt from confirming a market sector for alarmism that also tells you that about half ‘Democrat type’ voters are airheads.

    I use “Democrat type’ because I am not from the US but sadly there are similar sorts around the world.

    • “The diminished concern may mean the policies and regulations in place are working to protect Americans from environmental threats.”

      Huh? That flies in the face of the liberal AGW mantra. CO2 levels continue to rise steadily, a fact trumpeted daily by the alarmists. Sorry, but you cannot attribute the diminishing concern to a perception of successful mitigation.

      • Last year’s American harsh winter showed up as a drop in the global temperature for Jan/Feb, so they are actually saying that global warming causes global cooling – how nuts does this get.

    • Both sides of the political spectrum have their fair share of airheads; it just manifests itself differently according to their associated worldviews

  2. What Americans think rarely has anything to do with objective fact. Your glee in misnomer “Climate FAIL” exposes you.

    • I would agree with your first observation, but not in the way you intended. Global warming has NOT been as projected, and in fact is significantly below the projected temperature rise as a function of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere. That is an objective fact. And, it seems, that sensitivity is being adjusted downward in an attempt to keep up with fact.

      Global warming is more politics than science.

      You are welcome.

    • I suggest you take a look at the list of top universities, the number of Phd’s in the population and the list of science noble prize winners before your declare ‘What Americans think rarely has anything to do with objective fact’

    • Making a generalized, subjective comment about objective fact is really funny. Thanks for the laugh. You forgot to put in the sarc.

    • “What Americans think rarely has anything to do with objective fact. ”

      I too am alarmed that such a high percentage still buy into the AGW scare tactics. Who are these goofs?

    • Rod,

      You had a typo…

      “What [Climate Scientists] think rarely has anything to do with objective fact.” There, fixed it for you.

      Keep the taxpayer spigot wide open, right? Just add the words “likely due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions” at the end to get that next grant, right?

      Jim Steele has it right, in my humble opinion. Most of these “global warming” issues are really a local land use effect that has real consequences that need to be fixed and that the “CO2 is evil” mantra is essentially stealing money from. I’m behind many local efforts to fix local problems, so I’m hoping we have common ground there. The rest of the “global warming” issues appear to be easily explained by natural cycles.

      So, some objectivity for you…
      No tropospheric hot spot like the models predict (real data from satellites and balloons!). Oops.
      Minuscule to statistically zero warming over the last two decades not predicted by models. Oops.
      No increase in rate of sea level rise as the models predict. Oops.
      Arctic sea ice hasn’t come close to vanishing in summer and has grown over the last few years. Oops.
      Antarctic sea ice in 2014 reaches an all time high for the satellite era. Oops.
      Antarctic sea ice has been above the 1979-2010 average continuously for the last three years. Oops.
      Great Lakes ice cover in Winter 2014-2015 is second highest recorded. Oops.
      Record lows greatly exceed record highs again for US stations in operation since before the 30’s. Oops.
      Polar bear populations are as healthy as they have been at any point in my lifetime (52 yrs). Oops.
      Emperor penguin populations are thriving (again using satellite data to find their poop stains) as long as we keep the biologists from molesting them. Oops.

      I could do this all day, but I have other things to do (and I’m suspecting you’re not hearing this anyway)…

      There’s no danger. They just want your money.

      Bruce

      • Well Mick, the degrees on my wall and the job I’ve been making a great living at for the last 30 years say otherwise.

        Warming due to CO2 doubling appears to be limited to a shade over 1 deg C. It’s a physics thing you might not understand. The feedbacks in the models that account for all the rest of the dire warming predicted by the models are wrong. All the observations show they are wrong. The resulting small amount of warming and the additional CO2 are benefits and are greening the earth. Observations appear to be saying that it’s not me that lacks an understanding of the physics.

        Note, I never said there isn’t any warming going on or that doubling CO2 doesn’t have a possible, small, non-dangerous contribution of warming to an Earth concurrently emerging from a cold spell due to natural cycles.

        Again, there’s no danger. Again, they just want your money.

        Thanks for playing.

  3. Sounds like the state of affairs in the UK, Liberal Democratic, Labour and Green parties (all Left Wing leaning) are all on this fictitious bandwagon. Like wise they are more concerned with redistributing wealth rather than creating it.

    • And the Conservatives too.

      David Cameron put a wind turbine on his roof.
      And no, they did not even attempt to repeal the Climate Change Act. In fact they negotiate for harsher terms then the rest of Europe.

      Green is not a left-wing/right-wing divide (in the UK).

      • Really? Do you have a conservative ‘green’ party there? Or conservative representatives of the Green party?

        Back in 198x greens tried to say they’re not left or right, then they were promptly kidnapped by ex-communists with no home in sovietophilia.
        Some right-wing green opportunism does exist, though.

      • Hugh, the Conservatives are the right-wing party here.
        As for whether people who are culturally conservative (small “c”) , whether they are green..?

        Er, Yes!

        The National Trust preserves country homes and landscapes – they are the charity of Downton Abbey wannabes – ‘aristocracy are us’ folk.
        And they are staunchly Alarmist. They even try to power their country homes without fossil fuels.

        They can’t, of course, but they make a big deal of trying.

      • Right wing /conservative in America is different than right wing / conservative anywhere else… both right and left wings in other countries would be considered big federal government control left wing in America … kinda like how there is not much difference between democrats and country club republicans- aka RINOS- they are both to the left of true American small federal government conservatism. It is very frustrating when American right wing gets lumped in with European right wing- there might be some similarities but is a different animal all together

  4. Climate Fai –> Public Inattention –> Climate Coup –> Government Power is Settled!

    Barack Obama, and John Kerry will sign Paris 2015, whatever it is, and dare Congress to do anything to slow them down. Gina McCarthy will implement what ever she wants using Paris 2015 as justification.

    Public be damned when there is a brass ring, a Nobel Prize, and a Pot-o-Gold at the end of the Transformation of Amerika.

  5. The Democrats do seem to be unable to believe what their own eyes are telling them, since according to the table, all the indicators that Democrats tell us that are the perils of Global Warming, or Climate Weirding, or whatever they are calling it nowadays have failed to materialize and worries on every score have dramatically fallen in the minds of Democrats.

    Yet still, like some religious cult, they have increased worries about Global Warming, because their leaders tell them it is so. Are you going to believe what you are told, or in what you have seen and will see ?

    • Hung Lo – Yes, like a religious cult. It is a cult. Not organized around a religious principle or leader, but around the idea of being more morally virtuous than others by being enlightened by the information, and holding the right political views.

      The authority is from “science” rather than “God,” as for religious cults.

      All other aspects are the same as religious cults:
      how you get roped in, the psychological appeal, the indoctrination into how to think (so that the illogic is protected by a semantic network of answers to challenges), a clear motivating “enemy” that proves the need for virtue, and action, is needed, a value on cutting off communication from the un-enlightened, need for consistent encouragement of the mantra, and so on.

      Anyone can consider this hypothesis, that the firm belief in catastrophic man-made global warming is sustained despite evidence to the contrary because of the cult social structure. Go review any website that illustrates what a cult is and how it works. The only twist is you have to accept the appeal to be getting right with a distinct saviour-complex set of moral virtues, rather than on getting right with God.

      • And now they’ve made it a political litmus-test for all educated Americans. The media is carpet-bombing with propaganda right now that if you “don’t believe” an AGW you’re on the page with Holocaust deniers, anti-vaxxers, and other psychopathic dangers to humanity and right thinking.

        None of which makes their POV the Truth. Not that Americans are much interested in Truth. All most of them really want is to be accepted by their peers, on the level of high school.

        The Earth really doesn’t care; it’s in no trouble and doing what it’s always done. And so it goes . . .

      • I agree whole heartily … as someone who has spent the last 7 years working with climate scientists and who has a brother in a cult – I can attest that the mindset is nearly identical. I noticed it immediately … it is entirely spooky. It is completely faith based … you have a group of people who will critically evaluate and question everything EXCEPT their doctrine…that is not to be questioned… there is a desire to believe and to be right because it justifies their other belief system — communism

    • You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
      Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)

      So Abe is still correct – You can fool some of the people all of the time.

  6. Oh, do I hate to write this but I don’t think it makes much difference at this point. A significant number of policies relating to CAGW have already been put into place by the bureaucracy. They will be very difficult to undo. 70 years after Prohibition ended significant repercussions were still in place. The ‘temporary’ 55mph speed took almost a quarter of a century to rescind. And, in my state, was still in place 40 years later. CAGW has generated a massive, parasitic, life sapping industry (as the late John Daley so aptly noted); the employees of which will fight tooth and nail to retain their jobs.

    • I am not as pessimistic. The EPA has significant constitutional headwinds, pointed out by none other than Larry Tribe of Harvard Law. No matter what Obama does in Paris, Congress won’t ratify it. By the 2016 election, the pause will really have the cause on the run. Depending on that election’s outcome, simply defunding subsidies would remove a lot of the present incest. Meanwhile, the energy situation in the UK and Germany will continue to worsen. Probably also in California. The longer it goes, the more extralegal the administration’s tactics, the worse the renewables consequences, the more this thing will get turned around. From the Dutch tulip bulb mania to the dotcom bomb, these things have a possiblitynof reversing quite suddenly and forcefully.

      • I really wish I had read your reply earlier. Quite a reasoned and optimistic rebuttal to my rather dour outlook. Your optimism makes sense. Thank you for sharing it.

      • Thank you Rud, this is the sort of insight I am grateful for. Mostly I am optimistic, but sometimes the sheer size and weight of the whole fear-mongering mess gets me down, as I guess it does all of us. Your words inspire me to keep going and keep watching. It’ll come, it’ll come, and I will be here to see it unfold when it does.

  7. The Wikipdia shows for 2014 the State voting split (“Solid”, “Leaning”, “Competitive”) a 52% – 48% split of Democratic vs Republican voters. The Gallup poll shows a position on climate change as THE important issue at 52% Democrat, 13% Republican.

    Taking the two points above, at a State voting effective (i.e. the candidates get into office) level, 27.0% Democratic voting States and 6.2% Republican voting states consider climate change as THE important issue. In other words, 33% of effective voters think climate change is THE important issue, while 67% do not.

    Although the numbers show solid concern about climate change exist in a sizable minorriy, the numbers show that democracy as a function of the will of the majority, is not working in the United States vis-a-vis climate change. Which goes to Peter Foster’s point, that what the alarmists are seeking is not changing the opinion of the majority of people but seizing power to implement the eco-green opinions onto the majority of people.

    Not a big surprise but seeing the numbers is good.

    • that democracy as a function of the will of the majority,

      No, democracy, even a republic, is a function of the majority of the WILL.
      Lack of will, lack of interest, accounts for nothing.

      • Democracy, form of government, Republic, form of State, different beasts. not mutually exclusive.

    • A pure democracy always elects a tyrant. A majority in a society is an unstoppable mass. A majority support for an official ultimately confers absolute power. Once conferred, this power is retained. As Erdogan of Turkey noted: A democracy is like a streetcar; once you get to your destination you get off. Of course Erdogan’s observation is not a warning. He intends to remain in position.

      The true function of a vote should not be to confer power to anyone. No one or group should seek to impose their will on another. A majority is no more valid than a minority. The true purpose of a vote should be to vote ‘against’ persons or measures.

      Ancient Rome functioned for an extended period solely at the direction of the Senate, and with no chief executive.

      I fear that in the US we are squandering a great gift bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers. Following the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin stated that the delegates had given the people a republic (not a democracy); ‘If they could keep it.’ But, as Thomas Jefferson wrote; the natural course of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. With CAGW they found the pry bar.

      • i repeat, a republic is a form of State. A democracy is a form of government. Thus a democratic Republic is is just as possible as a theological republic or a tyranny. to state ” a democracy, not a republic”, demonstrates a complete lack of civics knowledge or understanding.

      • Grey Lensman

        In all due respect sir, I think hairs are being split here. The original US Constitution gave no quarter to a democracy. The only representatives elected by the people were Congressional House members. Senators were not to be elected. They were to be chosen by the individual state houses and thus beholden to the individual states. The President was to be chosen by the Electoral College. While a multitude of “inalienable” rights were present in the original Constitution the right to vote is nowhere to be found. Not to pick a fight but a definition of Republic puts it squarely in the realm of government.

    • Actually, I am amazed at the poll results. Not that 52% of Democrats said it is the #1 issue – but that 48% said it is not.

      It is truly amazing that the threat of being called a racist (because you *dare* to disagree with the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT) shifted such a small number.

      It’ll be interesting to see the same poll in a couple of years – when it is no longer racist to disagree with the slightest thing that the POTUS is hawking.

  8. As has been the case with trade or with the opening of hostilities abroad, it may not be necessary to have a public mandate – or even a public awareness – in order to initiate climate-related policies and programs.

    A fall in the public’s awareness isn’t necessarily to be welcomed.

    • Its nothing to do with the USA constitution. Its just plain simple facts. The UK is a democratic Constitutional Monarchy with the Queen as head of state and a PM as head of government. France is a democratic republic with a president as head of State and a prime Minister as head of government. The USA is a democratic republic, with a President as head of State and Head of government.

      Pleading that USA is a republic not a democracy is a false and misleading plead, full stop.

      • Sorry, but that is abject nonsense. We are a republic and that is the only thing that is slowing our steady demise. Progressives are adamantly pushing us towards a more pure democracy, but republicanism is retarding their advance. Just the fact that each state is given the same amount of representation in the Senate, regardless of its size or population, indicates the republican nature. A pure democracy would operate strictly by majority control. Our republican system was designed to strive to protect the minority from the tyranny of a democratic majority. Try reading the Federalist Papers (if you can) to see how our principle framers of the Constitution (Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) completely abhorred democracy and basically thought it was an evil system consisting of mob rule. We are a republic that uses democratic processes, but with checks and balances that impede the majority’s dominance over the minority. (Or at least we had checks and balances until as of late!)

      • Wow. Lensman is firmly tied up in his linguistic knickers and will not let go of that “democratic” bone.

  9. The People understand the truth. The Educated Elite of government are Liberals that have been Educated way beyond their Intelligence. Liberalism is a disease that damages the ability for independent thought. pg

  10. low information voters…..

    But then liberals do tend to concentrate in big cities….where air pollution is a problem

  11. Yesterday, I heard a lie,
    The earth was hot and we will die.
    The lie was there again today,
    I wish, I wish it’d go away.

  12. There is a fantastic Newfoundland-esque expression that typifies this poll result.

    “THERE it is….GONE!” :)

  13. It is good to see that Global(non)Warming isn’t top of the Pops. But it worries me that so many level-headed folks ignore the roadsigns that clearly show towards a new world order under the dicatorship of unelected bureaucrats no one can rake over the coals – nevah evah.

  14. It might be a climate fail in the sense that all the effort has failed to raise the issue in the minds of the public.

    My concern is that governments aren’t driven solely by public views. There is an awful lot of “creep” in government regulation even if it is not supported by general public concerns. There is more regulation constantly being added with respect to climate change, even without the public support such changes. For example, look at a lot of new regulation by the EPA. Even the investment industry is getting in on this – requiring companies, and investors, to develop “environmental, social, corporate governance policies”, and to report to regulatory authorities on what these policies are. Groups like CERES are advocating for reductions in carbon emissions while at the same time are assisting insurance regulators in the various states for increasing the regulatory requirements for insurance carriers to report on climate change issues.

    My point is: Don’t think of the “fail” of the public to embrace the AGW agenda as a “win” for common sense. The government doesn’t really care to what extent the public embraces the AGW agenda – they are bringing in their own AGW agenda policies anyway.

    • PJ I think you are on to it… the “creep” of the bureaucracies is to go ahead and implement the AGW agenda no matter what anybody else says. Witness the EPA, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Interior. What is required is a full review of the enabling legislation and executive orders with a battle Axe in hand to trim them up. At this point we need to tear out the ivy plant (bureaucracy) so we can see the yard (representative government)

    • You got it! Or, at least, pretty close. Thomas Wigley (who was and may still be with NCAR) was hired by Hubert Lamb at the CRU. Lamb hired Wigley to computerize the climate records. He grew to regret that decision as Wigley had a different agenda. Hubert Lamb was friends with Reid Bryson who was one of the original climatologists who believed that humans had an effect on the climate. But Bryson never bought into CAGW. Bryson investigated the cooling effects of dust (aerosols) in the atmosphere. This was the 1970s and an Ice Age was the concern. Being employed by Lamb, Thomas Wigley was aware of Bryson’s theories. The drop in temperatures from the 1950s to the late 1970s was always a conundrum for CAGW proponents. Incorporating Bryson’s theories (but giving him no credit) Wigley took off and ran with the idea that the cooling effects of aerosols from industrial emissions masked the warming purportedly caused by the CO2 industrial emissions.

      So Wigley credited the Clean Air Act, through the attendant reduction in aerosol emissions, as reintroducing global warming! Voila, problem solved!

  15. When the alarmists had to change the name from global warming to climate change, due to the obvious lack of warming, you knew they were in trouble. “Climate change” has no meaning, per se.

  16. The schools in the US will solve this. They are pushing climate change in every possible subject. Give them another 10 years. By 2025 we’ll have had an entire generation of graduates exposed to a full court press of climate education.

  17. A CAREER IN SUSTAINABILITY

    Here today,
    Gone tomorrow.
    Your broken heart,
    I feel your sorrow.
    You thought your pay
    Was here to stay.
    But now that part
    You’ll have to borrow.
    You were so fresh, so keen.
    How can the pathway to Green
    End up being ever so mean?

  18. The climate has been stable of late hence no interest. If global cooling sets in the interest in the climate will take off because under that scenario impacts would be felt to every man, women and child.

  19. The democrats are repeating the mantra. To not repeat the mantra is to be a denier. The question is however disingenuous.

    There is no cost to answer in the affirmative which is ludicrous. The average voter would not answer in the affirmative if they were asked do you support a tripling of electrical power costs in the US, a doubling of gasoline costs, a massive loss of jobs in the US, a forced yearly transfer of tens of billions of US tax payer dollars to a UN climate ‘management’ group, when the money spent will have almost no affect on the rise of CO2 and will absolutely have no effect on climate ‘change’.

    This surreal charade is about to end. The inhibiting mechanisms that are holding back significant global cooling are starting to abate. The massive increase in sea in Antarctic is scientific proof of the start of the change however sea ice in the Antarctic does not directly affect the average American voter.

    The type of climate changes that changes people’s mind/paradigm has started. The east province of Canada, New Brunswick had the highest snowfall on record – 16 feet of snow – this winter (2014/2015) which broke the record set in the winter 2013/2014. When the Northern hemisphere significantly cools and southern portions of the east coast of the US starts to get significant ocean effect snow (New York gets let say 16 feet of snow for example) there will be the start of the paradigm change. Record snowfall and record cold temperatures will spin differently if the planet is cooling rather than not warming.

    The general public is unaware that it is a fact that there is cyclic abrupt cooling in the paleo climate record. It is a fact that interglacial periods end abruptly. The general public do not understand that Canada, the Northern US states, and Northern Europe are covered with a 2 mile thick ice sheet for a hundred thousand years during the cyclic glacial phase (glacial/interglacial cycle has happened 22 times).

    Wally’s comment is correct, that climate scientists do not have a first order idea (do not have a clue) what causes abrupt climate change such as the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event 11,900 years ago or 8200 BP cooling event, why interglacial periods end abruptly after 10,000 years, and almost no one can imagine the planet’s climate during the 100,000 year glacial phase.

    Wally is not correct that no one understand what causes cyclic abrupt climate change and what causes the 2 mile thick ice sheet to cover Canada, the US Northern states, and Northern Europe for a 100,000 years. P.S. Wally, cyclic abrupt climate change is not caused by a slowdown in the North Atlantic drift current. That is an urban myth.

    MODELS TO THE RESCUE? Wally Broecker, GSA January, 1999
    But wouldn’t predictions based on conveyor shutdowns carried out in linked ocean-atmosphere climate models be more informative than analogies to past changes? I would contend that to date no model is up to the task. No one understands what is required to cool Greenland by 16 °C and the tropics by 4 ± 1 °C, to lower mountain snowlines by 900 m, to create an ice sheet covering much of North America, to reduce the atmosphere’s CO2 content by 30%, or to raise the dust rain in many parts of Earth by an order of magnitude. If these changes were not documented in the climate record, they would never enter the minds of the climate dynamics community. Models that purportedly simulate glacial climates do so only because key boundary conditions are prescribed (the size and elevation of the ice sheets, sea ice extent, sea surface temperatures, atmospheric CO2 content, etc.). In addition, some of these models have sensitivities whose magnitude many would challenge. What the paleoclimatic record tells us is that Earth’s climate system is capable of jumping (William: Wally there are no magic wands. The climate does not jump. There is a massive forcing function that causes the cooling.) from one mode of operation to another. These modes are self-sustaining and involve major differences in mean global temperature, in rainfall pattern, and in atmospheric dustiness.
    In my estimation, we lack even a first order explanation as to how the various elements of the Earth system interact to generate these alternate modes.

    • Ah, but there is a (perceived) cost right now to answering “no.” You are disagreeing with the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT – and are therefore an irredeemable RACIST. Not surprising that the Democrat “yes” answers increased. Amazing that the increase was so small.

    • Not only did Boston slip past through its seasonal snowfall record set in 96 but February was the snowiest month in Boston’s officially recorded meteorological data crushing the previous record. In addition, there was a record spell of sub-normal temperatures and on and on [although there were no individual daily temperature records].

      Indeed it was so rotten a winter in Bostonian Terms a ‘Wicked Pissah” — but beyond that our famous Senior Senator Elizabeth Warren is considering changing the designation of her famous High Cheekbones from Cherokee to Eskimo — LOL

      PS: by the way nearly into April and as I look outside we continue to be a) cold and b) snowy

  20. Despite all the claptrap about ‘the most dangerous etc. etc. etc.’ from all the usual suspects, the ongoing United Nations ‘My World’ global survey with over 7,300,000 respondents places ‘Climate Change’ 16th out of 16 categories of concern by a large margin.

    http://data.myworld2015.org/

    Seems the more frantic the alarmists and their shills become, the less people take notice of them, people aren’t as credulous as the AGW scamsters seem to believe..

    Perhaps Mother Nature’s obstinate refusal to behave as instructed by the climate scientists may have something to do with it.

  21. Riddle me this. Why do most of the graph lines show similar shapes (sawtooth) over time? It’s as. If there’s a bias during the sampling based on ?

    • There is a conspicious drop from 1998 to 2001. Maybe the poll in 2001 was conducted after 9/11? Another drop seems to coincide with the financial crisis. Excessive worry about imaginary problems is eclipsed by real problems knocking on the door.

      There was a global poll recently, also discussed here, that showed more worry about climate change in wealthier countries. Maybe we can call it the first world problem effect.

      • “Excessive worry about imaginary problems is eclipsed by real problems knocking on the door.”

        Precisely.

        I bet if one were to compare last week’s poll on how safe airliner travel is, vs. this week there would be a dramatic difference.

    • taz1999 – those patterns across issues is reassuring – each time point will have bias – theoretically and pragmatically there is no way to sample a population, voluntarily, without bias. the fact that they covary indicates that they are probably getting data that reflects reality pretty well – I was looking at those ups and downs across time – there are probably distinct events – release of inconvenient truth, elections, Super(Normal) Hurricane Katrina, Super-(normal) Hurricane-er-Tropical-Depression Sandy, and so on.

  22. In my opinion, the level of concern indicated by this poll is probably much less than reported. Polls are a type of model after all, and unless every single living American participated in the poll, the results are a statistical extrapolation, not reality.

    The verbiage of the article makes a mistake by saying “percentage of Americans” instead of “percentage of Americans polled” or “percentage of respondents”. A slight semantic difference perhaps, but a very important slight semantic difference.

    • Christopher,
      Apart from quotes and charts, the article consists of about 300 words; only the most ADD reader could see that as “verbiage”.
      Your misuse of the word betrays an unseemly haste to sneer at the post. Your revelation of your own opinion of the level of concern of every single American is a bit light on detail as to how you came to this conclusion.
      When you were interviewing every single American, what did you do about the ones that wouldn’t respond?

      • I think I used the word correctly. A little trip to the dictionary should clear that up… hang on… yup. I used it correctly. But I get your point. I guess without realizing it, I’ve always used the secondary meaning of the word.

        My opinion is not of the level of every American’s concern, it is of misleading wording. Now, I do understand that the article as posted didn’t use the exact wording “percentage of Americans”, so I was inaccurate there, but I think I was close enough to have my point understood.

        What would I do with the ones that wouldn’t respond or weren’t invited? I would make sure that any description of the study did not imply in any way that an entire set was polled when in reality only subsets were polled.

      • “In my opinion, the level of concern indicated by this poll is probably much less than reported.”
        “My opinion is not of the level of every American’s concern, it is of misleading wording.”

  23. Considering how many arguments they (CAGW proponents) have lost, and the pause, their support has been alarmingly steady.

    I think that there are three things that might eventually dent their core support;

    1. Public perception/awareness that they have been tampering with the data to lie to the public
    2. The bullying of honest scientists and opponents
    3. Cooling (if it starts to happen)

    These stories are toxic in a way the hiatus is not, if they break out to wider middle ground audiences they will change opinions.

  24. I remember the 1950/1960’s when there were a few days of unusual climate, we all jokingly blamed it on the atomic tests in the desert near Las Vegas, and then as one we all went back to work fighting the cold war where the bad guys really had sited atomic armed inter-continental ballistic missiles targeted at us. People today have lost their sense of humor allowing a vocal minority who believe that a few more parts per million of CO2 will destroy the planet. Don’t they know that bad guys are out there today who are far more dangerous than those of the past that already have, or soon will have atomic capabilities that can destroy us, and they certainly will try to do just that? Maybe the anthropogenic alarmists should think a bit more about a proven current problem and rethink their anthropogenic hypothesis of some distant apocalypse…

  25. For years I have gone to Yahoo News for a quick hit on headlines. But in the past year to six months, the Yahoo news editors (as well as Huffington Post and others) have gone “loony” by publishing a global warming scare story about every ten minutes. I think the AGW Scare proponents are desperate because they realize they are not convincing reasonable people that global warming is a threat. They seem to think that if they run the scare stories often enough it may change public opinion. Nope.

  26. As long as the left is the Santa Claus party it will have a substantial following which will support whatever their generous leaders put forth.

  27. If skeptic Liberals in 2005 prefer the Republicans in 2015, wouldn’t the poll give a similar result?

  28. Was there a follow-up question from Gallup on whether climate model error matters? I thought not.

  29. Most products have a life cycle (perennials like Coca-Cola excepted).

    It looks like Climate Change™ is entering the decline stage.
    Various strategies are recommended but I think they have tried them all except liquidation although the product will always appeal to a limited market.

  30. On a related note

    And personality also appears to influence how people vote. Conservative supporters were more likely to be conscientious, married, and healthy. Labour voters were likely to be neurotic, depressed and unhealthy.
    “Overall these results indicated that regions with large proportions high in neuroticism had more residents who were politically left of centre, working class and physically unhealthy,” the report concluded.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11492482/Scottish-are-most-friendly-people-in-Britain…but-watch-out-for-grumpy-Londoners.html

  31. Is a Republican or Democrat “leaner” someone who doesn’t support the red or the blue team, but is forced to “lean” by the pollster?

    42 percent of the American public now call themselves “independent,” rather than Democratic or Republican, according to a recent Gallup poll–more than at any other point in history.
    -Boston Globe, November 2014

  32. Well, those “billions of dollars poured in alarmist propaganda” have helped create some marketing jobs, so yay.

  33. The Essential Poll ( a few days ago) suggests Australians are on a par with US citizens, a bunch of worry warts.

    ‘52% say they have become more concerned about the environmental effects of global warming over the last two years and 8% have become less concerned – 37% feel about the same.

    ‘These results are very similar to those when this question was asked in December.

    ‘Those most likely to have become more concerned were Labor voters (63%), Greens voters (76%) and people with university degrees (58%).’

  34. I’m concerned that I’m running low on beer at this hour, and CA law shuts down liquor sales at 2:00 a.m. If this can be worked into a poll about the climate, I’ll drink to that.

  35. I’m concerned that we won’t get more global warming.

    I don’t suppose that was a choice on the survey. Otherwise, I’d have to rank my concern for global warming about forty spots below ‘Need to get my fingernails trimmed.’

  36. Not surprised.

    When I started blooging about AGW on the Daily Mail site, nearly ten years ago, I was a lone voice shouting into the wind. Now, any AGW story on the Daily Mail is laughed at by 99% of respondents. The change is that dramatic.

  37. This is good news. And the Democrat 4% increase? Well that’s just hilarity stacked on top of good news.

  38. It would seem that most journalists and editors haven’t caught on to the general public’s dismissive attitude about AGW, since the media’s mantra of climate alarmism is still unrelenting. Unfortunately, it may take awhile before they realize that hardly anyone is listening. Perhaps a few more winters like the past one will do the trick. We can always hope.

    • Problem you have here is the “a few more winters” statement. While it is truly that the highly populated NE US has had some brutal winters, not here out West (and not in several other parts of the world).

  39. Well the MSM are doing their level best to change this. They’ve been utterly fixated on the “West Antarctic” (more factually, the Western Antarctic Peninsula) ice shelves for weeks now. Repeating the theme for all the low information voters and various morons out there.

  40. If I read the page at Gallup.com correctly, respondants were given a list of choices, in random order. I wonder how global warming would have ranked if people were asked to respond without being given a list to choose from?

    I know, I know, you can’t rank any lower than last place.

  41. Wouldn’t it be Climate changed? I’m more concerned about the GMO food and vaccines they are trying to force us to eat at threat of being exiled as a mental patient, or the fact that our education system in the US has declined so much, that 1:4 Americans thinks the sun rotates around the Earth.

    I much rather focus my energy on things I can change, like educating people about sustainable farming, and living closer to the Earth.

    Got to work on ourselves, before we can possibly do anything else.

Comments are closed.