While Karl et al. 2015 blathers on about eliminating the “hiatus” in global warming through creative adjustments and cherry picking of periods to achieve a desired outcome, Rasmussen Reports made a release this morning on the poll question: “How Serious a Problem Is Global Warming?” They have a link to their historical trends, which is all in a table format that took some work to untangle. Here is what it looks like over time: (it looks like a hiatus to me)
Note the right panel of the graph. I found it interesting that the firm seems to think that the topic is less worthy of polling on more recently. There have not been big changes over time; really just polling noise and no real trends.
You won’t find the demographic breakdowns all that surprising. Here are a few highlights:
Good luck to NCDC and Tom Karl on trying to erase this one.
h/t to reader Tom
This seems to indicate that members of the general public have understood that there has been no improvement in the accuracy of the forecasts or the understanding of climate sensitivity.
No need to change opinion as there is no new information.
Perhaps that’s why the committed have to fabricate data.
It’s actually worse (for the warm-mongers).
Successive elections in western countries show that the electorate is not responding to “climate change” harassment. It’s not a factor, iow, no matter what a survey might say or not on this or any topic. It opens the question as to what is the actual criteria people use to vote but that’s a different can of worms.
It also seems to indicate that, as many of us have been arguing for years, global warming is a Leftist obsession.
Or to be more accurate, political control of the populace is a Leftist aim and global warming is seen as the best chance to achieve that.
The poll means there is a strong debate occurring on global warming. It may appear to the general public that there isn’t a debate, however, that appearance of no debate is only because the financially troubled traditional media lacks the independent intellectual will to report the debate.
John
I don’t think there is a debate at all. Most people have chosen a stance to either believe in AGW, to not believe in AGW . The only discussions left are those trying to convince others to change their minds, a fool’s errand for sure.
I was waiting at my mechanics for a small repair on my car yesterday and struck up a conversation with a woman about my age. We drifted into politics and she admitted that for years she voted straight Democrat because she was told that’s what she was. After many years she began to finally think about it and discovered the Democrats did not represent her point of view. The sad and troubling point is that it took her “many years” to get around to thinking about it. I believe it is the same with AGW/climate change/whatever. Most people get a little info and then if it fits their bias, earnestly believe they are on the correct side of the argument. Only when they actually start paying attention do they start to form fact based opinions. Sadly many never get this far and go happily about their lives content in “knowing” they are informed and correct about things..
good story, Tom – being a “democrat” for many is not so much about issues, but about being a virtuous person – being on the right side of the argument.
This is why the “democrats” have to spend so much time defining their opponents as evil. For a long time, it was cool to accuse someone with a different viewpoint of being a Fox news watcher – that kind of died out for two reasons – one, Fox news is killing the other news outlets, and because many simply are not fox news-fed zombies, despite what caricature the “democrats” try to define.
Same occurs to Republicans and many others from all walks of life.
The fact is that there are huge and very serious knowledge gaps in the population at large.
I understand you points but I really wasn’t concerned about which party this lady was with. What mattered to me was that she didn’t bother to do any actual thinking for many, many years. She just went along with her own status quo because it was the easiest thing for her to do. This is the number one reason I believe there must be some kind of qualifying to vote. Otherwise we will always and forever end up with what we have now.
The idea of qualifications has been explored at length. I can’t be done because, bottom line, it is open to many forms of manipulation. After all, who would give the qualifications? Besides, as things stand, voting laws are already sufficiently warped and nonsensical.
That’s not so surprising if you are a decent, sensitive person and any attempt by you to open discussions is met with aggression, sneering dismissiveness etc etc. The aim is to keep you pliant, lacking in self-confidence and down at heel. The types of people who do the sneering are twofold: firstly the sheep who never thought for themselves but spout the party line and accept hierarchy as the way of things; secondly, the really nasty pieces of work who know that what they say is lies but see all of politics as a simple power game that they play in as dirty a manner as they can get away with.
I think that during our middle years many of us are so tied up with work and family that we are closed mightily to politics in general. If you enter that period with one particular political perspective you are likely to stay with it purely because you have not the time or the intellectual freedom, in a period of high stresses, to devote to sundry issues. There is something quite generally odd about our times as politics turns global. Here in England we seem to be expected to have a view on the entire globe and its myriad happenings but are pointed at certain issues with malign purpose.
In England the influence of Metropolitan affairs predominates. London is that dark star drawing in the energy of an entire country. Our news is in one time zone, one climate and, regrettably, one perspective. Sometimes it is as though some putsch has taken places and the means of broadcasting has been subverted. Such is the power of the public broadcaster to dominate the headlines. That is the incestuous London-ocentric bias, the Metropolitan chatterati, the social visa.
The BBC actively bans any talk that denies AGW. Britain has one and a bit slightly right-wing parties and a hat full of those that might be termed left-liberal. The politics of entertainment, broadcasting, the audience formulated to represent all, is bound to have a left wing bias. That I have to resort to this web site to gain perspective is some indictment of how we live. One would have thought that letting a maniac, idiot or charlatan talk would lead to their self-incrimination but such is the climate debate here. Seemingly, those in control fear that either their cosy consensus will be challenged or some ‘truth’ might stick or their powers will be subverted and their hegemony challenged; whatever the point, they are not about to risk it and so this phlogiston-type conspiracy gains the oxygen of truth.
In universities there are anti-men conspiracies; rape is rife it is said and man is an untameable beast that can only be warded off by liberal doses of garlic and a fiery fence. It seems right to keep men out of your circle and a child born of a donor catalogue seems a stress free, self-protective arrangement. But the danger is, of course, that you unwittingly get the sperm from your own gene pool and we start producing deformity through the incidence of accidental kinship.
Worse still, in the British capitalist, non-capitalist society government is free to place proscriptions of production, payment and source on private companies and none more so than the energy industry. There is so much antagonism directed at utilities who are themselves burdened by having to collect tithes for the state to furnish green solutions. Without the state fuel would be cheaper, there would be more competition, there would be answers and invention fired by market forces. But here, little of that will happen as margins are continually being harassed and anyone even contemplating a start-up in this sector would be put off by the uncertainties in their business models caused by the insecurity of central policy.
If it is that people are so concerned by AGW then, through the market, they can show their concerns, place their money to business’s advantage, so creating more of the same and even greater competition. But we are stuck with assertiveness, propaganda, preaching without the means for middle years to be handed contrary thoughts and not just left to reaction and/or compulsion.
The agenda is all houses and immigration. What could be a bigger addition to global carbon than the production of building materials such as bricks, cement? What could deny any attempt at carbon reduction than the accommodation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year? We are simplistic creatures who are floored by what seem like liberal, humane, stories. Was it Bush or was it Blair that intervened in Iraq or was it the narrative formulated by exiled oppositions who spoke of suffering, inhumanity and terror weapons? There is the liberal left placed in a posture of undeniable want, tortured by the ‘condition’ of others less fortunate. Their empathetic juices overflow and the imaginings burning the soul. Controlling the liberal socialist agenda is the precursor to the concept of un-deniability. An intellectual short cut, sans interrogation leading to the road to ruin.
Brute June 4, 2015 at 9:05 pm
“The idea of qualifications has been explored at length. I can’t be done because, bottom line, it is open to many forms of manipulation. After all, who would give the qualifications? Besides, as things stand, voting laws are already sufficiently warped and nonsensical.”
Yes, I understand that and it is a slippery slope. However a few, simple changes could easily be made to the current system. First is to get rid of motor/voter registration. It takes very little time and effort to physically go to the local town hall and register to vote in person with proof you are who you claim to be and that you are a citizen with the right to vote. It is a one time thing. Second you must be able to read. And third if you are on public assistance you must recuse yourself from voting. It is an obvious conflict of interest for those who receive money from the tax payers to be able to vote themselves continuing money from those tax payers.
With respect to voting qualifications, I believe that Heinlein has proposed the best system of all. But sadly, Heinlein’s worlds always made a lot more sense than ours did.
So – 60 to 70 percent of the people think “Global Warming” is a problem? Looks like the education/propaganda system is working. 5% don’t know and 30+ percent aren’t concerned about it. Seems about right. If you never studied science and take the media, politicians and teachers at face value, the results shouldn’t be surprising. Most people are too busy with their lives to do much more than regurgitate what they hear on the nightly news.
The numbers flip however when people are polled and asked whether we should artificially jack up energy prices to prevent Global Warming. 65% always say no
So about 65% of those responding said GW was very serious or somewhat serious. Thats why the title at Reuters is “Global Warming Still A Concern to Most Voters”
Yep, the most damage from “Global Warming” is going to come from Government Policy and Regulation’s enacted to “control” it.
The War on Climate will bring us the same happy results as The War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs.
Add a question to the survey on whether carbon tax revenues would help the poor and alleviate income inequality. That would move the needle.
Good point. The Copenhagen agreement now being recycled is a way to raise money to upraise the poor, which is another way of saying poverty is caused by climate. That should be news to Zimbabweans.
Further, the blunt claim is that the responsibility for the climate causing the poverty of nations lies with rich nations specifically because of their emission of CO2 into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuel.
That is a remarkable claim and goes FAR beyond the claim that such emissions cause warming which itself looks like it will be hard to prove quantitively within my lifetime.
The worst thing for those poor would be to believe that the UN socialists will actually raise them out of poverty. They will make the Clintons, at only 15% of the “donations” spent on actual charity, look truly benevolent.
They will make even FIFA look altruistic.
Where are the columns for scientist versus non-scientist?
Because how do you define “scientist”? If you use a simple, traditional definition, say “someone who works in a scientific lab”, then you are only going to have 4 – 5 of those in any normal sized survey. If you allow self-reporting, than every unscrupulous person in the survey will say they are a “scientist” in the hope of skewing the poll. (self reporting of political affiliation doesn’t have this problem, since there’s not the hope of skewing a poll by mis-identifying oneself)
Or you can do it like Lewandosky and Cook do it, and simply say that everyone who believes in global warming is a “scientist” and anyone who doesn’t believe in it isn’t.
Could we get the actual dates of the surveys like they do on all other poll reporting? Not just number of polls per year
I don’t believe it.
/sa
I believe the Dem votes – they are truly the stupids.
Women tend to vote for comfort and security; men tend to vote for independence and the economy. Women more likely to vote Democrat?
See a pattern? Its too late to put that genie back in the bottle.
Men are ultimately to blame for these stats.
So true. The irony is that the women who attain the most comfort and security are those who have an independent economic man providing it!
Kokoda,
I resent that you paint all of us, democrats with the same, broad brush. Our Zombie contingent is our most reliable voting bloc, and should not be labelled “stupid.” It may come back to haunt you.
What is really interesting are the answers to deeper polling questions to those who believe that something needs to be done about climate change (I worked in the utility sector and we did this regularly)…
For example, when you ask people how much more they are willing to pay on their electric bill to do something about climate change, $5 per month is the limit.
HA!
I see “Very Serious” jumped sharply, while all the others remained level (“Somewhat”) or declined. That indicates a swing to “Very Serious” unless I’m standing on my head while reading the chart. And that’s bad news for the hand-wringers?
Well, if I’m reading this right, 35 percent of males….well under 50 percent….and 41 percent of females…ditto…consider this a serious problem. For the draconian measures favored by the U.N. bloodsuckers, and our very own Barak Obama, to make any sense at all, these numbers just won’t do. They’d need to be much higher to get the public on board. I see this as good news for we skeptics, although I concede it took me a minute to sort it out.
(aka pokerguy)
But my point was the numbers are moving in the wrong direction, even if they are still not what hand-wringers would like – not yet, anyway. If the “Very Serious” don’t reverse course, that’s troubling.
But “weather is not climate”.
It would be interesting to know in which months of the year these polls were taken. I suspect you would get a significant difference between those taken during and just after winter than taken during and just after summer.
Global Warming causes Winter.
Global Climate Change causes polls.
🙂
All the Data is here,
http://www.astrotheme.com/transits_ephemerides_chart.php
Saturn should be now in Sagittarius, according to Astrotheme, it happens to be in Libra (go out and look).
Why I am not surprised?
Of course, I think I get your drift D.I. Thanks.
Not just the US public, but the world public has come to understand that the Obama Administration, and President Barack Obama in particular, will lie whenever it/he needs to, without reservation, without shame, and without apology when caught.
The U.S.A. finally deserve a decent and honest politician who knows the constitution and its amendments. But are there such politicians???
The ‘extreme’ faction seems to have had its lowest points in the earliest months of the year – need to count from either the beginning or the end of the records to ascertain them, though we cannot know whether Jan Feb or March (probably April in 2009). This would appear to reflect that when the USA is blanketed by snow and ice, people would rather have a lot of ‘global warming’. “Bring it on” is the usual cry.
Also perhaps that people are thinking “Tax Time” and considering it is not a good idea giving them fools in Washington any more money to waste.
So . . . 54% of Republicans say AGW is not very serious or not at all serious. And 85% of Democrats say AGW is very serious or somewhat serious.
And they accuse us of partisanship on the issue. They say we are singleminded. They insist we are the ones politicizing the issue.
Also perhaps that people are thinking “Tax Time”
I also am always thinking Tmax Time. But then, who doesn’t?
Sunrise, Sunset
Tmin, Tmax
I don’t think a portion of the left cares even if the data and science is totally made up. They feel they are justified in anything going against a conservative point of view. They feel so good about their point of view and believe they are the answer for the future. Minor details like science, history or facts mean nothing to them. I have experienced this in climate change as well as social issues.
100% agree Charlie.
Stalin had his “useful idiots.”
Rome had “bread and circuses” to entertain them.
They had only enough intelligence to follow the leader.
Socialist tyrants depend on having such a base of bobbleheads all nodding in agreement.
I have found thast a good starting point when talking to a warmist, is to ask them what is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? I’ve gotten some hilarious answers. I tell them they’re incorrect, but refuse to give them the figure, insisting that they go online and look it up. They are usually astonished! “I thought it was like,,, 50% dude!” Gets some of them thinking!
Looks like election year politics have been working well.
https://dub128.mail.live.com/?tid=cmvOLo2W4L5RGBP9idZ1yJdA2&fid=fljunk
he knows ???
SORRY i made a mistake – please suppress my message – tks
It seems like an IQ test to me.
It is not a few degrees warming that is the biggest problem if the climate scientist are correct it is global weather extremes and the cost to tornado prone areas and coastal cities.
Both sides are wrong by definition if they start out trying to find evidence to back up there beliefs.
You need to keep and open but critical mind to both sides to be objective. Most on this site are unable to.
.
Ron
But Ron, it is the climastrologist side that is demanding skeptics be charged under the racketeering act of criminal acts and be thrown in jail for stating our arguments, it is the climastrologist side that is making videos for kids showing OUR heads being blown off with explosives merely for stating our beliefs in public, it is the climastrologist side that refuses to even enter a debate arena – much less allow a debate on a campus to the students.
It is the climastrologist side – YOUR SIDE – that is NOT objective, but dictatorial in ALL aspects of that crime, that political view. It is the climastrologist side that demands political and economic “solutions” to a “problem” they have invented that is not a problem at all – but a benefit! – and a solution that kills millions and harms billions.