2/3 of Americans refuse to pay one hundred dollars per year, to prevent global warming


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports reveals that 2/3 Americans are unwilling to pay even $100 / annum additional costs to prevent global warming.

According to Rasmussen;

Most voters still aren’t ready to pay much, if anything, to fight global warming, but a slightly higher number are willing to spend more for the cause.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are willing to pay nothing more in higher taxes and utility costs annually to to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. But that’s down from 48% last August and the lowest level measured in regular tracking since January 2013. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year, unchanged from earlier surveys. Twenty-six percent (26%) are ready to spend $300 or more a year to combat global warming, with six percent (6%) who are ready to spend at least $1,000 more annually. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Read more: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/are_voters_willing_to_pay_to_combat_global_warming

Intriguingly, a lot of people questioned by Rasmussen think global warming is primarily caused by human activity.


Date Human activity Planetary Trends Other Reason
March 2015 45% 35% 8%

Read more: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/environment_update

To me this suggests 3 possibilities:

  1. Many of the people who are concerned about the climate, don’t think paying more tax will help to cool the planet.
  2. A lot of people who say they are concerned don’t really mean it.
  3. A combination of the above.

However there is good news for people concerned about climate change. If the 26% of Americans willing to spend $300 / annum, and the 6% of Americans willing to spend $1000 / annum, really mean what they say:

26% x 300 million people x $300 + 6% x 300 million people x $1000

= $23 billion + $18 billion

= $41 billion / annum

$41 billion / annum is just under half of what rich countries promised to pay at Copenhagen 2009.

So my good news is, America’s fair share of the $100 billion rich country tithe can be amply covered by the voluntary pledges of people who say they are willing to pay to save the planet – no need to levy taxes on anyone.

Those who believe now have a real opportunity to make a personal difference. Furthermore, I’m happy to volunteer to help coordinate the effort, you can send your cash c/o WUWT. In the next decade it will become more than obvious how effective my secret $410 billion plan to prevent global warming has been – at least it will be, until NOAA revises their figures again.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 6, 2015 10:41 am

Something tells me that Americans are already paying much, much more than one hundred dollars per year to “prevent global warming”. And not voluntarily.

Reply to  PiperPaul
June 6, 2015 11:27 am

Surely the quote from the survey is saying that some 56% of Americans are willing to pay at least 100$ to combat global warming?

Reply to  climatereason
June 6, 2015 11:38 am

That number would go down dramatically before the fingers reached into the wallet.

Reply to  climatereason
June 6, 2015 2:06 pm

Didn’t the UN want a “mere” 1% of world GDP to fight global climate change. Unless I am figuring it incorrectly, assuming the US GDP is $17 trillion dollars and there are 300 million people, than every man, woman and child in the USA would have to pay $5,666.00 a year to the UN. If people don’t want to spend $100 a year what does this tell you about the UN getting $5,666 a year?
Any comment? Are my figure a good estimate?

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  climatereason
June 6, 2015 10:06 pm

@ Raymond Borland
No Raymond, the scammers want developed countries to contribute “at least 1 per cent of gross domestic product per year from 2020 and additional funds during the pre-2020 period to the Green Climate Fund (GCF),” which would act as the “main operating entity of the Financial Mechanism” under the new treaty (section 96; p.44).
Given OECD (Developed Countries?) GDP totalled some US$46.2 Trillion in 2012, if you do the arithmetic that means the scammers are really chasing some US$462 Billions per annum from 2020.

Reply to  climatereason
June 7, 2015 9:17 pm

One would have figure the cost of all alt energy subsidies, ethanol subsidies, increased electrical rates due to wind or green energy mandates, just to start. Way more than $100 annually.

Tom Crozier
Reply to  climatereason
June 8, 2015 12:32 pm

The study fails to recognize that those willing to pay anything at all are talking about other people’s money, not their own….

Reply to  PiperPaul
June 6, 2015 1:38 pm

My thoughts also……

george e. smith
Reply to  PiperPaul
June 6, 2015 4:21 pm

I’m perfectly happy to have those 26% of the people pay $1,000 per year towards what they believe, is a problem.
I don’t believe there is ANY climate problem, so I’m not willing to put up so much as a brass razoo. chasing rainbows.
But I’m all in favor of clean air and water,
In California, we are ruled by a dictatorial tyrant, so I don’t have any say in what is rational to do.
Moonbeam Brown is going to fine people $10,000 per day for using more water that he thinks they should.
Now it may seem ironical that Brown is slapping his fines on the people who drink a glass of water with their lunch. The Doctors tell us we should drink a gallon per day.
But when you dig into it, you find it is perfectly rational.
The people who get, and waste a lot of 80% of all the water that lands in California, only account for 2% of the State’s gross national product, so obviously it isn’t worth fining them; they are paupers.

Reply to  george e. smith
June 7, 2015 8:05 pm

e smith
It really doesn’t matter what you “believe” about global warming. The facts demonstrate that humans are causing global warming. if you are a qualified climate scientist and care to disprove that reality with newly discovered facts, go ahead!
Science welcomes your work. In fact science is built and structured in such a way that the truth, facts and reality always prevail. Unlike religions, in which the prevailing opinion is always held by entrenched leaders.
Very little of substance is fact-based in a religion. That is why opinions matter so much in religion; those who choose to differ in opinion often leave the religion, create new, different versions of it, or form new religions. It’s why there are so many flavors of Christianity and other religions. But no one has ever formed a new version of science.
Beliefs are the purview of religion. Facts are the purview of science. In other words, the very real facts support the reality of AGW, while beliefs support mere unsupportable opinions.
You are entitled to your opinions. But opinions are not facts.
FACT: The world is warming, and human activity is the major cause of it. I know this because of the preponderance of evidence and the solidity of the theory about global warming. I don’t “believe” anything about it. I simply understand it.
As soon as the preponderance of facts and evidence disprove AGW, I will understand that. It is that simple.

Reply to  george e. smith
June 7, 2015 8:50 pm

McShane says:
The facts demonstrate that humans are causing global warming… FACT: The world is warming, and human activity is the major cause of it… the theory about global warming… I don’t “believe” anything about it. I simply understand it.
Aside from those being just a bunch of fact-free assertions, your whole post was an extreme example of psychological projection. Dangerous “man-made global warming” (MMGW) is your own true blue green religion.
You posted only one verifiable fact: the world is warming. However, the claim that human activity is the “major cause” is merely a baseless assertion. You believe it, but that’s just your religion speaking.
Next, what is this so-called “theory of global warming”? GW is a fact. Now, if you meant MMGW (which of course you did), then that is not a “theory”. Nor is it a hypothesis. Theories and hypotheses are both capapble of making repeated, accurate predictions. But MMGW believers cannot accurately predict. No one predicted the present “hiatus”, in which GW has been stopped for the past 18 ½ years.
Thus, MMGW is merely a conjecture; an opinion. It may be true. Or not. Or it may be of such minor insignificance that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. To date, there is not one testable, empirical measurement of the MMGW conjecture.
Finally, I would advise not asserting things like, “I simply understand it.” You should add a qualifier, such as ‘think’. As in: “I think I understand it.” Because I think you don’t.

Bruce Cobb
June 6, 2015 10:45 am

I gave at the office.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 6, 2015 2:38 pm

I already gave at the tax collector’s office.

June 6, 2015 10:51 am

“Intriguingly, a lot of people questioned by Rasmussen think global warming is primarily caused by human activity.”
That because “You can fool some of the people all of the time”. Especially, when you spend hundreds of millions on false propaganda over decades.

Reply to  LarryFine
June 7, 2015 7:52 pm

Really? Who “spend hundreds of millions on false propaganda over decades?”
Whose millions, and how is the overwhelming preponderance of evidence for AGW false propaganda, exactly?
Whose research and theories, exactly, have disproved a mainline scientific theory on which qualified scientists have written peer-reviewed scientifically sound papers for decades?
Your evidence, please?
And if so, isn’t that “propaganda” technically classified as scientific data? Of which any scientist with the proper equipment could discover himself or herself, and use with proper equations to prove or disprove the AGW theory?
And since it is scientific data, why hasn’t the preponderance of evidence disproved the AGW theory, but instead led to a greater and greater levels of certainty over the years that AGW is caused by human activity??
Are you actually claiming that a few rogue scientists, whose work has been discredited in peer-reviewed publications, and only appears in fossil-fuel funded ventures via pro-business organizations such as the Heritage Foundation (multiple, clear conflicts of interest, obviously), have disproved the AGW Theory?
Without a host of new evidence that contravenes AGW, your statement sounds like the blind beliefs of an adherent to a religion, not a science based picture of reality.

Reply to  McShane
June 7, 2015 8:59 pm

Are you actually claiming that a few rogue scientists, whose work has been discredited in peer-reviewed publications, and only appears in fossil-fuel funded ventures via pro-business organizations such as the Heritage Foundation (multiple, clear conflicts of interest, obviously), have disproved the AGW Theory?
As a matter of fact, the true ‘consensus‘ (for whatever that is worth in science — nothing) is heavily on the side of skeptics of dangerous man-made global warming.
If you are not a ‘bot, then you’re certainly living in a bubble if you believe the things you write.

Reply to  McShane
June 8, 2015 7:44 am

Why are you in denial regarding climate fear mongering?
Why do you go out of your way to perpetuate the biggest series of lies in history?
Why are you so willfully blind to the fraud which is being committed against us all?
Why do you hate the poor people of the world and wish to consign them to abject misery, while policies which you support gradually starve them to death in a world perfectly capable of providing for them?
Why do you live in fear of a beneficial trace gas which is necessary for all life on Earth, and is the basis of the entire food chain and hence the biosphere?
How can you be so colossally and stupendously misinformed about the basics of what seems to be nearly every aspect of the world we live in?
And why do you carry on with such transparently ludicrous propaganda to a group of people who you should know damn well are better informed than you are, and obviously cannot be taken in by vapid slogans?
Why do you not learn some science yourself, and stop believing what other people tell you to believe?
And when was the last time you checked on the status of the talking points you memorized all those years ago?

David S
June 6, 2015 10:56 am

Most of the proponents of Global Warming are liberal Democrats. Their plan is to spend unlimited amounts of someone else’s money.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  David S
June 6, 2015 11:02 am

Nearly all governments are socialist/Liberals and nearly all governments want to spend “their” money to improve “their” peoples lives

Reply to  Stephen Richards
June 6, 2015 2:46 pm

It all revolves around the meaning of the work “their”.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
June 7, 2015 8:35 pm

And what is the problem with any government, which ideally represents all of the people, supporting all of the people in all ways?
Corporations won’t do it. You won’t do it. Senators and Congressmen funded by Big Pharma and Big Oil and Coal won’t do it. They largely represent their corporate/industry campaign supporters.
In tribal times, in a healthy tribe, the rich and able supported the weak and the poor. In our nation, possibly the richest in the world, we throw our poor to the gutters. If not for socialist programs like Social Security and Medicare, we would have thrown our aged to the gutter as well. If not for socialist public schools, we would have an illiterate society for the most part except for rich elites.
These socialist programs were fought for, supported and promoted by liberals and Progressives. They were hated and reviled by conservatives. Now they are loved by most except Ayn Rand-influenced Libertarian (mostly kooks) conservatives. (Ayn Rand herself depended upon Medicare when she was older! What a hypocrite!) But only after they have been established many years.
Look up the trail of money on this website:
Democratic Socialism works incredibly well in nations like Denmark, Canada and Sweden, which have among the highest happiness indexes in the world. They are far better off than most people in the United States, where conservative policies have nearly destroyed the middle class, vastly driven up the mortality rate –far worse than similarly industrialized rich countries like Germany– and gigantically increased the income and wealth gap since the 1970s.
“In 1980, the infant mortality rate in the United States was about the same as in Germany. Today, American babies die at almost twice the rate of German babies…”

Reply to  Stephen Richards
June 7, 2015 9:02 pm

McShane says:
In tribal times, in a healthy tribe, the rich and able supported the weak and the poor.
Yes, and the tribe believed every word their witch doctor told them, just like you believe in the “dangerous man-made global warming” juju.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
June 8, 2015 7:56 am

Are you actually allergic to facts and the truth?
If so, God help you.
If not, why do you write long ranting screeds which are completely devoid of factual information?
Have you no self respect?

Stephen Richards
June 6, 2015 11:01 am

Whether voters are ready or not the money is already being taken.

June 6, 2015 11:02 am

This is what Roger Pielke calls his “iron law”. People will say they are concerned about global warming, if directly asked the question. But they won ‘t put much if any money behind it.

Reply to  Paul Matthews
June 6, 2015 2:10 pm

Ask the people who want climate legislation and a carbon tax if they have forked out any of their own money on solar panels, a Tesla hybrid car, solar hot water heater, a windmill, and if they have started to bicycle to work, stopped jet travel for vacations, and turned off their oil hot water heaters in winter.

Not Really Vlad the Impala
June 6, 2015 11:02 am

How can I possibly pay $100 to prevent Climate Change, when my weekly insurance premium against Giant Killer Robots is due again?

Reply to  Not Really Vlad the Impala
June 6, 2015 1:00 pm

So who are you then; Vlad the Bel Air? Vlad the Biscayne?

Janice Moore
Reply to  H.R.
June 6, 2015 2:25 pm

Well… here is who (of course a classic Chevy is a “who” 🙂 ) the above commenter is not really, anyway:
And here is the unsavory, rather twisted history of “Vlad the Impala” (distant relative of “Christine”) according to Wiki: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Vlad_the_Impala
And that’s all for the news, tonight! Now, for more WEATHER!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Not Really Vlad the Impala
June 6, 2015 2:20 pm


Louis Hunt
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 6, 2015 3:40 pm

I’d rather dig deep into the planet for fossil fuels. They keep me both warm and cool for a reasonable cost, and one of the byproducts is plant food that makes my supper a little cheaper and my nights and winters a little warmer. What’s not to like?

June 6, 2015 11:03 am

so….we’re right at that consistent 30% of liberal nut jobs

June 6, 2015 11:03 am

Let me get this straight. I should pay to reduce global warming? I’d be further ahead if I paid to increase global warming because that would reduce my winter heating bill.

June 6, 2015 11:04 am

Hmmm. To put things into perspective — if we could install a thermostat on the Sun to control its output, how difficult would it be, and how long would it take, to adjust the thermostat to maintain a stable temperature on Earth?

Reply to  littlepeaks
June 6, 2015 11:18 am

If that were possible, (slip ’em the)Johnson Controls Corp., Andover (Bendover) or Honeywell (Moneywell) would already have secured the contract, I’m sure. Unfortunately it doesn’t make any more sense than trying to control atmospheric GHGs, but would make jobs instead of shutting down industry.

Reality Observer
Reply to  littlepeaks
June 6, 2015 11:19 am

$410 billion? We can put sunshades in orbit.
Of course, that assumes we hand the money over to somebody like SpaceX, who won’t fritter it all away on a study to determine the feasibility of a study to examine whether a study is required of the effects on Muslim attitudes in Anbar Province.

Reply to  littlepeaks
June 6, 2015 11:29 am

Here’s a novel approach littlepeaks; We sequester all the CO2 on the planet and liquify it, load it into a spacecraft which is in essence a giant fire extinguisher and send that to the sun. We can douse the geoeffective regions as needed. (hee hee hee)

June 6, 2015 11:14 am

As it’s even a question whether we are warming at all, if not cooling, with no significant warming since 1988, 27 years, why would we spend anything on nothing?
Furthermore, as warming has always been good for the world and mankind, why would we be against it anyhow? Recognizing that warming is good, as is more CO2 for plant growth, the whole fighting global warming is clearly a political agenda, with the goal to cripple the world’s economies, lower our standard of living to that of the third world countries. The Un wants to impose Agenda 21, a one world government that would have to be socialist and totalitarian. Yeah, that’s what we want, worldwide Hunger Games.

Joe Public
June 6, 2015 11:54 am

Meanwhile east of the Pond, UK households involuntarily paid an average of £765 ($1,168) in environmental taxes in 2012 (the latest figure available. For some reason!?)
Source: “UK Environmental Accounts, Environmental Taxes – 2014” – published earlier this week.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Joe Public
June 6, 2015 4:03 pm

And for all your sacrifice, your entire nation reduced the global temperature anomaly by an amount indistinguishable from zero.
Some people would say you’ve been cheated. In fact you are being cheated. We’re all being cheated by the academic/industrial/crony complex that marries government, corrupt crony industry, the Green lobby, and Big Climate Science. But we’ll wake up, soon, I believe.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
June 7, 2015 4:34 am

“And for all your sacrifice, your entire nation reduced the global temperature anomaly by an amount indistinguishable from zero.”
…not in absolute terms, but rather from what it might otherwise have been.

June 6, 2015 11:59 am

Ric Werme June 6, 2015 at 11:03 am
Let me get this straight. I should pay to reduce global warming? I’d be further ahead if I paid to increase global warming because that would reduce my winter heating bill.
So does this mean you do not care about those already suffering with heat? More important is how much you spend on keeping warm?

Janice Moore
Reply to  sergeiMK
June 6, 2015 12:50 pm

1. Ric Werme’s paying ANY amount of $$ to “reduce global warming” is more worthless than an investment in a lottery ticket (and that is a very low ROI given the odds) making ANY spending on this project a waste of his money. There is NO evidence in the AGWer’s prospectus that CO2 can cause ANY significant change in the climate system called “Earth.”
2. Spending to keep warm is a highly rational way to spend one’s money. Not spending that money on a sc@m which will never reduce the suffering of others from heat one iota is NOT to not care.
What is “amazing” is your ignorance about CO2 and your fatuously inane judgmentalism.

Reply to  sergeiMK
June 6, 2015 3:03 pm

Sergei is paid Russian troll in news recently, comrade?

Reply to  sergeiMK
June 8, 2015 8:07 am

Hey, Sergei!
Wake up!
Cold kills people in numbers far larger that heat ever does.
Heat allows plants to grow and life to prosper.
Cold kills plants and makes growing food impossible.
To survive heat, a healthy person need only drink water. People can run for days on end in the most extreme heat the planet has to offer. And many do, all the time, for the pleasure and the recreation if it.
Cold is survivable only with special clothing, carefully chosen equipment, large supplies of stored food, and adequate shelter.
People survive cold. They thrive in heat.
As does all life.
Want proof?
Go to any place near the equator.
Then go to any place near one of the poles.
Report back with what you find.
I’ll wait here, in my chosen place of residence and my favorite time of year…hot Florida in blazing Summer.
It is great. Try it sometime.
Buh bye….hurry back!

Bill H
June 6, 2015 12:00 pm

Anyone willing to check their current utility providers bills for the Renewable Energy Tax listed on them will find out they have been being stolen from for a good long time already and to the tune of whole lot more than 100 dollars a year.
Then there is the hidden taxes on Coal fired generation that are never seen and only listed as a cost to create the power you use. A good 60% of the cost of Coal is hidden taxation.
The deception is long and deep. This is how they blame the Coal providers for the rise in cost and never divulge that it is the regulations and taxation that are really driving up the price.
Its a dang shell game that has been going on for decades.. The EPA is so corrupt now only its total dismantling will stop the majority of the corruption.

June 6, 2015 12:04 pm

I’m surprised they didn’t try to market this a bit better. Say, “Would you pay $99.95/year or less than $2/week to save the planet/polar bears/cute molluscs/etc.” ;->
Frankly, I’m happy to pay well over $100/year to support real charities who do real work to help real people through real difficulties. I want not one thin dime of mine to go to paying for junkets for various academics/scholars/NOG wags to jet around the world to luxurious conferences to discuss how to fix the worlds problems (by jetting to more luxurious conferences).

Reply to  PaulH
June 8, 2015 8:14 am

Or they could phrase it honestly:
Would you willingly give a whole bunch of your hard earned money to greedy and crooked politicians to waste on ridiculous and counter-productive programs and fraudulent studies, which are awarded to their network of thieving cronies, while they line their pockets and laugh at your naive stupidity?

June 6, 2015 12:06 pm

Money can’t change the climate, or stop global warming or cooling. Not sure why some think it will.

Reply to  onenameleft
June 6, 2015 12:19 pm

Duh lol they (elite) know that.

Kenneth Glenn Koons
June 6, 2015 12:12 pm

GW and climate are frauds used by liberal progressive socialists to undermine capitalism and free enterprise and for and in America, the use of our huge supplies of raw energy which will last for hundreds of years: coal, gas, oil, and safe use of nuclear energy. Even dense liberals who think finally realize this climate junk is to kill their own welfare.

June 6, 2015 12:21 pm

Actually, this is a good idea and should be implemented with a new, revised poll. Let’s get new results that people will put their money where their mouth is.
A new poll, with the addition that anyone agreeing with the $100 or $300 should be asked for their credit card number. Gulp !
Betcha the result will differ markedly for those two categories.

Janice Moore
June 6, 2015 12:42 pm

{Skip if you are not in need of a little encouragement}
The Rasmussen Poll figures are discouraging, but science (i.e., observations) will win.
It is just a matter of time.
When greed is involved, ev1l’s opponents must fight long and hard to win against the amply funded l1es told and bribes paid to keep the money coming…
In 1789, William Wilberforce

introduced 12 resolutions against the slave trade and gave what many newspapers at the time considered among the most eloquent speeches ever delivered in the Commons. … but they failed to be enacted into law, …

In 1791 he

… brought a motion to the House of Commons to abolish the slave trade, but it was defeated …

In 1792 he

… put forward another motion. However, a compromise measure, … that called for gradual abolition was … passed …

For the next 15 years, he achieved little toward ending the slave trade.

In 1807, … a bill to abolish the slave trade in the British West Indies was carried in the Commons 283 to 16 … The 1807 statute did not, however, change the legal position of persons enslaved before its enactment …

Finally, in

1833, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed by the Commons (it became law the following month); three days later Wilberforce died {at age 73}.

(Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/643460/William-Wilberforce)
Forty-two years is a long time to fight (even in a war of attrition, such as the losing AGW battle) for truth. It’s been roughly 30 years, now, that science realists have been countering the l1es being told about CO2 emissions. YOU SCIENCE GIANTS ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE. Doubt that? Just ask yourself where we would be now but for the Dr. Carters, Dr. Willie Soons, and Anthony Watts’ of the world? The increasingly shrill and desperate and weak, pitifully weak (the latest attempt at data adjustment is laughably weak), shrieks of the Climate Hustlers should give you great encouragement! THEY know that facts have overtaken them. THEY can smell the scent of the death of AGW and it is driving them mad. Hit1er’s propaganda was just as shrill. It worked …. for awhile…. and then: TRUTH WON.
Wilberforce (and later, Lincoln) and the Allies were fighting racism and slavery, not l1es about CO2, but you scientists of WUWT are fighting the same ancient enemy: greed.
And you, too, will win.
In the end, truth wins — every time.
And then, there will be another battle to be fought and won.
You, like the heroes for truth throughout the ages,
are setting a stellar example for all noble, liberty-loving, posterity who will follow you!
Keep on!
The fight is worth it:
Marian Anderson sings at the Lincoln Memorial (April, 1939) -youtube

(Note: If you do not understand the great significance of the above performance, you have some reading to do…)

Reply to  Janice Moore
June 6, 2015 1:28 pm

William Wilberforce was the true hero, stuck to his guns and got there. Lincoln was more of a political WW camp follower (whilst never publicly acknowledging WW’s towering toil and achievement) – but he finally got on the right track in this matter (and paid the ultimate price).
Hey how about a campaign to show how much the USA is currently spending on the myth of AGW? Now that would be a wake-up call.. So the next phone referendum can go along the lines of; “as a taxpayer, you are currently spending $$$??? per annum on AGW. How much are you willing to increase this by over the next decade?

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Janice Moore
June 7, 2015 3:36 am

YOU SCIENCE GIANTS ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE. Doubt that? Just ask yourself where we would be now but for the Dr. Carters, Dr. Willie Soons, and Anthony Watts’ of the world
Janice; you MUST include the name of the person who really kicked off the resistance to AGW through the highly technical analysis of the work of government orgs. STEVE McINTYRE. Above all he is the master !!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Stephen Richards
June 7, 2015 5:32 am

Okay! … and the Steve McIntyres… {of the world}… and …. well, as you may have surmised, it was either pick obviously too few or try to include all the main ones and miss someone. I opted for the representative sample. Thanks for the great addition. Dr. Gray is another and, uh oh, starting in again.
btw: How is that lemon tree of yours doing? Did you get rid of the infestation? Hope so!
Bon jour!

June 6, 2015 1:05 pm

Global Warming? I might kick in $100 or $200 if the UN could warm things up 2-3 degrees.
Oh wait… They want to cool things off? What are they smoking!?!

June 6, 2015 1:16 pm

The cost of CO2 reduction is compounded and disguised.
When your electricity bill increases, so does the bill for everybody who makes what you buy so the price increases. When your electricity bill increases, so does the bill for everybody who sells what you buy (lights, refrigeration, etc.), so the price increases.
When fuel prices increase (to include ethanol, carbon tax, etc.), farming costs increase, and your price goes up.
When fuel prices increase (to include ethanol, carbon tax, etc.), transportation costs increase, and your price goes up.
When farm land is dedicated to corn for ethanol, fewer other crops are grown so their costs go up. The cost of animal feed goes up, and so does the price of beef, chicken, milk, eggs, etc.
All of these increases are additive. All increase the price you pay, and all increase the sales tax you pay.
A $100/year increase in your electricity bill and a $100/year increase in your fuel bill could cost you $x1,000s/year!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Slywolfe
June 6, 2015 1:27 pm

… and your job. 🙁

June 6, 2015 1:22 pm

I would have been willing to pay $1000 towards efforts to deploy renewable energy.
If a cost/benefit analysis were being performed, such that the $1000 were spent on deploying the maximum amount of capacity in situations where it is more needed.
Judging by the evidence of the last 20 years I can see that my $1000 would in reality be spent on some of the least effective technologies and in such a way that it produced the smallest amount of energy delivered, whilst lining the pockets of a bunch of crooks.
Judging by the widespread hatred of the very concept of “cost/benefit analysis” in liberal circles, I can see no good chance that this situation is likely to change in the near future.
And for that reason – I’m out.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
June 6, 2015 1:52 pm

To what purpose?
Renewables are not needed and serve no useful function. The only benefits are to subsidy scavengers and charlatans.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
June 6, 2015 2:19 pm

Your out but you are forced in. States are mandated to have a % of so called renewable energy. Like it or not you and I are paying.
Building a home or addition? Like it or not youare paying more for insulation , new regs are so high regular batt insulation cannot meet code, much more expensive , and imo unsafe due
To chemicals , foam insulation must be used. Houses are so “airtight” they are unhealthy. New permits cost more due to energy code “rescheck” requirements …rant off

June 6, 2015 2:07 pm

Global warming? Why is it when the ‘data’ produced by these fanatics over the last ten years doesn’t stand the test of time and truth, i.e., none of their predictions from their computer models came to be, they say, “Wait, we were using the wrong input for ten years, so now we have to change the input.” That is the latest report from the global warming fanatics.
You mean all those ‘brilliant minds’ couldn’t see they were using flawed data to model their gloom and doom flawed predictions? And now, these same ‘brilliant minds’ want us to pay them $100 each per annum???
Better idea: Send me, all of you who actually buy into this ‘voodoo science’ of man-made global climate change, $50.00 each year for the next five years. I’m letting you off easy and I will be able to repay our daughter’s student loans for med school. So real good will come of your money as she intends to start a medical mission in Africa…. or are you all, you fanatics, racist?
90% of all the ‘fog’ posted by the fanatics is just that, fog… coupled with tons of bull manure.
BTW, I live in Florida and have a place on the beach. Odd, I should have noticed my beach is getting smaller due to ‘rising seas’, but the water is still a long walk away.
Bull manure, bull manure and more bull manure.

June 6, 2015 2:43 pm

The warmunists are willing to pay much >$100 per annum of your money to fight Free-Market Capitalism.
…er, I mean, man-made global warming.

June 6, 2015 3:15 pm

Actually, there’s another possibility than the two listed (ineffectiveness of government spending and unseriousness of belief): The ignoranti believe that the tax burden will bear upon rich people and corporations, and hold them harmless.
The fact is, however, taxpayers already are each paying over $100/year for US climate change programs.
$21.408 billion. That’s the Obama Administration’s budget for climate change programs.
142 million. That’s the number of US tax returns. About 37 million of these returns result in less than $200 income tax. So, there are really only about 105 million tax returns with anything like a serious income tax.
$21.408 billion / 105 million = $182/tax return.
Of course, not all of these are single-earner tax returns. I’m too lazy to work out an exact value. Of the 142 million total returns, 54 million were married filing jointly. So I’ll estimate the number of taxpayers at 105+54= 159 million.
$21.408 billion / 159 million = $135/taxpayer/year.
Of course, that doesn’t count the money that the US government squanders on UN GHG activities and the money that states are squandering on climate change.

Terry Bixler
Reply to  JimBob
June 6, 2015 6:18 pm

So the reality is that $135/taxpayer/year has been scammed and given to those who pay the patronage to our government leaders. Ever hear of Solyndra ,Fisker or Abound Solar. But of course the real play is all those government workers proving that AGW is real.

Lee Osburn
June 6, 2015 3:16 pm

Time does change things. Their red and blue graphs after hiatuses are “corrected” show a beautiful symetric pattern repeating around zero. Time will prove that that work of art will be just that, a pattern. But they know that. That is why the BIG PUSH for this carbon tax before it happens… The pattern shows we are in the hottest period and heading into a colder time. Over millions of years this pattern repeats. So nothing is really happening different except it is being recorded in high definition and we are losing our freedoms.

June 6, 2015 6:11 pm

The only question I have is how in the world the other 35% think their contributions will in any way affect the climate.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Alx
June 6, 2015 6:37 pm

Heh. They “feel” they will.
(Like Goebbels McKibben and his “feel” for things, per Anthony’s generous (oh, brother, and how!) portrayal of McK.’s mens rea vis a vis AGW).

Janice Moore
Reply to  Alx
June 6, 2015 6:49 pm

File that AGW “I’ll buy that phenomenon” Under F.E.A.R. (False Evidence Appearing Real)
Climate Hustler: Save yourself from dying of heat!!! Buy our windmill panacea! (just pennies per day)
35%: I’ll buy that.
Junk Medicine Hustler: Here. Buy these beetle excrement pills. They’ll keep you from dying of ring worm. If Elvis had had these, he’d be alive today, yessiree.”
35%: I’ll buy that.
(Gotta give credit to Not Really Vlad for inspiration: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/06/2third-americans-100-per-year-too-much-prevent-global-warming/#comment-1955678 )

June 6, 2015 6:43 pm

Already paying WAY more than $100 a year in CA. With the recent 60 cents a gallon CO2 tax on gasoline and the already massive increase in electricity over the past five years, I suspect I am already paying about 300 dollars a month for CO2 tax.

David A
June 6, 2015 11:43 pm

“Intriguingly, a lot of people questioned by Rasmussen think global warming is primarily caused by human activity.”
“To me this suggests 3 possibilities:
1.Many of the people who are concerned about the climate, don’t think paying more tax will help to cool the planet.
2.A lot of people who say they are concerned don’t really mean it.
3.A combination of the above.”
What about 4…
A lot of people think G.W. is primarily caused by humans, and net beneficial? After all, all the hoopla is about CAGW, not GW.
This is not trivial. The false 97 percent consensus junk science was based on just that, leaving the “C” out of CAGW. Skeptics would do well to not repeat this blunder. In a like manner the “Pause” or “hiatus” (but not lull) is an equally false argument, distracting from the clear scientific evidence that minor warming is clearly net beneficial.

June 7, 2015 12:58 am

Can anybody prove gases are causing GW? – not just imaginary or fake science or metaphorical way. GHG idea is ridiculous. Gases can’t form green house. So GHE due to gases is impossible. GW is manmade but not due gases. Gases are not manmade. Drier the land surface the hotter it is, we all know. So, develop water supply system so that land surface is always kept moist to cool off atmosphere, enhance rain cycle thus add snow on mountains and poles. When the water goes back to the places where it came from, the sea level will also gradually decrease – thus, solve the CC.

June 7, 2015 1:02 am

How anybody is going to stop GW (it is also misleading term), better say Climate Change?

Reply to  indrdev200
June 8, 2015 8:32 am

Trying to portray climate change as a crisis is meaningless.
The climate has and will always change.
The propaganda is that humans are causing the globe to warm. Climate change is/was a recent attempt at misdirection when it was found that the actual Earth was not cooperating with the hoax
Why do you insist on changing the subject?
Climate change is your meme and your religion, you should own up to it and stop being so wishy washy.

William Astley
June 7, 2015 3:20 am

We are at A. How much will it cost and what will the effects be on our standard of life and unemployment levels to reach B? Also what are the benefits to reach B? I would assume the majority of the people know CO2 is essential for life on this planet and that commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into their greenhouses to increase yield and reduce growing times.
The question is disingenuous as the cult of CAWG has not done an unbiased/independent back of the envelope estimate of how much it would cost to reduce CO2 emissions by let say 50% and has not explained how a reduction of CO2 emissions of let say 50% would affect planetary climate based on their incorrect models.
Our standard of life is directly related to how much energy costs. Why is that a big revelation? It is a fact that unemployment will significantly increase and standard of life will be significantly reduced to say reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions by let say 50% without the complete conversion to nuclear power.
To truly reduce world CO2 emissions would require real sacrifices, not attending silly yearly climate summits.
To truly significantly reduce CO2 emissions also requires forced, not voluntary changes in everyone’s life style. Spending more money on energy (tripling the cost of electricity in the US) can only reduce CO2 emission by roughly 20% (not including the CO2 emissions to build and install and maintain the green scams). The question should also have asked would you support a government ban on tourism air travel and a government restriction on house floor space and the banning of recreational property in addition to a tripling of the cost of electricity.
The question is also disingenuous as the assumption is that if we could reduce world CO2 emissions by let say 20%, 30%, or 50% that that change would significantly affect planetary temperature and climate change. The question would have a different answer if the planet is cooling and it becomes apparent that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes what would your reaction be?
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: The Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.).

“Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record,… …. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature, 2012,doi:10.1038/nature11391), reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

Reply to  William Astley
June 7, 2015 9:39 am

I would assume the majority of the people know CO2 is essential for life on this planet and that commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into their greenhouses to increase yield and reduce growing times.

Why would you assume that? I suspect that most people would be surprised and / or unbelieving.

June 7, 2015 3:34 am

Why should Americans pay more than anyone when we done more to clean up our act. I think this is more about politics and power. AL Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.

Coach Springer
June 7, 2015 4:49 am

$100 /year? My electricity bill by a low carbon committed producer is up $100 / month right now. And no, I am not “willing.”

June 7, 2015 2:30 pm

If a carbon tax or cap-and-trade is enacted, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of this revenue ends up towards that 100 billion. I personally believe that is planned.
In addition, if a carbon tax is enacted, the treasury will be swimming in hundreds of billions of dollars. That money may also be used to pay down the debt, fund social programs, get redistributed to the poor, etc. In short, the middle class might end up paying the brunt of these things instead of rich people. This might be why many rich people want a carbon tax.
What is the $100 billion going to be used for? My guess is economic development for some of the following (in no particular order) reasons:
1) Get more women working so that they have less time to make babies.
2) Electrify the rest of the world so that governments and the NSA can spy of the people who currently don’t have cell phones or are living in residences off the grid.
3) Give companies more options to more jobs to other countries. You can bet that new areas that are suddenly developed are going to get new low paying jobs.
As far as volunteering to pay part of the 100 billion, that is an excellent idea. We should also implement a national Higher Optional Tax where the caring and compassionate left can voluntarily pay more of their own wealth via this tax to the government so that this extra money can be used to bolster the current unconstitutional social programs we have in place.

June 8, 2015 12:08 am

“I’ll throw every tenth fish I catch back in the ocean and you can get it yourselves.” Foxe’s Book of Martyrs

Reply to  Zeke
June 8, 2015 12:47 am

Non sequitur, bogus quote and misspelled the title of the book.

June 8, 2015 1:24 am

It works well as an anecdote.
And fortunately I don’t need to know Latin. That was another a success of the martyrs.

June 8, 2015 8:18 am

Eric, if you need any help sorting, counting and bagging the fat stacks of money that will be rolling in, give me a shout.
No, seriously…I do not mind a bit.

James at 48
June 8, 2015 11:17 am

I would gladly pay $100 / year if it would shut up the warmists and obviate their need to bloviate.

Gary Pearse
June 8, 2015 4:59 pm

They are already paying much more than that!

CO2 stuff of life
June 8, 2015 5:11 pm

They pay to heat their homes.

June 9, 2015 6:26 am

How about voluntary payments to an AGW government or nonprofit account? The collection buckets can be placed outside Whole Foods stores and can include bell ringers with slogans on their T-shirts. Why wait for the final over reach govt midnight vote for mandatory payments if the climate really is at stake now with tipping points this and tipping points that? Or just send all of your money to the Clinton Foundation for the emotional feel good indulgence payment.

%d bloggers like this: