AP Poll: Americans Increasingly Unconcerned about Climate Change

Survey

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Yet another poll has been published, which suggests that despite relentless media bombardment in the leadup to Paris, Americans are increasingly unconcerned about climate change.

According to Associated Press;

Q9. How worried, if at all, are you about global warming? [HALF SAMPLE ASKED OPTIONS IN REVERSE ORDER]

AP-NORC 10/15-18/2015 AP-NORC 7/17-19/2015
Extremely/very worried NET 23 26
Extremely worried 8 9
Very worried 14 17
Moderately worried 34 37
Not too/not at all worried NET 38 34
Not too worried 22 20
Not worried at all 17 15
Not sure 4 3
SKIP/REFUSED 1

Read more: http://surveys.ap.org/data/NORC/October_Omnibus_Topline_FINAL_EARLYRELEASE.pdf

Climate alarmists frequently invent bizarre conspiracy theories about why they are losing the climate debate, but in my opinion they simply aren’t facing up to the truth. If alarmists want to understand who has sown the most doubt about the urgency of the climate issue, they need only to look in the mirror.

Very few of today’s jetset climate elite behave as if they have the slightest inclination of ever practicing the austerity they preach. The growing list of failed predictions must surely play a part, but in my opinion, the rank hypocrisy of the world’s leading climate activists likely sets off the most alarm bells in people’s heads.

Advertisements

138 thoughts on “AP Poll: Americans Increasingly Unconcerned about Climate Change

  1. . . .America is waking up to the liberal elites endless deceit and their hypocrisy !!! You hear that Bill Gates ???

    • What fascinates me is how “all in” Hillary is on this stuff. Of course she’ll drift to the right slightly during the general, but I think it’s going to hurt her.
      From my typing fingers to you know whose ears….

    • And there is an 800 pound Gorilla in the middle of the room that is the
      war(s) of the Mideast. It is August, 1914…
      Not August ,2115 we should worry about..

    • Given that you can drive just ten km in the SF Bay area, and observe a change in climate that exceeds the amount of global climate change that is supposed to have happened in the last 150 years; I have no doubt whatsoever that climate changes.
      And notice I did not say ‘weather’ change; I said climate change. You can observe weather change as well, but maybe that only requires a 5 km drive.
      And since the purported change in global Temperature anomaly over that 150 year period, is actually less than 1% of the Temperature change you can find over the globe on any ordinary northern mid summer day; I am not going to worry one iota about either global warming or climate change.
      So sue me.
      G

      • Also, given that CO2 has risen by 43% (shock horror) since the pre-industrial era (i.e. pre 1750 AD) and we’re still here, I’m not worried one iota either.
        Roll on the next 43%, and an end to the whole ludicrous man-made dangerous global warming nonsense.

      • And why do people think the climate around 1900 was ideal? Here in Minnesota the winters are a little warmer now and its great! We save money on heating bills. And the decade with the most warm records is the 1930s using the MSP airport numbers, not the “adjusted” government values.

      • I saw a video made by some Canadian wolf trainers who used then in a Russian film, filmed on location outside Yakutsk, the coldest city in the world. Minus 45 C in winter to plus 50 C in summer. Strangely people live and thrive there and outside the city limits the reindeer herders function year round. I guess they have adapted but I could not imagine the elitists heading to Paris in A/C comfort to understand nor to survive if it ever came to that.

    • Al Gore has called for investigations of ExxonMobil for “misleading” statements on global warming. Watch out, Al! As the king of misleading statements, be careful what you ask for. When more people hear about the alarmist lies and that more CO2 is a benefit for humanity, only the 10% of hard-core Gaia worshipers will support action against energy.

  2. The “jetset climate elite” have failed to make the case that the pain of climate tax that everyone carries in some form or another is worth bearing in light of job loss, warfare, financial collapse, old age, social engineering issues, and the race war. I say the “elite” just went too far and I am happy about that.

    • From Gallup- March 5-8, 2015
      Americans continue to name the government (18%) as the most important U.S. problem, a distinction it has had for the past four months. Americans’ mentions of the economy as the top problem (11%) dropped this month, leaving it tied with jobs (10%) for second place.
      Though issues such as terrorism, healthcare, race relations and immigration have emerged among the top problems in recent polls, government, the economy and unemployment have been the dominant problems listed by Americans for more than a year.

      http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/181964/MIP_Satisfaction_150311%20%20.pdf
      ECONOMIC PROBLEMS (NET) % 33
      Economy in general * 11
      Unemployment/Jobs * 10
      Federal budget deficit/Federal debt * 5
      NON-ECONOMIC PROBLEMS (NET) % 75
      Dissatisfaction with government/Congress/politicians
      Poor leadership/Corruption/Abuse of power * 18
      Immigration/Illegal aliens * 7
      Poor healthcare/hospitals; High cost of healthcare * 7
      Terrorism * 6
      Education/Poor education/Access to education * 6
      Ethics/moral/religious/family decline; Dishonesty * 5
      National security * 4
      Poverty/ Hunger/Homelessness * 4
      Situation in Iraq/ISIS * 4
      Foreign policy/Foreign aid/Focus overseas * 4
      Race relations/Racism * 4
      Here is Gallup’s list of problems. How many of the above do you consider to be the top problem and how many do you consider it is the governments handling that is the real problem. By my count Government or their handling or their meddling hits closer to 96% not 18%
      3. In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?
      Date———– 2009 May 7-9
      Satisfied — 35%
      Dissatisfied — 62%
      Unsure – 3%
      And this is the record lowest O-bama has been able to achieve for Dissatisfied on the direction of the country. all the rest were higher When every month of your Residency you have more than 62% of folks telling you are going the wrong way, it is a problem with leadership not listening.

      • A similar result would be got in Australia. But l politicians everywhere they only to the loudest squeals and act accordingly ad consequently keep getting it wrong d then look flummoxed when they are voted out.

      • Sorry. I forgot about the ghetto moron socialist tyrant and putz running the executive branch.

  3. I completely deny CAGW.
    I completely agree with Natural Climate Change, which includes climate variability caused by magnetic pole movement.

    • And the solar Minimum , the oceans, clouds, cosmic rays and all the other things they don’t count in their models !!

  4. I have too many real issues at hand to worry about some Climate change BS being spewed by rich celebrities and TV personalities who don’t practice what they preach.

  5. Is that a “scientifically correct” poll with 3 levels of “worried” and only 2 levels of “not worried”?
    Where’s a neutral choice?
    “Moderately worried” still implies some concern, does it not?

    • Exactly. I am tired of all these poorly worded and poorly structured polls, which avoid asking direct questions about what people actually believe about the climate. That includes all the lousy polls George Mason U does of scientific organizations. “Do you believe, maybe, that perhaps people have some influence, whether it can be measured or not, on the climate, however you want to define it? Please answer Yes or No.”

      • Well maybe they are not poorly worded and structured, but rather intentionally misleading.
        Even though, they are losing the war for hearts and minds.

  6. Here in Vermont, I am worried about Climate Ransom – legislature is shooting to carbon tax gasoline (and then all other natural fuels) at $0.88/gallon. State is tipping with greenies, useful idiots, and carbon profiteers.
    Hey, CO2 Matters! My garden and modest orchards have never done better, except we could have used more heat last summer for the tomatoes.

    • Climate Change will freeze your tomatoes and burn your carrots *in the same garden.* Support your gas tax, today!
      😉

    • Looks like Britain has already gone to diesel generator backup at taxpayer expense:
      “Britain’s National Grid transmission network has warned in the past that its electricity reserves were as low as 5 percent in colder seasons, its lowest since 2007. Britain is said to face an energy shortage over the next fifteen years as outdated coal plants are switched off due to EU pollution regulations, without being replaced. To avoid potential blackouts, Westminster introduced a “capacity market auction” last year, paying energy companies to provide additional capacity at short-notice. British taxpayers face a $672-million bill if companies that register for the scheme to build up to 1.5 gigawatts of cheap diesel power are successful,”
      http://sputniknews.com/europe/20151103/1029555846/uk-govt-diesel-power-taxpayer-burden.html

      • Successive UK governments have pursued an energy policy driven by our self inflicted Climate Change Act, EU carbon reduction regulations and blind green lunacy that believes wind turbines and solar can power an advanced economy. We are about to find out that they can’t.
        Our Industry now pays the highest cost for electricity in Europe, and the National Grid has a strategy to keep the lights on by the sort of idiocy BFL references above, and arrangements for heavy industrial users to shed load – a third world situation.
        Meanwhile we are sitting on 40/50 years supply of shale gas………I can’t go on with this post, it sounds just too surreal to be true (but it is!).

      • The UK came very close to blackouts last night. Some plants were shut down due to technical problems. Because it was an almost windless night, there was no solar power and virtually no wind power (around 100 MW for the whole country). Some businesses shut down their power use. There was a report about this in the printed Daily Telegraph.
        It looks like some very unpleasant chickens are coming home to roost. Because of moronic government policies driven by imaginary climate change fears, we are more vulnerable than ever to power blackouts. And the whole thing is ruinously expensive.
        Yes, climate change is a catastrophe. But it’s not the climate that’s causing the catastrophe, it’s barking mad government policies aimed at solving a problem that almost certainly doesn’t exist.
        Chris

    • OMG…I buy all my energy in Vermont due to taxes being lower than in NY. I live right near the border. That is effing insane, a high, high tax like that!!!

  7. I’m worried a bit, but not because “global warming” is coming to get me, I’m worried about the increasingly desperate attempts to fix a non-problem that are eventually going to literally destroy our entire civilization.

  8. The chart shown is not the most confusing such thing I have ever seen, but surely ranks in the top 10 – or, should I say, the bottom 10. Further, the survey is from just the last few months, with a sample of just over 2,000, and a margin of error of |3.7|. I question if the chart means what the title of the post claims. Find numbers from 5, 10, and 15 years ago. Please.
    I think – using the right hand column:
    9 + 17 + 37 = 63
    versus
    20 + 15 = 35 {table claims 34}
    Also, “Not too worried” seems to me to mean a person is, in fact, worried. Thus the 20 should go in the first set, not the 2nd set. [9 + 17 + 37 + 20 = 83]
    Further, Q#8 shows that 2/3 of the folks agree:
    “Yes global warming is happening”

  9. Humans were always going to be prone to be easily convinced of the “extreme weather” delusion.
    Since it takes advantage of existing and well understood forms of cognitive bias.
    The tendency to focus more on recent events than those in the distant past.
    A tendency to pay much closer attention to a phenomenon, when it has been suggested that it represents a real and present danger.
    A tendency to look for evidence which confirms a preconception. (confirmation bias)
    A tendency to ignore the process by which you were exposed to information and only take account of the impression given by the information. For example, not considering that exposure to great quantities of mobile phone video of disasters is actually indicative of trends in the availability of video phones, rather than trends in the availability of disasters.
    And, last but not least;
    A tendency to treat a message with little skepticism or reasoned analysis when the message is claimed to be representative of the work of “experts” or “scientists”.
    i.e. the lazy minded assumption that thinking and finding out is best left to a tiny group who can be trusted to know things on our behalf. Also sometimes called “the infallibility of experts”
    With it’s flip-side – the tendency to automatically disregard sound reasoning when it is not attributable to a pretended expert consensus.
    There’s probably much more to be said on this topic.
    It could be a fertile area of research for a real scientist working in the field of psychology.
    Sadly I suspect that no such person exists.

    • indefatigablefrog,

      It could be a fertile area of research for a real scientist working in the field of psychology.
      Sadly I suspect that no such person exists.

      No such person exists because psychology isn’t a real science (e.g., Lew papers).

    • I think that all plays along with the ‘illusion of control’ that bob T. speaks of in his latest book (thanks again),
      when people believe that those of authority can predict adversity and administrate proactive remediation of a threat. I have had a former church bishop tell me that God has allowed scientists a “deeper understanding of creation so we would develop a deeper appreciation for our creator”. He too, is caught up in the illusion.

  10. We learn little form polls asking if Americans are worried about a high profile issue. Gallup runs these about dozens of issues, most of which show a majority of Americans are “worried”. This means nothing.
    More pointed questions get useful answers. How much will you pay to help fix this problem? How do you rank the various major public policy concerns?
    Climate change consistently ranks at the bottom of such polls in the US. Such as the latest:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/182018/worries-terrorism-race-relations-sharply.aspx
    http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dpu8wzz-se2qu6kbefhyfw.png

    • Exactly, worry is an emotional response thus the worried questions are open ended requiring demographics and additional analysis to be meaningful.

      • Who told you emotions aren’t based on factual information, John? Watch yours, and I think you’ll soon realize they certainly can be.

    • They have become less concerned regarding the size and power of the federal govt, even though the size and power of the federal govt have continued to grow?

      • They’ve been distracted by the bungling of international affairs, the M. Brown syndrome and the media circus of threats from within and without, which put their distrust of government on the back burner.

    • Glad to see that ‘quality of the environment’ is separate of ‘climate change’
      Many factions (church included) think they are one-in-the-same.

  11. Look! Squirrel!
    I think it’s short-attention-span-itis. I believe most people in the climate polls are responding based on what they remember about CAGW that stuck in their minds between episodes of the Simpsons and the latest news about the Kardashians (or substitute Super Bowl, World Cup, World Series), balanced by what they are actually experiencing in terms of the weather. Also, the fact that there has been no runaway global warming is likely seeping into the subconscious of most people and the pool of ‘nothing alarming is happening’ that is forming is slowly getting deeper.
    I’d also be curious what the poll results would be if conducted during an outbreak of polar air; 10-20 point swing maybe?

  12. If people ever come to understand how much the misguided attempts at mitigating nonexistent man caused climate change is costing them they might actually do something about it in the way they vote.

  13. This data shows that 45% of Americans answered ‘Very Worried’ or greater. I would say, judging by this response, that Global Warming is still a major concern….

    • You’re not reading that correctly. The first row is the sum of very and extremely worried. The total is only 23%

  14. I don’t know what you guys are looking at. My computer model using the data above, adjusted appropriately, shows that 97% of the respondents are extremely worried about the climate.

  15. They often like to blame their failures on the sceptics. The truth in my opinion is we have very little to do with it. Governments talk the talk, but the walking is a little difficult – whenever reality bites their arses. They have little idea just how much fossil fuels play a part in almost everything we see and do that is man-made.

  16. I’m extremely worried they will go ahead and screw up the world economy anyway. Canada and Australia were lonely stalwarts in the west but the electorates (and crazy rules in Oz) sunk the brave ship. Where sceptics are losing the battle is in getting ordinary citizens to see that their own scepticism must translate into stopping voting the agenda in by foolish choices. My growing worry is that oppositions will see the agenda as to big to fail!

    • I disagree, Gary. The sceptical argument is losing the battle at the moment because MSM has painted itself into a corner by backing the CAGW horse and now doesn’t know how to say “We got it wrong and will now start to report both sides of the debate”.
      But losing the battle doesn’t mean losing the war. We all just have to keep chipping away at every opportunity and eventually some senior popular journalist will have the courage to say what is being said here day after day.

      • Oldseadog commented: “…eventually some senior popular journalist will have the courage to say what is being said here day after day.”
        +1 To start it will need to be someone who is part of and able to give the finger to the MSM. More will follow.

    • Gary – four or five years of Trudeau the younger will wake a few people up just as they awoke from his father’s policies. Unfortunately, our grand children will likely end up paying for the stupid. Canadians tend to vote governments out of power – and the result is they don’t think about the damage a different party might cause. And we do it over and over again.
      Oh well. 5 tough years. (I hope I am wrong.)

      • People voting Govn’t out over and over. Seems to be a common “problem” in almost every country I have lived and was eligible to vote in. The issue is is there a genuine alternative to mainstream (I am not talking about parties like Monster Raving Loony Party in the UK, but one could vote worse I guess) parties/policies? My answer would be no. MP’s are not the real power behind Govn’t. It’s, for want of a better word, a pantomime with hidden “people” controlling the show.

  17. 97% of the 40,000 descending on Paris this month are unconcerned about the carbon footprint of this ‘look how concerned I am about climate change’ jamboree.

  18. How about adding another response category next time labelled “Not at all concerned, except for grave concerns over policy over reach and science distortion as means to an advocacy end”.

  19. I thank Al Gore and his internet. LOL
    Regular people (like us) are able to search and find historical data and reports easier than ever before. It allows us to investigate the claims of the alarmists and fact check them.
    Plus the internet helps get the word out about the shenanigans that the alarmists keep doing. Massaging, manipulating, adjusting, tweaking the raw data.
    And the internet also insures that the studies, reports and data and don’t back up the alarmists claims, and therefore don’t get reported in the media reach the regular people.

    • Eliza
      “My guess is that Mainstream press is starting to come on Board on AGW lies as well as NASA.”
      And I say you are not living in the real world. Google “Climate Change” then go to the news. Only one article on the main page offers a positive spin on CC (Antarctic ice could be growing). The rest are either mildly negative or forecasting major problems.

      • However, in the rags that O read, the amount of positive spin articles has evaporated. There are critical ones, and there are none at all.
        Climate change scares dont sell column inches any more. Its restricted to the liberal bubbles of political circles and the professional greens whose careers depend upon the fiction.
        The world at large has yawned, looked up,. and gone back to life as usual..

      • Leo
        Really? I doubt it. Just had warmest October on record (even Roy’s UAH agrees) so the timing for Paris is not at all good for stone walling team.

  20. “Climate alarmists frequently invent bizarre conspiracy theories about why they are losing the climate debate.”
    In the survey you cited, 65% of respondents cited say they believe that global warming is occurring, and 16% say it is not. 57% of respondents are either extremely worried or moderately worried about global warming, and 34% are not. How is that losing the climate debate?

    • Chris:
      …65% of respondents cited say they believe that global warming is occurring…
      I would guesstimate that about 97% of the readers here think that global warming is occurring.
      What do you think?

        • Chris,
          Then what’s the problem?
          Here, let me help you out: the problem is that there is no indication that global warming is anything but natural warming.
          But you believe it’s caused by human CO2 emissions. Amirite?
          Your problem: you can’t produce even one empirical, testable, verifiable measurement quantifying AGW. Therefore, you believe in something that you can’t even measure.
          That’s a lot closer to religion than it is to science. You believe that something exists, but you can’t put your finger on it. Worse, the alarmist cult believes it’s the #1 reason for global warming.
          True belief trumps science.
          “To measure is to know.” ~ Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1883
          And:
          “Without data, anyone who does anything is free to claim success.” ~Angus Deaton
          And:
          “In God we trust, all others bring data.” – W. Edwards Deming
          DATA. Get it? Data is essential. Measurements are data. But you have no measurements!
          For you, global warming is a religion.

      • Global warming hasn’t occurred for going on 20 years. Before that, there was slight global warming for about 20 years (c. 1977-96). Before that, there was global cooling for over 30 years (c. 1944-76). Before that, there was global warming similar to that of the 1970s-90s for 20 or 30 years (c. 1917-43). Before that, there was global cooling (c. 1888-16). Before that there was slight global warming coming out of the Little Ice Age Cold Period (c. 1860-87). Before that, the world warmed from the depths of the LIA, c. 1690-1709.
        Humans have little to nothing to do with it. Slight warming and cooling have fluctuated cyclically since at least the Minoan Warm Period, over 3000 years ago, or since the Holocene Climatic Optimum, as has happened in all previous interglacials.

    • dbstealey said “Then what’s the problem?”
      Your comment makes no sense. The topic of this thread is a survey of random citizens, and you bring up what the readers of this site believe – which is completely unrelated to the results of a broad based survey. I know, of course, what you are attempting to do. I’m supposed to express disbelief that readers of WUWT think that global warming is happening, and then you reply saying that very minor, natural global warming is occurring, and is nothing to worry about.
      The problem is, your point makes zero sense in the context of the survey. Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, so I’ll post the question here again: Q9. How worried, if at all, are you about global warming?
      57% of respondents said either moderately worried or very worried. They think it’s a problem. They don’t agree with you that it is minor and beneficial. If they felt that way, they would’ve given a different answer.

      • Chris,
        When someone starts to explain what survey respondents were thinking when they answered, I put that person in the same category as a mind-reader (“If they felt that way, they would’ve given a different answer.”). Sure. As if you know.
        I explained what the ‘problem’ is:
        … there is no indication that global warming is anything but natural warming.
        And I pointed out your problem:
        …you can’t produce even one empirical, testable, verifiable measurement quantifying AGW. Therefore, you believe in something that you can’t even measure.
        Prove me wrong. Produce a measurement of DAGW.
        These surveys are always worded in such a way that they produce the desired result. You only believe what you want to believe, which is why you jumped on the slightly different percentages.
        You’re a True Believer in the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ (or ‘DAGW’) scare. It is your religion. Because if you wanted science, you would be a skeptic; the only honest kind of scientist.
        So you’re ‘worried’. So what? There’s nothing happening that is either unusual or unprecedented, so there isn’t anything to worry about. Is there?
        But if you need something to worry about, I suppose DAGW is as good as any other scare.

      • dbstealey said “When someone starts to explain what survey respondents were thinking when they answered, I put that person in the same category as a mind-reader (“If they felt that way, they would’ve given a different answer.”). Sure. As if you know.”
        Oh, please. The question in the survey was: “How worried, if at all, are you about global warming?” The answer categories were extremely worried, very worried, moderately worried, not too worried, not worried at all, and not sure. The question is not lengthy. It is not complicated, it is direct. The possible answers are very straightforward, and allow for differences in degree. Thousands of companies use surveys to make decisions on products, but according to the expert dbstealey, the results are useless because you can’t know what the respondent was thinking. Righttttttttt.
        As far as global warming being entirely due to natural warming, no, that’s been disproven. Here is one of several papers on that: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
        From the conclusion: The late-twentieth-century warming can only be reproduced in the model if anthropogenic forcing (dominated by GHGs) is included, while the early twentieth-century warming requires the inclusion of natural forcings in the model (mostly solar).

      • Chris:
        You say

        As far as global warming being entirely due to natural warming, no, that’s been disproven. Here is one of several papers on that: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
        From the conclusion: The late-twentieth-century warming can only be reproduced in the model if anthropogenic forcing (dominated by GHGs) is included, while the early twentieth-century warming requires the inclusion of natural forcings in the model (mostly solar).

        Sorry, but that is NOT evidence that global warming includes a not natural component. It is conclusive evidence that the model is wrong.
        No model has sufficient spatial resolution to include adequate representation of cloud behaviours, but cloud variability alone is sufficient to account for ALL the twentieth century warming.
        Clouds reflect sun light back to space so it does not reach the Earth’s surface.
        Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid-1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid-1980s and late-1990s
        (ref. Pinker, R. T., B. Zhang, and E. G. Dutton (2005), Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation?, Science, 308(5723), 850– 854.)
        Over that late-twentieth-century period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 Watts/sq metre).
        Richard

      • dbstealey said: “I think Chris should read the comments farther down the thread, all the way to the bottom. His arithmetic seems to be off…”
        No, my math is perfectly correct. The point at the bottom of the thread is completely unrelated to mine. He notes that Extremely/very worried NET is 23, whereas Extremely worried was 8, and very worried was 14. 8+14 obviously does not = 23. I didn’t focus on this trivial issue as I assumed that 8 was a rounded figure and in reality was 8.3 (for example) rounded down, and 14 was 14.3 (for example) rounded down. When you add the 2 and round to the nearest whole number, you get 23. No big deal, and nothing whatsoever to do with my point. Once again,.my math is correct. 23 (or 22) plus 34 (moderately worried) = 56 or 57, still a definite majority.

      • dbstealey,
        If you don’t accept the use of models, then you are adopting a position of throwing your hands into the air and saying “let’s just wait and see what happens” when it comes to climate, weather, predicting the impacts of drugs on diseases, etc. All of those rely heavily on models, along with measured data, in order to better understand these processes.

      • Richard,
        Can you point me to the paper where your quote was written? “Over that late-twentieth-century period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.”

      • Chris:
        I gave you the reference; viz.
        (ref. Pinker, R. T., B. Zhang, and E. G. Dutton (2005), Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation?, Science, 308(5723), 850– 854.)
        I object to your pretending I did not.
        Richard

  21. Next time ask respondents if they want to authorize a carbon tax with fuzzy spending and income redistribution authority for a laundry list of special interest groups and urban community organizers. That is what was in the Waxman-Markey legislation and Obama vowed to continue the fight after the legislation was dropped in the face of general uprising. That legislation should be permanently posted on WUWT for all to be reminded what the ongoing budget prize looks like to those who keep pushing the same concept in words and deeds.

  22. Those numbers obviously are not percentages so are they the actual number of people questioned. It is a very small sample if so.

  23. Are poll results like this even reported beyond this site if the results go against the policy bias steamroller and concerted media control feed?

  24. Also, over-the-top propaganda is self-defeating. After an especially blatant diatribe by the LATimes this observer warned them — some of us really want to see an honest debate — but, of course, was ignored.

  25. The Narcissist-in-Chief will see this poll and say, “Looks like it is time to give another prime-time speech on climate change.”

    • What sent the BS meter bleeping for me was asking myself the Question: If global warming is “the greatest threat to civilization mankind has ever faced,” then WHY was no one doing anything tangible about it? Got my answer in under 3 clicks–because there ISN’T anything that needs doing anything about. Smelling a LIE, that’s the day I cut my teeth as a skeptic and began a remarkable reading list. Think “Emperor’s New Clothes.”

  26. Watts up with this? The name of the poll is: “AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POPE FOLLOWING HIS VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES.”
    The only place that the word “Pope” appears in their survey results is in the headline, and at the top of every page. Nowhere is the “Pope” referenced in regards to any discussion, nor question?

    • Gary,
      “Watts up with this? The name of the poll is: “AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POPE FOLLOWING HIS VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES.” ”
      Well, it does reveal that the Pope’s much ballyhooed support has done squat for the CAGW cause, which says something about American’s attitude toward him it seems to me.

  27. Kinda a dilemma…saw this on someone’s facebook post.
    It read:
    “I need new haters.
    The old ones are starting to like me.”

  28. Just an FYI: Have a look at the 2016 White House Budget for the US of A:
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/budget.pdf
    Page 19 is where the issues of ‘Climate Change’ also “Carbon Pollution’ are covered, along with a section for expenditures for ‘Climate Resiliency’ (where I would think most $$$ should be spent)..
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/ – This site is a very interesting read as well. Lett everyone know what the current administration has decided is important.
    Just a post to provide a bit of insight,
    MCR

      • It was ….. but what does anyone really “know”.
        Anyway, I was just cruising the internet and came upon this video with that soundtrack.
        I really like the low tech rear-view mirror.

      • u.k.(us) ,
        Cool vid.
        Re: the rear view mirrors. The Israelis demonstrated their worth in the six day war in ’67. They installed them in the F-4 Phantoms they bought from the U.S., which had none.
        It’s helpful to know if there’s someone coming up from behind…

  29. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Similar result in Australia, where the premier science body, and champions of global warming alarmism, the CSIRO, found that the majority of Australian’s are now sceptical of man-made global warming! https://climatism.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/csiro-most-australians-are-now-global-warming-sceptics/
    Props to the ever increasing climate sceptical majority for maintaining their independence of thought, reason and sense. And for not being tempted into the comfort of groupthink and a fashionable climate cause, despite the relentless bombardment of fear, alarmism and lies propagated by the majority of ‘mainstream’ media.
    The global warming scare is dying.

  30. A few more degrees of warming would open up huge tracts of land for farming in Canada and Central Asia, at perhaps the cost of some bleached coral and moving a few thousand South Sea islanders to higher ground. Why is this not a good thing?

  31. CSIRO in Australia just released a poll. More people think a warmer climate is not a problem but the amazing figure is that 19% of greens agree, it is not a problem. Seems there might be some greens with integrity after all.
    Why should governments accept the deep green notion that warming is dangerous, when many other possibilities exist?
    All the evidence seems to suggest that warming is benefitting the planet without trillions spent on horrendous wind turbines etc.
    It is a gigantic rort. A single wind turbine in Australia is subsidised to the amount of $700,000. Multiply that out and you will see why they are so desperate for the scam to continue. All that money should be going into alternative schemes like thorium reactors and investigating sources from space.
    The super dense opposition leader in Australia supports wind turbines but says any variation of nuclear power is too expensive. I think we have found a new black hole between his ears.

  32. Wow. 57% worried about climate change compared to 51% a few months ago? That’s pretty impressive.

    • traffy, you’re amusing if nothing else. I like watching the alarmist contingent desperately grab onto whatever they can. A drowning man and a stick comes to mind…

    • No, it’s 56% versus 63% a few (3) months ago. I’ll be happier when more are unconcerned than are worried. Even so, given the amount of mainstream pressure to make people worried, it’s not a bad position. But, if this issue alone determined the next POTUS, it would be Mrs. Clinton.
      Rich.

  33. In making the survey, the results depends up on the how the question is framed. In this the question is clear “global warming”. It is not so in many surveys. See for example:
    Pro-global warming groups argue that “Overwhelming scientific consensus says human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change”. The 2010 Anderegg study found that 97-98% of climate researchers publishing most actively in their field agree that human activity is primarily responsible for “global climate change”. The study also found that the expertise of researchers unconvinced of “human-caused climate change” is “substantially below” that of researchers who agree that human activity is primarily responsible for climate change.
    The 2013 Cook review of 11,944 peer-reviewed studies on climate change founded that only 78 studies (0.7%) explicitly rejected the position that humans are responsible for “global warming”. A separate review of 13,950 peer-reviewed studies on climate change found only 24 that rejected “human-caused global warming”.
    A survey by German Scientists Bray and Von Storch found that 83.5% of climate scientists believe human activity is causing “most of recent global climate change”. A separate survey in 2011 also found that 84% of earth, space, atmospheric, oceann and hydrological scientists surveyed said that “human-induced global warming” is occurring.
    More than one thousand scientists disagree that human activity is primarily responsible for “global climate change”. In 2010 Climate Depot released a report featuring more than 1,000 scientists, several of them former UN IPCC scientists, who disagreed that humans are primarily responsible for “global climate change”. The Cook review of 11,944 peer-reviewed studies found 66.4% of the studies had no stated position on “anthropogenic global warming”, and while 32.6% of the studies implied or stated that “humans are contributing to climate change”, only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly stated “that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.” A 2012 Purdue University survey found that 47% of climatologists challenge the idea that humans are primarily responsible for climate change and instead believe that climate change is caused by an equal combination of humans and the environment (37%), mostly by the environment (5%), or that there’s not enough information to say (5%). In 2014 a group of 15 scientists dismissed the US National Climate Assessment as a “masterpiece of marketing,” that was “grossly flawed,” and called the NCA’s assertion of human-caused climate change “NOT true.”
    :
    In the above presentation, there are several terms were used to imply human activity is responsible to: with several adjectives to global warming and climate change. They are:
    • Global climate change
    • Human-caused climate change
    • Most recent global climate change
    • Humans are contributing to climate change
    • Global warming
    • Human-induced global warming
    • Humans are the primary cause of recent global warming
    • Anthropogenic global warming
    This clearly shows that there is an ambiguity on the terminology: global warming and climate change. This is also true with IPCC where they started using “global climate change” instead of global warming. IPCC is shy of using the word global warming.
    Climate is function of several met parameters. When specific met parameter is used, they invariably use that parameter like global warming referring to only temperature. We can not use climate change for global warming.
    In many cases climate change is used as de-facto global warming, an erroneous concept. IPCC or UN has never clarified this aspect even to date.
    The other terminology is: human activity. There are several areas under this, namely, anthropogenic greenhouse gases influencing temperature through greenhouse effect, anthropogenic non-greenhouse effect [they are not really comes under human activity], non-greenhouse effect related cause through the destruction of nature, known as ecological changes by changing the land & water use and the land & water cover.
    Ecological changes influence all meteorological parameters at local and or region level. They are not global in nature. They influence systematic variations at local and or regional level. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases influence temperature at global level through greenhouse effect. However, it is flawed argument as greenhouse effect is also a local and or regional factor. The global average of this is termed as “global warming”.
    While making survey, the organizers must ask clearly “which human activity” and “is it climate change or global warming”? Otherwise the answers may become highly ambiguous and with little meaning.
    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  34. NOAA, the IPCC, the News media … have been screaming “Wolf” so often for so long about so much that more and more people just roll their eyes and tune them out.

  35. Either someone is incapable of basic mathematics, or there is some intentional number fiddling going on there.
    AP-NORC 10/15-18/2015
    Extremely/very worried NET 23? 8+14=22
    Not too/not at all worried NET 38? 22+17= 39
    AP-NORC 7/17-19/2015
    Not too/not at all worried NET 34? 20+15=35
    Hmmm.

Comments are closed.