Eye-roller Poll: Americans willing to pay big bucks to combat climate change

From The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and University of Chicago and the “Trump could never win, our polling is accurate” department.

Most Americans want the government to combat climate change, some willing to pay a high amount

The largest shares of Americans say they oppose the repeal of the Clean Power Plan and the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

Sixty-one percent of Americans think climate change is a problem that the government needs to address, including 43 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of Democrats, according to a new survey from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Those numbers are even higher when only those who believe in climate change are asked. Seven in 10 Republicans and nearly all Democrats who believe climate change is happening think the government needs to take action. When asked about key climate policy decisions, the largest shares of Americans say they oppose the repeal of the Clean Power Plan and the withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.

While many Americans favor policies that would help the country lower emissions, questions on how much they would personally be willing to pay to confront climate change (in the form of a monthly fee on their electric bill) reveal great disparity. While half are unwilling to pay even one dollar, 18 percent are willing to pay at least $100 per month.

“These results put the polarized climate debate in sharp relief, but also point to the possibility of a path forward,” said Michael Greenstone, director of EPIC and the Milton Friedman Professor in Economics, the College, and the Harris School at the University of Chicago. “Although half of households said they were unwilling to pay anything for a carbon policy in their monthly electricity bills, on average Americans would pay about $30 per month, as a meaningful share of households report that they are willing to pay a substantial amount. What is particularly striking is that it’s projected to cost less than $30 per person to pay for climate damages from the electricity sector. So, while the raw economics appears to be less and less of a problem, the open question is whether it is feasible to devise a robust climate policy that accommodates these very divergent viewpoints.”

The survey also reveals new insights into how Americans view hydraulic fracturing. The number of people who say they favor fracking more than doubles when presented with evidence that it will save them money, while fewer change their opinion on fracking when presented with environmental or health arguments. Specifically, Americans’ support for fracking jumps from 17 percent to 41 percent when presented with evidence that it will save them $250 annually on their personal natural gas bill. Meanwhile, the 41 percent who initially said they opposed fracking increased to 51 percent and 58 percent, respectively, when presented with health and environmental arguments against it.

“Public opinion around many energy issues tends to be fluid, with people often defaulting to partisan starting points. But this survey shows an opportunity for consensus building through discussion and debate,” said Trevor Tompson, director of The AP-NORC Center. “Majorities of both Democrats and Republicans agree that climate change is happening, and there are signs that consensus could happen on other issues, too.”

Additional findings from the survey include:

  • Seventy-two percent of Americans believe climate change is happening, including 85 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of Republicans. Nineteen percent remain unsure.
  • Political party and belief in climate change are the main determinants of whether people are willing to pay a modest fee to combat climate change, as opposed to education, income, or geographic location. Democrats are consistently willing to pay more than Republicans.
  • Fifty-seven percent support actions taken by some mayors and governors to honor the goals of the Paris climate agreement despite U.S. withdrawal, and 55 percent think their state and local government should do more to address climate change. A third say they should stick to the status quo.
  • Climate change and energy policy are very or extremely important to 48 percent and 54 percent of Americans, respectively, while at least two-thirds say health care, the economy, and terrorism are important policy priorities.
  • Thirty-five percent oppose the direction of energy policy in the United States, while 45 percent lack an opinion and only 17 percent support the direction. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to favor the direction of energy policy, but they are most likely to lack an opinion.
  • Roughly equal shares of Americans favor, oppose, and neither favor nor oppose the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines.
  • Forty percent of Americans oppose the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which the Trump administration is reviewing. Thirty-seven percent lack an opinion, while just 20 percent favor its repeal.
  • More Americans lack an opinion on the use of fracking in the United States than support it: 37 percent neither favor nor oppose fracking, 17 percent favor it, and 41 percent oppose it.
  • An equal number of Americans either support or lack an opinion on the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, while the largest number opposes withdrawal: 42 percent oppose it, 28 percent support it, and 28 percent neither support nor oppose withdrawal. Half of those who support withdrawal say the agreement was too costly for the United States.

###

About the Survey

This survey was conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and with funding from EPIC. Data were collected using AmeriSpeak Omnibus®. The survey was part of a larger study that included questions about other topics not included in this report. Interviews for this survey were conducted between Aug. 17 and 21, 2017, with adults age 18 and over representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Panel members were randomly drawn from AmeriSpeak, and 1,038 completed the survey by web or phone, depending on respondent preference. The overall margin of sampling error is +/- 4.1 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level, including the design effect. The margin of sampling error may be higher for subgroups.

Here is the Survey:

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
166 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
NavarreAggie
October 3, 2017 6:05 am

RRrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiight. The poll results completely agree with other assessments showing gorebull warming dead last on a list of pressing priorities! Rubbish.

LamontT
Reply to  NavarreAggie
October 3, 2017 7:44 am

Oh it is better than that. Looking at it Here is a couple of quick quotes from Wikipedia about Amerispeak. These quotes tell you all you really need to know.
“AmeriSpeak is a panel of survey respondents that represent households across the United States. Created in 2014 by NORC at the University of Chicago, AmeriSpeak enables policy makers, media and other leaders to study our world. AmeriSpeak members take surveys on various topics such as politics, social issues, health care, and employment conditions. Researchers use this data to make decisions, influence policy and publish findings. – Wikipedia ”
And note this fun detail about it.
“AmeriSpeak membership is by invite only, to ensure that it represents a cross-section of U.S. households. AmeriSpeak scientifically and randomly selects members by address, inviting any adult and teen living at that address to participate. Members may register and participate in surveys either by phone or internet, and receive cash-equivalent rewards for participating.”
So they are polling a closed by invite only group and representing themselves as an accurate cross section of the american public. That is not the way to build an accurate cross section to poll. But then I suspect that is the goal of doing it this way.

stock
Reply to  LamontT
October 3, 2017 10:36 am

U of Chicago, now there is a globalist indoctrination center if I ever saw one.

Michael 2
Reply to  LamontT
October 5, 2017 11:09 am

Many surveys, in my opinion of course, are “push surveys” where your opinions are not sought but instead questions are designed to influence you or sell something. Whether this instance is that sort of thing I do not know but what happens is the participants are self-selected to be those willing to be vulnerable to this sort of thing and thus inherently non-skeptical and not representative.

Ridiculous
Reply to  NavarreAggie
October 3, 2017 10:07 am

Check out their math ! It is quite amusing.
If 50% don’t want to pay even $1/month…
And only 18% are ‘willing’ to pay $100/month (probably the no income crowd so they know it is not going to be them…)
Somehow ‘magically’ they get that to an average of Americans being willing to pay $30/month.
So let’s see…
$0/month * 0.5 + $100/month * 0.18 + $x/month * (1-.5-.18)
$0 + $18 + $x * 0.32 to equal $30/month
So x is $37.50/month.
Those numbers do NOT support their claim of ‘big bucks’ to fund their game.

DD More
Reply to  Ridiculous
October 3, 2017 11:46 am

While half are unwilling to pay even one dollar, 18 percent Say they are willing to pay at least $100 per month, Until the Actual Bill Comes Due.
What is particularly striking is that it’s projected to cost less than $30 per person to pay for climate damages from the electricity sector. So, while the raw economics appears to be less and less of a problem, the open question is whether it is feasible to devise a robust climate policy that accommodates these very divergent viewpoints.”

And Then Reality Set-In.
Of course ‘Projected Damage Costs’ are less than $30, because they are $Zero.
Here is a Robust Policy – Do a survey and give the choices of 1- Would you rather pay Nothing & Say ‘Climate Change’ does not worry you or 2- Raised Electric Bill = $60 x Factor on those not paying.
New definition of ‘Load Sharing’.

October 3, 2017 6:07 am

Please post the survey.

Greg
Reply to  John Rolin
October 3, 2017 6:30 am

Yes, as with all surveys , it is how the questions are presented which determines the reselts.

Those numbers are even higher when only those who believe in climate change are asked.

No shit, Sherlock ! Did you need a statistician to work that one out ?

Panel members were randomly drawn from AmeriSpeak, and 1,038 completed the survey by web or phone, depending on respondent preference.

.. and what was the lead-in question ? Maybe something like: “Would you like to help save the planet by answering a few questions about climate change ?”

While half are unwilling to pay even one dollar ….

So the is the principal result what is shown in the headline ? No, it’s the 18% result. Objective study or motivated activism?

Greg
Reply to  Greg
October 3, 2017 6:36 am

There are about 125 million households in USA
125 * 12* $100 = $ 15bn / year ; that’s enough to cover US and EU “pledges” every year.
Just let them all pledge their $100 and then STFU about climate change , Paris and the rest of us can get on with life.

Greg
Reply to  Greg
October 3, 2017 6:38 am

oops , it’s better than that it’s $150bn, this demographic can take over funding the Green Slush Fund all on their own and USA can save the world. Why have they wasted 30y trying to reach a painful non binding Paris Accord when all they needed to do was a telphone poll of the willing?

Reply to  Greg
October 3, 2017 10:40 am

What does it mean that someone “BELIEVES IN CLIMATE CHANGE”? Other than that’s a really strange phrase.

Max
Reply to  Greg
October 3, 2017 10:54 am

@Greg: It doesnt work like this. You start with all US citizens pay 30 Dollar in taxes, but then the dems say that this is not socially acceptable, because poor people also have to pay it and it is no problem for rich people. So we will get a progressive tax rate that starts at 1 Dollar for incomes below 6000 dollar and ends at 100 dollar for incomes higher than 60000 dollar or some such. For this we need more people at the IRS or a new department with infrastructure. So in the end the 100 dollar are not sufficient and we have to increase it.
I am just 30 years old, but it seems that I already think that saw this play out ages ago again and again.

DCA
Reply to  Greg
October 3, 2017 11:03 am

Greg,
It’s only 18% that agree to pay $100 a month. That would only be $27 bn a year. But if the 32% agree to pay $30 a month, it would add another $14.4 bn.

Don B
Reply to  John Rolin
October 3, 2017 6:31 am

Agreed. There is no link after the notice that here is the survey.

Reply to  John Rolin
October 3, 2017 2:01 pm

It is as bad as you can imagine A full deconstruction with links to methodology
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/10/03/another-climate-push-poll/
For example:
Now to the meat (or rather the lack of it). Next Question:
Q33. Do you think climate change is happening, do you think climate change is not happening, or aren’t you sure?
Here people are asked about an undefined buzzword “climate change” and whether it is happening or not, in their opinion. Could any question be more vacuous?
(Synonyms for “Vacuous”: silly, inane, unintelligent, insipid, foolish, stupid, fatuous, idiotic, brainless, witless, vapid, vacant, empty-headed.)
The responses tell us only about badges that people like or dislike. And since “climate change” has been a political football, used by the left as a wedge issue, this will be a positive buzzword for Democrats and a negative one for Republicans. And since the population has more Dems, and since the survey sample is 36% Democrats and 23% Republicans, the desired response is assured.

Latitude
October 3, 2017 6:08 am

LOL….they will never get the fact that conservatives do not poll…..they hang up

Trebla
Reply to  Latitude
October 3, 2017 6:28 am

Well, if you asked me if climate change is happening, I would answer yes too. Duh!

MarkW
Reply to  Trebla
October 3, 2017 6:36 am

Unfortunately there is a branch of the environmental movement that believes that any change, no matter how small is by definition bad, if it is caused by man.

Greg
Reply to  Trebla
October 3, 2017 6:39 am

There’s no ‘if’. Any change is automatically caused by man and must be reversed. NOW.

MarkW
Reply to  Trebla
October 3, 2017 7:19 am

Regardless of the cost to other people.

john
Reply to  Trebla
October 3, 2017 7:27 am

Yea, I’ll chip in to drain a swamp.

Monna M
Reply to  Latitude
October 3, 2017 6:40 am

LOL….they will never get the fact that conservatives do not poll…..they hang up
I thought it was just me!

Irritable Bill
Reply to  Monna M
October 4, 2017 12:05 am

To Monna, I almost wrote the same reply, but read on a bit and see that I’m not alone in this….”Hello sir, and how are you today?” Click.

Michael 2
Reply to  Monna M
October 5, 2017 12:42 pm

When I answer the phone, if silence exists for half a second or more I know it is a robot dialer and I’m already not interested.

Griff
Reply to  Latitude
October 3, 2017 7:39 am

Thus ensuring the true picture of US opinion is forever distorted towards the progressive end of the spectrum?
great idea!

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  Griff
October 3, 2017 8:36 am

smart minds ignore polls

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
October 3, 2017 3:04 pm

As opposed to participating and having the results rewritten, adjusted, or outright ignored.

Reply to  Griff
October 3, 2017 9:44 pm

Haha haha hahahahahahaha.
I just couldnb’t wait for Griff’s comment. Had to know it would be a goodie. But then, the right all emigrated from Britain along time ago. Along with many of their leftist brethren as who else would be able to take over the unions in North America and Australia if not for our British cousins? Along with so many media stars. Oh migosh! It’s a conspiracy. Rule Britania!! 😉 /Sarc off

Michael 2
Reply to  Griff
October 5, 2017 12:44 pm

Yes, polls are almost always skewed. That is how the media totally missed the Donald Trump election. Polling and being polled is probably inherently a leftwing (group) phenomenon. Opposite groupthinkers are libertarians; do not care about your opinion and don’t particularly care to share theirs. This kind exists in large numbers in the United States.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  Latitude
October 3, 2017 8:35 am

this

October 3, 2017 6:09 am

One more useless subjective sociology survey from the home of American Sociology, the University of Chicago.

Editor
October 3, 2017 6:11 am

One sentence renders the rest of the survey moot…

While half are unwilling to pay even one dollar, 18 percent are willing to pay at least $100 per month.

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
October 3, 2017 6:36 am

I wonder how many of that 18% believed it would be their own money they would be paying?

Tom Halla
Reply to  David Middleton
October 3, 2017 7:46 am

That is probably the most robust finding in the survey. Most of the surveys are so creatively worded they tend to find only what the writers want to find.

PiperPaul
Reply to  David Middleton
October 3, 2017 8:19 am

“If we disregard this HUGE amount of people over here, everybody wants to pay lots of other people’s money to cure ClimateChange™!”

Reply to  David Middleton
October 3, 2017 10:38 am

Considering that more than half of American households make so little money that they do not even pay federal income taxes it is laughable that anyone would even bother suggesting that half of society would pay for something like this. I wouldn’t be surprised if the idea of a graduated fee structure based on income was put forth by one of these loony professors, if one has not been already.

MarkW
Reply to  jgriggs3
October 3, 2017 3:05 pm

It’s not that they make so little money, it’s that the thresholds and deductibles are set so high.

Resourceguy
October 3, 2017 6:19 am

Just make them pay double in CA, NY, MA, VT, and IL. The rest of us would like to get on with a productive life and plan for retirement. We also prefer quality science, both basic and applied.

George Daddis
October 3, 2017 6:20 am

“….it’s projected to cost less than $30 per person to pay for climate damages from the electricity sector.”
So for a family of four, thats $120/month or $ 1,440 annually.
I’d love to see how they worded THAT question in order to get a favorable response.
Among my acquaintances, there is a lot of vocal virtue signalling but very few actually willing to sacrifice. (Just survey your friends to see how many have downsized automobiles or homes to reduce their carbon footprint. Buying LED bulbs seems to be their limit.)

firetoice2014
Reply to  George Daddis
October 3, 2017 6:37 am

First, is it $30 per year, or just a one time charge?
Second, is it really to pay for damages (undefined) or to avoid future damages (undefined)?
Third, how about the costs for other than the electricity sector?
“Enquiring minds want to know.”

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  George Daddis
October 3, 2017 9:01 am

Buying LED bulbs seems to be their limit.)

Which merely emphasizes the one rule underlying all human behavior – all humans basically act according to their own self-interests (whether that be virtue signaling or practicality).
As a side note, a colleague of mine once lauded LED light bulbs because, they being so cheap to operate, he could leave them on 24/7.

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
October 3, 2017 10:11 am

My experience with LED bulbs is that while the LED’s themselves have a long life, the power supplies converting AC to the low voltage DC required do not. They tend to be designed with little or no component margin and on the whole, don’t even last as long as an incandescent bulb.

scraft1
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
October 3, 2017 3:07 pm

CO2isnotevil . Not my experience with leds at all. Have you bought the more recent products.

MarkW
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
October 3, 2017 3:07 pm

My experience has been just the opposite.
I started buying LEDs for the house about 10 years ago. Currently the only incandescent left is the porch light and that’s because it’s only on a few hours per month.
I have yet to have one burn out.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  George Daddis
October 3, 2017 11:53 am

“Buying LED bulbs seems to be their limit.”
Please. Most of them don’t even do THAT, but think turning off the lights for an hour every Earth Hour will do the trick…

Gary Pearse
October 3, 2017 6:27 am

Well there is no law against voluntarily ponying – up. Maybe cancel your subscription to the Gang Greens and give it to government to subsidize fracking to reduce CO2 emissions.
So the heartless gray people numb down education and then poll the designer-brained results of their handiwork. What the polled clones know about fracking is totally wrong, grafted on by the chartreuse folk. .

Hans-Georg
October 3, 2017 6:31 am

It is from the same department as the graphics on ZDF and on the 1st German television (both state television) which were shown a day before the US presidential election and where a regrettable television journalist had to explain the trump and pence chances of a choice with a maximum of 5 percent would be. This was the grandiose hour of predicting and interpreting surveys (presumably from CNN and ABC, the favorite US MSM in Germany)

Griff
Reply to  Hans-Georg
October 3, 2017 7:41 am

Here’s a German poll on a similar subject
http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/germans-renewable-energy-energiewende-subsidies/
“Germans are almost all in favor of expanding the use of renewable energy”

Dinsdale
Reply to  Griff
October 3, 2017 9:55 am

Right until they read their bill by candlelight during a blackout…

Max
Reply to  Griff
October 3, 2017 10:58 am

Hmm, I wasnt asked. And yes, we only get CNN and BBC here. There is no Fox News for example, where I live. But then we also have to pay 18€ per month for various state propaganda institutes that actually should work acc. to an educational scientific codex, but dont anymore. Instead they are competition in the idiocy spiral with private companies (like RTL) and produce lackluster German Crime Serials (15500 € per min of a 90 min movie), which is not even closely in the ballpark of a scandinavian crime novel…

Jeroen B.
Reply to  Griff
October 3, 2017 11:13 am

I’m also in favor of anything other people have to pay for.

LdB
Reply to  Griff
October 3, 2017 11:51 am

It’s always good to make people think you are nice. When it’s time to pay the bill in private the resentment starts and sometime after that they kick the politicians heads in for making them pay it. Most of the politicians are slowly working that out.

scraft1
Reply to  Griff
October 3, 2017 3:21 pm

Griff – Germany’s a different story, as we all know. The politics is vastly different in the EU, and in Germany in particular. Europeans generally have a more public orientation and are willing to spend more on things like public transportation and guaranteed pensions. What will sell in Germany would not necessarily sell in the U.S., to put it mildly.

Editor
October 3, 2017 6:31 am
Social Cost of CO2, 2015-2050 a (in 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2)
Discount Rate and Statistic
High Impact US per capita
Year 5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average (95th pct at 3%) MtCO2/yr
2015 $11 $36 $56 $105 16
2020 $12 $42 $62 $123 16
2025 $14 $46 $68 $138 16
2030 $16 $50 $73 $152 16
2035 $18 $55 $78 $168 16
2040 $21 $60 $84 $183 16
2045 $23 $64 $89 $197 16
2050 $26 $69 $95 $212 16

Per capita cost per month:

Social Cost of CO2, 2015-2050 a (in 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2)
Discount Rate and Statistic
Per capita $/month High Impact
Year 5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average (95th pct at 3%)
2015  $               15  $                48  $          75  $                      140
2020  $               16  $                56  $          83  $                       164
2025  $               19  $                61  $          91  $                       184
2030  $               21  $                67  $          97  $                       203
2035  $               24  $                73  $        104  $                       224
2040  $               28  $                80  $        112  $                       244
2045  $               31  $                85  $        119  $                       263
2050  $               35  $                92  $        127  $                       283

Monthly cost to family of four:

Monthly cost to a family of 4 (5% discount rate)
2015  $       58.67
2020  $       64.00
2025  $       74.67
2030  $       85.33
2035  $       96.00
2040  $    112.00
2045  $    122.67
2050  $    138.67

 
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?end=2014&start=1960&view=chart
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html
If they priced the SCC using a 3% discount rate, those monthly costs would triple.

Reply to  David Middleton
October 3, 2017 10:37 am

“Social Cost of CO2”
Assigning a ‘social cost’ to CO2 emissions is code for attempting to justify something that’s otherwise unjustifiable by invoking the kind of motional triggeirs that drive weak minded progressives into subservient lemmings.
Why else would they ignore the social benefits of burning fossil fuels, a warmer climate and increased agricultural productivity?

Richard Keen
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 3, 2017 12:25 pm

Are there numbers for the “Social Cost” of that other, and more prevalent, Greenhouse Gas, H2O?
The social cost of the lack of same GHG is musically described in this ancient ditty:

and the social of this H2O deficit is immeasurable:

MarkW
October 3, 2017 6:34 am

“while fewer change their opinion on fracking when presented with environmental or health arguments”
Looks like the populace is becoming less sensitive to the lies of the environmental alarmists.

Walt D.
October 3, 2017 6:40 am

I think Penn and Teller got signatures at an environmental rally to ban “Di-hydrogen Monoxide”.
This is why undermining public education is such a high priority for the left (and also for the elite).

Reply to  Walt D.
October 3, 2017 7:13 am

Bernie
Reply to  Walt D.
October 3, 2017 8:48 am

For those who don’t know about DHMO: http://www.dhmo.org/truth/Dihydrogen-Monoxide.html
– essential reading!

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Walt D.
October 3, 2017 11:56 am

Yes, and they also had a hilarious parade of recycling bins, all they down to used toilet tissues I believe.

Sheri
October 3, 2017 6:43 am

Have them mail in checks. It’s the only way to gauge the veracity of the poll. No tax hikes, no consumer cost hikes, just people who “BELIEVE” sending in money. That’s the only revenue source allowed.
People who don’t like oil, gas, etc, should have their utilities shut off and be told to buy whatever source of electricity they want. No subsidies on ANYTHING. Then we’ll see how much people “care”.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Sheri
October 3, 2017 7:52 pm

Probably the best and only true poll would be for the IRS to offer a check box (with voluntary amount) to be added to your taxes due (or subtracted from your refund) to ‘Prevent Climate Change’.

graphicconception
October 3, 2017 6:51 am

The perils of surveys were highlighted in this edition of “Yes, Minister”:

Murphy Slaw
October 3, 2017 6:52 am

“believe in Climate Change” ………I love that phrase.

Eustace Cranch
October 3, 2017 7:02 am

The MSM acts like we all agree what “climate change” means. Nope. Not even close.

Coach Springer
October 3, 2017 7:05 am

Should I trust a poll that operates on given assumptions that climate change is urgently catastrophically bad, that CO2 is the cause, and that government is the solution? Asking for an idiot friend. Should 18% willing to pay over $100/mo. be allowed to compel everyone to do so? Again …

LdB
Reply to  Coach Springer
October 3, 2017 11:55 am

It’s the Green way anything over 10% makes them a majority, 18% they would consider unanimous. Democracy isn’t important they are saving the planet.

mkuske
October 3, 2017 7:09 am

Michael Greenstone: “These results put the polarized climate debate in sharp relief, but also point to the possibility of a path forward! While 99.9% of respondents did say they wouldn’t pay anything on their electric bill, one respondent (an “Al G.”) said they would be willing to pay $1 billion a month! So on average Americans would pay $5000 a month.” SMH
Also my guess is they didn’t frame the fracking question as “Immediately before the fracking revolution, gasoline prices were close to $3.80 a gallon in constant dollars. Gas prices are now $2.30 a gallon, saving the average household over to $1000 a year…”

mkuske
Reply to  mkuske
October 3, 2017 7:22 am

Oh, and any survey conducted using a closed group of people who have specifically taken the steps to register to have their voice heard (AmeriSpeak) is not in any way a representative random sample of Americans. They are much more likely to be activists on social issues than a typical random group of Americans. How any serious pollster could find this valid is beyond me.

WBWilson
Reply to  mkuske
October 4, 2017 7:10 am

Plus participants get paid ‘cash equivalents’ to participate. Ridiculous!

john
October 3, 2017 7:10 am
lower case fred
October 3, 2017 7:11 am

Since the majority of the American people are economic illiterates this poll is meaningless. Democracies die when the people discover they can vote for themselves access to “public” funds.
We are well on our way.

October 3, 2017 7:16 am

The US can either pay less now OR A HELL OF A LOT MORE LATER. If they have any sense, Americans will bit the bullet now. GET REAL PEOPLE – the ROW is doing this already as its citizens accept the reality of climate change!!!

MarkW
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 3, 2017 7:23 am

Where’s your evidence that we are going to pay anything in the future?
The small warming we have experienced since the end of the LIA has been on the whole, a very good thing.
More CO2 means more and cheaper crops.
Violent storms have been going down in recent decades.
Where is your evidence. If you say models, you have disqualified yourself.

Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 7:42 am

Actually… If you apply a real world discount rate (7% or higher) to the social cost of carbon, the present day value of CO2 regulations is…
https://youtu.be/2V3CfD8TPac

Griff
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 7:43 am

Small warming you say?
but we are experiencing record temps, aren’t we?
“Boosted by warmer than normal water in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean that peaked in June and July, global average temperatures in the atmosphere rose to record levels in September, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville”

Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 8:36 am

“Boosted by warmer than normal water in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean that peaked in June and July, global average temperatures in the atmosphere rose to record levels in September, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville”
That’s the warmest September out of 38 Septembers in the satellite record. A random sequence of numbers would set records at a comparable pace.

Sheri
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 9:10 am

Griff: There’s warming and then there’s WARMING. We’re warming.

Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 10:08 am

What planet are you living on? Not mine. AGW = higher sea levels = coastal cities underwater. Higher CO2 ppm means higher atmospheric temperatures = more intense hurrucanes. Firget about glacial, interglacial etc etc. Rapid rise in global temperatures is unprecedented.

AndyG55
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 10:58 am

“but we are experiencing record temps, aren’t we? ”
NO, MWP, Holocene has been warmer for 80% or more of the time.
“What planet are you living on?”
Earth, where natural variability rules. NOT on some hallucinogenic, model based scam.

LdB
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 12:10 pm

Griff is so excited about the “warmest ever” yet his Arctic Sea Ice has gone back up even higher. One minute it’s all about the Sea Ice which is definitely going to be gone, until the graph gods don’t smile on him then he is off to find some other random statistic.

catweazle666
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 3:07 pm

“but we are experiencing record temps, aren’t we?”
NO!
Now go and apologise.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 3:11 pm

Griff, as has been pointed out to you hundreds of times, the records only go back about 40 years, right to the bottom of the coldest time period in the last 100 years.
Beyond that, we are still recovering from the LIA, which most sane people consider to be a good thing.
As far as the so called records, they are only records by a few hundredths of a degree, an amount that only the truly anal could ever get excited over it.
Finally, the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods were as much as 1 to 3 degrees warmer than today, and all had nothing to do with CO2.
Do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 3:13 pm

Ivan, I prefer reality to whatever imaginary planet you are living on.
Sea levels are rising at less than 1 foot per century, and have been for the last 400 years.
No cities are going under water at that rate.
To the extent that CO2 increases atmospheric temperatues, it’s well south of 0.5C, probably closer to 0.2C.
That’s not enough to increase hurricane strength by an amount measurable by modern instruments.

Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 3:24 pm

LOL @ MarkW: “the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods were as much as 1 to 3 degrees warmer than today”

You really believe the thermometers that the Minoans, Romans and Medieval people had were anywhere near as accurate as the ones we have today? You sure they didn’t “fudge” their temperature records?

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 6:46 pm

Johnson, is someone paying you to make a fool of yourself?
Surely your not trying to embarrass the warmistas as a public service?
Since you are unaware of how proxies work, I won’t bother educating you have shown to uneducable.

Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 6:49 pm

LOL @ MarkW

Proxies?….you mean like tree rings?

LOL
..
LOL

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 6:57 pm

Are those the only proxies that you have ever heard of?
BTW, tree rings aren’t proxies for temperature. Never have been, never will be.

Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 7:07 pm

“BTW, tree rings aren’t proxies for temperature”

You’d better publish your data in a journal showing they are invalid……because they’re pretty prevalent in the literature, and in the general study of climate.

By the way, why do you cherry pick your proxies? Don’t like the ones that dispute your preconceived notions?

MarkW
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 3, 2017 7:29 am

PS: It’s been warmer than it is to day 4 times in the last 5000 years. As much as 3 to 5C warmer. Life flourished during all those periods.
PPS: CO2 played no role in any of those previous warm periods.

Griff
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 7:44 am

But not our form of industrial and agricultural society at this level of population.

Sheri
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 9:12 am

Griff: Where is the evidence that industrial and agricultural life is any more or less problematic to the planet? It’s a circular argument, as far as I can see. You assume the conclusion to prove the conclusion.

Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 11:15 am

“You assume the conclusion to prove the conclusion.”
This is the method operandi of the progressive left and of the purveyors of CAGW alarmism.
Consider the climate science ‘consensus’ where the presumed conclusions of the erroneous science reported by the IPCC are used to justify the existence of the IPCC whose reports define what its self serving ‘consensus’ believes.
The socialist/progressive left prays on weak minded individuals at the bottom of the economic food chain who put fabricated emotional arguments ahead of rational logical arguments. They do so because manipulating emotions is the easiest way to get people to accept that assuming a conclusion to prove itself is a valid methodology.
It’s an interesting social observation that people who’s beliefs lie inside this recursive anti-logic loop (for example, Griff), deny they are using circular reasoning. This is much like the belief in an Earth centric Universe where by being inside, you can’t perceive what lies beyond.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 3:14 pm

Griff, so what?
Warmer temperatures are good for crops.
CO2 is good for crops.
Try keeping up with reality.

Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 3:29 pm

“It’s been warmer than it is to day 4 times in the last 5000 years”

LOL, do you use tree rings to prove this assertion?

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 6:47 pm

Johnson, why do you continue to embarrass yourself.
For a guy who thinks that anything passed by congress and signed by the president is by definition constitutional, there isn’t much you know that is actually correct.

Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2017 7:15 pm

If it was passed by Congress, and signed by the president, it is constitutional…….it becomes unconstitutional ONLY AFTER the courts declare it such. All laws that have not been court reviewed remain constitutional

paqyfelyc
Reply to  MarkW
October 4, 2017 12:30 am

S Johnson
You have a dictatorship supporter state of mind. In a country where the rule of law apply, a law is beforehand either constitutional or not, just like an accused man is either a felon or not. Things come before court when they are not obvious, or when some party obfuscates and hide the facts and truth. A law isn’t turned unconstitutional by a court ruling says it is, anymore than such court ruling won’t turn an accused into a felon: it was beforehand, or not. Only an unconstitutional law must stated to be so, just like only a felon must be convicted (and shit happens: sometimes a court ruling is wrong, turning an innocent into a convict, or a felon into “not guilty”; same may happen in constitutional ruling ).
Only in a dictatorship has a court the power to decide at will. In a democracy a court has the duty to state the fact, rather than the power to make them happen.

Roger Knights
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 3, 2017 7:52 am

CO2 emissions in the ROW will continue to rise and dwarf any reductions “we” make, so why bother?

Reply to  Roger Knights
October 3, 2017 8:45 am

All signed up to the Paris Climate Agreement. The framework took a HUGE amount of negotiation but is in place to bring down CO2 emissions. The only country to pull out is you know who … no other country has followed its example. Fatberg’s days are numbered and then the good ‘ll US will get back on track.

Sheri
Reply to  Roger Knights
October 3, 2017 9:14 am

Ivankinsman: Still ignoring the fact that the Paris Climate Agreement was admitted by warmist to have virtually no effect on warming. It was just a way to take money and redistribute it. Worthless if you’re the one who’s pocket is being picked. Might as well burn the cash—better use thereof.

Reply to  Sheri
October 3, 2017 10:44 am

What a complete load of horse crap. Doesn’t even merit a response.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  Roger Knights
October 3, 2017 10:33 am

ivankinsman, how are India and China bringing down CO2 by building hundreds of new coal plants? Of course there is broad consensus for the Paris agreement – most countries that signed on would get free money.

MarkW
Reply to  Roger Knights
October 3, 2017 3:16 pm

The fact that a bunch of politicians negotiated a pact that will grant them much more money and power is proof that AGW is real.
Ivan, are you as delusional as your posts make you sound?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 3, 2017 10:35 am

Ivankinsman,
I am reminded of something my mother used to say whenever I used the “everybody else is doing it” argument: “If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?” Foolishness is still foolishness even if a lot of people are doing it. The ROW can jump off that cliff; we’ll just watch from here and see how that works out for them.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
October 3, 2017 10:40 am

Under Fatberg all well and good … and Pruitt will continue to allow further exploitation of the US environment by thecfkssil fuel industries.
But fortunately politicians come and go and there will be a sea change at the very top under a new President.

AndyG55
Reply to  Paul Penrose
October 3, 2017 11:00 am

And ivan will continue to hypocritically live off the fruits and massive benefits of fossil fuel availability.

Stevan Reddish
Reply to  Paul Penrose
October 3, 2017 12:10 pm

ivankinsman October 3, 2017 at 10:08 am
“What planet are you living on? Not mine. AGW = higher sea levels = coastal cities underwater. Higher CO2 ppm means higher atmospheric temperatures = more intense hurrucanes. Firget about glacial, interglacial etc etc. Rapid rise in global temperatures is unprecedented.”
This isn’t a reasoned argument, it is a mantra. Not one of those claims has any factual basis. You sound like the hare telling his friends the tortoise came in next to last in a recent race.
We all know that you know you have no rational argument, because you switched to name calling. As the only people who can be controlled by being called names are those who live in fear of other’s negative opinion of them, why would you think name calling is an effective means of swaying others?
SR

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Paul Penrose
October 4, 2017 12:38 am

The world is full of christian ideas ran amok. Like, the messiah that will come and save us from the devil.
ivankinsman obviously believe that some messiah will save him from Trump. I guess his mother likewise believed that she would be gotten rid of Reagan, just like he believed Obama would dismantled Guantanamo prisoners’ camp. It didn’t happen.

DCA
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 3, 2017 11:36 am

Is this our ivankinsman? Freelance proofreader/editor and quality controller/manager
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivan-kinsman-27460a75
From what he has said in the past, it seems likely.
Today Ivan writes: “thecfkssil”, “good ‘ll”, “hurrucanes” and “Firget”.
His writing skills today say a lot about his competence. No wonder he’s “Freelance”.

Reply to  DCA
October 3, 2017 11:55 am

That’s the one my friend … it’s what you say that’s important and I write everything on my cellphone. I think you get the general drift of my content .. the sceptics are on Custer’s Last Stand and the Indians are circling.

Reply to  DCA
October 3, 2017 1:11 pm

ivankinsman on October 3, 2017 at 11:55 am
.. the sceptics are on Custer’s Last Stand and the Indians are circling.
You mean the Native Americans? How can you be a leftist AND a bigot? Aren’t the two incompatible?

MarkW
Reply to  DCA
October 3, 2017 3:18 pm

“Aren’t the two incompatible?”
Not that I’ve ever noticed.
In fact the most bigoted people that I know are all leftists.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  DCA
October 4, 2017 1:03 am

+1 MarkW
Plus, egotic posing as altruists.
I love his Custer’s Last Stand and circling Indians analogy. Very revealing of his state of mind. He comes here, in this skeptics den, and surely feels like Custer surrounded by indians; and you can be sure he has the very same feeling toward skeptics than Custer had for Indians, that is, “a good Indian is a dead Indian, women and children first”.
However, despite the fact, he reverses the reality and thinks he is the good guy of his particular mythology, that is, an indian.
He may need a shrink. Or maybe just to grow up.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  DCA
October 4, 2017 4:03 am

I do have to give Ivan credit for using his real name here, especially since he is a dissenting voice (at least on this site).

DCA
Reply to  DCA
October 4, 2017 11:26 am

I can proofread and edit my cellphone. Haven’t you figured that out yet?
So you have no earth science credentials and like most language majors you probably have very little math credentials as well .
You come here insulting nearly everyone and reference no real science. That makes you a troll and you will be banned eventually. I suppose after you’re banned you will run back to you watermelon blogs complain about it.

DCA
Reply to  DCA
October 4, 2017 11:26 am

The previous post was for ivan.

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 4, 2017 11:49 am

ivankinsman, you intrigue me. Mosher is a luke warmer who actually can hold a good conversation, even if he gets ganged up on. Griff is probably a bot, as his comments seem too rote and by the book. But you, ivankinsman, you appear to be a true believer.
Come now, why don’t you just let your true believer feelings out. Don’t hold back.

Reply to  Andrew Cooke
October 4, 2017 11:53 am

Read everything on this my friend and then get back to me. Climate change is not a faith – as sceptics like to claim – but a reality and it is playing out right in front of you:
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/

catweazle666
Reply to  Andrew Cooke
October 4, 2017 5:31 pm

Kinsman, has anyone ever told you that you are what we half-Irish refer to as a ‘fokken eejit’?

Reply to  Andrew Cooke
October 5, 2017 11:09 am

Now why would Dutch banks dream up this fictitious event – are they all believers in this strange faith of so-called climate change? Dutch bankers are rational business-minded people so this is all really ssssttttrrrraaaannnnggggeeee…

Michael 2
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 5, 2017 12:54 pm

“GET REAL PEOPLE”
Where I can find real people? How much do they cost?

commieBob
October 3, 2017 7:43 am

People will answer questions depending on how you prompt them. You can easily get them to say that CAGW is a huge problem if you ask the question right.
On the other hand, if you just ask people what they think is the nation’s greatest problem, climate and warming don’t make the list. link

Joe Crawford
October 3, 2017 7:48 am

“AmeriSpeak Omnibus is a once-a-month, multi-client survey using a probability sample which delivers 1,000 interviews of nationally representative adults age 18 and older. Respondents are interviewed online and by phone and are drawn from the AmeriSpeak Panel.”
I could not find the questions asked on this particular survey. However, if they are anything like the the occasional phone survey we get here the questions are so imprecisely worded that it is almost impossible to arrive at a single interpretation. The incompetence of whoever developed the questions is obvious to the point that you have to feel sorry for the poor person asking them on the survey. They are typically so ill educated they know absolutely nothing about the subject, much less the intent of the questions asked.

Yirgach
Reply to  Joe Crawford
October 3, 2017 8:33 am

Here are most of the questions asked in the surveys:
http://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/EnergyClimate2017/EPIC%20Topline_FINAL.pdf

PiperPaul
Reply to  Joe Crawford
October 3, 2017 8:33 am

incompetence of whoever developed the questions
Orchestrating things so that you can claim whatever results you want to project is not necessarily incompetence. Although incompetence could be claimed as a fallback excuse if caught in the act. I suspect a lot of lefty “causes” operate this way.

paqyfelyc
October 3, 2017 7:53 am

“Most Americans want the government to combat climate change, some willing to pay a high amount”,
translates into
“Most Americans want the government to combat climate change, as long as they don’t have to pay a high amount”
Well, captain obvious wouldn’t had say better. I am willing to pay as much as 100$ a year just to get rid of this fuss.

HR
October 3, 2017 7:55 am

There should be a negative star button for rubbish like this posturing as journalistic research. A clear example of creating a reality to suit your narrative.

Resourceguy
Reply to  HR
October 3, 2017 8:16 am

Yes, using their own simpleton distorted logic against them we need the equivalent of up down arrows and red state blue state labels on everything.

commieBob
October 3, 2017 8:03 am

One of the reasons people don’t believe in CAGW is that it conflicts with their lived experience. If you prod them with a poll question, they will give an answer that they think makes them look better.
Folks my parents’ age know that the weather in the dirty thirties hasn’t happened since. We actually had climate refugees then. Woody Guthrie wrote a song about Dustbowl Refugees.

drednicolson
Reply to  commieBob
October 4, 2017 3:55 am

And John Steinbeck wrote a novel or two.

Ridiculous
October 3, 2017 8:11 am

Bad news for them !
“While half are unwilling to pay even one dollar” !!!

Resourceguy
Reply to  Ridiculous
October 3, 2017 8:18 am

Actually, I want $100 monthly as compensation for being subjected to this crap without adequate warning labels.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
October 3, 2017 8:18 am

Excellent. Contributions can be made 100% voluntary.

BallBounces
October 3, 2017 8:29 am

“Climate damages”. A damaged climate — seriously? If only we could remove some of that killer H2O from the atmosphere…

Coeur de Lion
October 3, 2017 8:37 am

When I was involved in politics I was taught that Communists always vote. Same goes for loony left activists.

Yirgach
October 3, 2017 8:42 am
Paul Penrose
Reply to  Yirgach
October 3, 2017 10:42 am

So statistically, no change.

October 3, 2017 8:46 am

Correction: AmeriSpeak members willing to pay big bucks to combat climate change.

Resourceguy
October 3, 2017 8:54 am

Meanwhile Warren Buffet pays big bucks to buy a network of truck stops. That’s after buying up the coal hauler railroad in BNSF. Making money off the suckers pays well.

Bruce Cobb
October 3, 2017 8:56 am

In the interest of fairness, those who are willing to pay to fight “climate change” should be allowed to do so.

Editor
October 3, 2017 9:02 am

Seventy-two percent of Americans believe climate change is happening, including 85 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of Republicans. Nineteen percent remain unsure.

What was the percentage of respondents who could define the word “climate” and the phrase “climate change”?

Political party and belief in climate change are the main determinants of whether people are willing to pay a modest fee to combat climate change, as opposed to education, income, or geographic location. Democrats are consistently willing to pay more than Republicans.

That’s because Democrats never spend their own money.

Fifty-seven percent support actions taken by some mayors and governors to honor the goals of the Paris climate agreement despite U.S. withdrawal, and 55 percent think their state and local government should do more to address climate change. A third say they should stick to the status quo.

55% of respondents would also probably say that they think think their state and local government should do more to address plate tectonics and entropy too.

Climate change and energy policy are very or extremely important to 48 percent and 54 percent of Americans, respectively, while at least two-thirds say health care, the economy, and terrorism are important policy priorities.

But, what do they fear the most?
top10fears-740x572
fear_zpsaupkou1q

Thirty-five percent oppose the direction of energy policy in the United States, while 45 percent lack an opinion and only 17 percent support the direction. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to favor the direction of energy policy, but they are most likely to lack an opinion.

45% of respondents were smart enough to know that they don’t have a fracking clue about energy.

Roughly equal shares of Americans favor, oppose, and neither favor nor oppose the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines.

Who cares?

Forty percent of Americans oppose the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which the Trump administration is reviewing. Thirty-seven percent lack an opinion, while just 20 percent favor its repeal.

How many of the 77% who oppose or have no opinion on the CPP are in favor of their lights actually coming on when they flip a switch and would prefer not to have skyrocketing electricity rates?

More Americans lack an opinion on the use of fracking in the United States than support it: 37 percent neither favor nor oppose fracking, 17 percent favor it, and 41 percent oppose it.

Are 41% of Americans really that stupid?

An equal number of Americans either support or lack an opinion on the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, while the largest number opposes withdrawal: 42 percent oppose it, 28 percent support it, and 28 percent neither support nor oppose withdrawal. Half of those who support withdrawal say the agreement was too costly for the United States.

Ratification of a treaty requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate.  42% support for a treaty falls a bit short.  I wonder how much overlap there was between the 41% who oppose fracking and the 42% who opposed 86’ing the Paris deal?

Bruce Cobb
October 3, 2017 9:34 am

I hereby state unequivocally and categorically my willingness to pay 100% of my salary to fight space aliens.
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 3, 2017 3:20 pm

I am forming a resistance movement. If you will e-mail me your banking records, I will make sure that you get prominent mention in our next news letter.

whiten
October 3, 2017 10:22 am

For once, I am 100% in support and more than in 100% encouragement of what supposed to be offered and proposed by this survey and its conclusion, especially when a type of new consensus been contemplated.
Let’s be fair, and allow these guys to have a fair chance in jumping and running the next stage of wind and solar power.
You never know, all of us, me included, that actually are against it, at some point may be proven wrong, clearly.
What better place than USA can this be attempted at this stage in a fair and square way.
If the people wanted, then these guys should offer it and even encouraged when at it,,,,,,,, and let’s wait and see, and probably in the end accept that most of us here were wrong, all along………fair, will that not be!
I am not been sarcastic, if any one wonders, honestly…….let us make Griff for once happy..:)
cheers

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  whiten
October 4, 2017 11:52 am

LOL, you used the phrase “fair and square”.
Buwhahahahahahahah. Oh stop. You’re killing me. I can’t stop laughing.

Bill Powers
October 3, 2017 10:29 am

Most people aren’t aware that, should they wish to pay more taxes, there is a line on their tax form to contribute above and beyond their govMINT obligation.
I believe that is how we need to solve this global warming funding problem. Add a line item to every utility bill allowing each household to contribute, voluntarily, whatever they think is fair and affordable. If you wish to pay 30 or 100 dollars extra each month you now have a vehicle to assuage your guilt at expelling CO2 into the atmosphere. Methinks the actual percentage of donors will not come close to matching the survey respondents and may actually approach zero.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Bill Powers
October 3, 2017 10:50 am

I have found that people are often “willing” to do many things, but are unable when the opportunity presents.

willhaas
October 3, 2017 10:42 am

i would like all Americans to pay me 30 dollars each year to fight climate change for them. Paying me to fight climate change through prayer is about as effective as any other approach. Climate change has been going on for eons and will continue to go on for eons whether Mankind is here are not. Do not mix up true climate change with weather cycles that are part of the current climate. Our global climate has been changing so slowly that it takes groups of very sophisticated instruments many decades to even detect it. Americans need to understand that extreme weather events to include floods and droughts are part of the current climate so that puting a hault of climate change will not eliminate extreme weather everts.
The paleoclimate record and the work that has been done on climate models supports the idea that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensifity of CO2 is zero. So even if we removed all the CO2 from the Earth’s atmosphere, the action would have no effect on climate however life as we know it would come to an abrupt end. This is all a matter of science.
Since Mother Nature is the culprit here, my prayers will be as effective as anything else to control Mother Nature and to get her to stop changing the Earth’s climate. One may also consider sueing Mother Nature in the court system but it would be very difficult to collect on a judgment since Mother Nature does not have any money. No one knows how to get Mother Nature to obey a cease and desist order.

October 3, 2017 10:44 am

ARE PEOPLE IN THE WESTERN DEMOCRACIES GETTING STUPIDER? I suspect they are.
Maybe it is because of our education system, which is dominated by leftist ideologues who have little real-life experience. These imbeciles cling to Harpo-Marxist fantasies that killed several hundred million people during the 20th Century and destroyed the freedoms of billions more.
Can you imagine members of the Great Generation, who suffered through the Great Depression, fought in World War 2 and Won the Peace believing Al Gore’s global warming hysteria?
Can you imagine the current crop of ultra-delicate “snowflakes”, who take great offence at the slightest slight (real or imaginary), interacting with veterans and civilians who survived the horrors of WW2?
I think there are a whole lot of people today who are far too stupid to vote. We should have big billboards with skill-testing questions, that read:
“IF YOU CAN’T ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, JUST STAY HOME – YOU ARE ‘WAY TOO STUPID TO VOTE!”
Best, Allan 🙂

October 3, 2017 10:46 am

Tell the lie long enough – bingo! It’s now the truth!

Herbert
October 3, 2017 11:01 am

To show how unlikely it is that people are worried about CAGW, go to the UN’s own poll, myworld2015.org, where some 10million people have responded to state what matters concern them for the future.
When last I looked , concern about climate change was dead last from a field of about 14 issues.

TA
October 3, 2017 11:42 am

From the article: “When asked about key climate policy decisions, the largest shares of Americans say they oppose the repeal of the Clean Power Plan”
I wonder how many of these poll takers actually know any details about the Clean Power Plan. I suspect most of them don’t have a clue what it involves.

Caligula Jones
October 3, 2017 12:01 pm

Reminds me of the joke with the punch line: “we already know what you are, we’re just negotiating the price”. (Ask your father for the joke part…)
I’m certainly willing to pay to fight climate change, but if I give $100 to the Al Gore Fundorama, how can I be sure that all $100 will go to the 40% of climate change that MAY be caused by humans?
Does the other $60 go to Mother Nature, Inc.?

Solomon Green
October 3, 2017 12:18 pm

“1,038 completed the survey”. Surely I am misreading the figure. Does the sample only consist of 1,038 adults?
According to the most recent census estimates that I have seen there are approximately 248 million adults living in the USA.
1,038 adults represent about 4 out of every 1,000,000 adults in the whole population (c/f CO2 400 parts per million).
I have no idea of what distribution the surveyors have assumed for the population but to suggest that a sample of this size can have a 95 percent confidence level with an error of only +/- 4.1% is ludicrous.

Reply to  Solomon Green
October 3, 2017 1:01 pm

The sampling is especially un-representative when you deliberately select the people who are polled, as in this survey.
Then there are other biases, such as only polling people during the day- that is sure to bias the sampling in favor of those who are home during normal 9-5 working hours – then you have a poll of home-makers and the unemployed.

Reply to  Solomon Green
October 3, 2017 1:26 pm

It means the poll is 100 percent accurate 4.1 percent of the time.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Solomon Green
October 3, 2017 2:20 pm

A sample size that large might give meaningful results, if it was random. The group used in this study was not, so it is just a press release on the writer’s concerns.

Zigmaster
October 3, 2017 1:34 pm

From the people who believe in climate change. ” The cheques in the mail”. Oh yeh! Sure.

observa
October 4, 2017 12:04 am

Australians polled recently-
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/62-of-australians-dont-want-to-pay-even-10-a-month-for-renewables/
and you’d suspect the Don’t Know/Not Saying? are being coy given most know what the PC answer should be. Mind you saying you’re prepared to cough up and actually doing so are entirely different matters and given the number of politicians running around like headless chooks suddenly very interested in reducing power prices and preventing blackouts we can draw an obvious conclusion.

James Bull
October 5, 2017 3:39 am

Obviously they didn’t ask the deplorables who voted for President Trump wanting him to undo a lot of what the “elite” have done.
James Bull

%d bloggers like this: