Emphasis addied
New poll finds a surprising 7 out of 10 voters favor strong government action to tackle climate change
Story at a glance
A new poll ahead of the November election asked voters about their stances on climate change.
The poll was conducted by the Guardian, Vice Media Group and Covering Climate Now, by Climate Nexus, the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.
Climate change may not be a partisan issue anymore, suggests a new poll by the Guardian and Vice.Seven out of 10 voters support government action to address climate change, the Guardian reported, and three-quarters want the U.S. to generate all of its electricity from renewable sources within 15 years.
Here’s some more.
“There may be a divide on Capitol Hill but the large majority of us are worried about climate change and want to see leaders deal with it,” said Ed Maibach, director of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, which collaborated on the polling. “This is the first election where climate change has featured heavily. It’s unlike anything we’ve seen in American politics before.”
The divide hasn’t closed completely, with 90 percent of Democratic voters saying climate change is either a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem, compared to just more than half of Republican voters. And misinformation pushed by climate change deniers remains a major concern. But nearly two-thirds of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supports the complete shift to clean energy, the Guardian reported.
Here’s some background on Maiback
You can see the full article at the Hill here.
HT/Greg
Feels like I just read an article by a pedophile titled: « 70% of the population considers it is a top priority and demands the age of legal consent lowered to 2 years old »
Don’t joke – that’s not far off in California.
Survey results are only as good as the questions asked. Ignore results unless you know the exact questions asked, and any lead in used to frame the questions.
Also view the demographic information and review how that information was gathered.
A bunch of activists held a poll a few weeks before a presidential election and then tell us 90% of voters agree with them so candidates had better get on board !
Now, I may be a jaded cynic, but there’s little voice telling me they not be being totally honest about this.
If the Guardian was reporting a story about a man being hit by a bus, they manage to link it “global heating”. Yes, that really is what their editorial policy requires for any reference to global warming now.
Ah here’s the questions:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/23/us-voters-climate-change-guardian-vice-poll
Sounds like Trump would back that.
Framing it as “environmental dangers” does not change whether the respondent wants to assist someone just hit by a hurricane or flooded out!
Would you like to pay for 6 gazzillion dollars of “stimulus” from your taxes, or should we tax massively rich multi-national corporations ?
so after the lead-in questions establishing a response pattern, we finally get one vaguely climatey one, couched in biased language of “clean energy”.
If you are inclined to say no that one, it means you favour “dirty energy”. When did you stop beating your wife ??
Apparently it took the combine skills of the propagandist Guardian, Vice and experts of “climate communication” to hone these subtly biased, not-so-climate questions and illicit about 2/3 to say at least that they “somewhat support” the proposition.
If you look at the strongly support groups you barely get 30% .
They provide NO link to the “study” , it’s full results nor the figures justifying the claim that it is not a partisan issue.
In short, nothing but lies, misdirection of obfuscation.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
OMG, I used the ski11 word, which contains the dreaded ki11 word ! Let’s try again.
A bunch of activists held a poll a few weeks before a presidential election and then tell us 90% of voters agree with them so candidates had better get on board !
Now, I may be a jaded cynic, but there’s little voice telling me they not be being totally honest about this.
If the Guardian was reporting a story about a man being hit by a bus, they manage to link it “global heating”. Yes, that really is what their editorial policy requires for any reference to global warming now.
Ah here’s the questions:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/23/us-voters-climate-change-guardian-vice-poll
Providing federal assistance, including job training and guaranteed wages, to workers who lose jobs in the coal, oil, and natural gas industries
Sounds like Trump would back that.
Increasing federal funding to protect vulnerable low-income communities and communities of color from immediate environmental dangers like severe flooding and hurricanes
Framing it as “environmental dangers” does not change whether the respondent wants to assist someone just hit by a hurricane or flooded out!
Generating government revenue for an economic stimulus package by requiring fossil fuel companies to pay tax on their carbon pollution
Would you like to pay for 6 gazzillion dollars of “stimulus” from your taxes, or should we tax massively rich multi-national corporations ?
Providing a multitrillion-dollar federal economic stimulus that prioritizes investments in clean energy infrastructure
so after the lead-in questions establishing a response pattern, we finally get one vaguely climatey one, couched in biased language of “clean energy”.
If you are inclined to say no that one, it means you favour “dirty energy”. When did you stop beating your wife ??
Apparently it took the combine ski11s of the propagandist Guardian, Vice and experts of “climate communication” to hone these subtly biased, not-so-climate questions and illicit about 2/3 to say at least that they “somewhat support” the proposition.
If you look at the strongly support groups you barely get 30% .
They provide NO link to the “study” , it’s full results nor the figures justifying the claim that it is not a partisan issue.
In short, nothing but lies, misdirection of obfuscation.
Survey results are also only as good as the attitudes of the population polled. Given who was asking the questions, and who it is that would have been listening to them in the first place, I would place approximately zero percent confidence in the dependability of the results.
They’ve been lying to a lot of people for a long time.
Maibach and his group at George Mason university are the main drivers of AGW hysteria. It’s in their interest to keep it front & center in the public mind lest the grant money stream dry up.
Whatever happened to Shukla and his corruption? Did he get away with it?
No, he’s just graduated to the A-hate list where the mud is encouraged to be thrown at the political enemies. His crime: suggesting climate change shouldn’t be considered a political problem- he’s right, its not, its a science problem – but that deeply undermines the overtly political narrative, so onto the hit-list he goes.
I can hear the howls of spittle-flecked protest and gnashing of teeth as I write: “The left made it political…”, but when evidence of this is sought all you get here is more right-wing political opinion and ever more desperation to politicize it. There are plenty of conservative politians around the world who follow the science, there even a few in the US…
The poll finds…
Republican voters. More than half say climate change is a very or somewhat serious problem, with 41% backing the Green New Deal, despite it being widely vilified by Republican party leaders. A further 51% of Republican voters support US involvement in the Paris climate accords.
Despite the lies from their so-called leaders, even 41% of Republicans can see the writing on the climate wall. The leftist 41% I suppose.
But no, lets just ignore any data that fails to confirm our biases and attack the man instead without even bothering to look at the results. Is this what passes for skepticism here these days?
There you go, you can throw it at me instead.
There has yet to be any science that has found global warming to be a problem. And no, models are not science.
I notice that Loydo once again doesn’t try to deal with any of the arguments made. He just assumes the poll must be accurate and goes from there.
Public support for “100% renewables” is based on the assumptions that CO2 is the control knob for climate, that all change is bad, and that wind & solar are feasible, economical, scalable, sustainable, and “clean.”
NONE of those assumptions are true.
Public support for renewables is based on the assumption costs and reliability are comparable to fossil fuel and nuclear power. They’ll be in for a surprise.
Oh look! A flying pig!
But is it a sustainable flying pig?
Ecologically-pure eaters of bacon need to know…
Yes, it is an electrically powered, non binary, flying pig, which is fed on an organically grown, locally sourced, vegan diet.
BTW. Ecologically-pure eaters of bacon , don’t eat bacon 😉
“..Seven out of 10 voters support government action to address climate change, the Guardian reported, and three-quarters want the U.S. to generate all of its electricity from renewable sources within 15 years…”
How many of those polled have any background in the science of the Earth’s climate and its atmosphere?
How many of them understand how scientific discourse actually works?
How many of them have actually done any homework on the subject of climate and actually believe they have any in-depth understanding of it?
How many of those polled know anything about the problems with wind and solar energy involving physics, engineering, and economics or have a background in one or more of those fields?
Among those polled who want renewables, how many of them have solar panels on their roofs or wind turbines in their back yards? Did they do their homework on wind and solar?
When the voters put somebody in office who is as ignorant as a summer’s day is long, it is a case of the blind leading the blind. Like Newsome is in California, the ignorant lead the great uninformed masses down the road to Hell, and the masses gladly follow him until after the damage is done. It is only after the damage has been done that they stand there scratching their heads wondering what happened.
These “climate change communication centers” (such as at George Mason and Yale) demonstrate how academia can waste people’s money by showing the rest of us how scientifically illiterate the average voter is, which of course explains Joe Biden and congresswoman AOC among many others.
There is a tendency here at WUWT to argue against opponents by appeals to science, rational methods, evidence, and so forth. But the problem is that the opponents think of “science” in a way that makes it functionally a modern superstition. It is functional by providing explanations of things no premodern society had to be concerned about. Once a superstition is employed to provide an explanation, then that is the end of the topic. No idea about testing an explanation, making predictions which can be verified, exists in this view of science as superstition.
I have been searching for a long time for a better way to approach these arguments. No success to report at this point.
Ridicule, Kevin. Use ridicule.
Ridicule is the appropriate response to the ridiculous.
(Laughter) Well, Pat there is that! However, I can’t point to where ridicule actually caused someone to reconsider their view. They tend to slink away, but return later.
Kevin. You are not alone. Check out clintel.org click on Climate Declaration and then list of signatories . You will get some 869 names of prominent scientists etc. from across the world.
I am old enough to remember a TV ad that stated “8 out of 10 New York doctors prefer Camels” (meaning the cigarette brand, of course). It’s all marketing.
No that was misreported. They really do prefer camels.
Yeah, sorta like all these progressive lefties saying skepticism is just a right-wing thing.
I don’t even believe this is one-way blindness anymore – this is deliberate propaganda.
There was time when ethics mattered at universities. Somewhere along the way, with the Left’s take over of the campuses and faculty, those ethics got thrown out and “ends justify the means” people like Mann and Maibach rose to influence by the end of the 1990’s.
I peg that “turning point” about 1993, the year Al Gore become Vice President, and President Clinton put him in charge of his new administrations climate policies. Maybe someone can point out to me something earlier, but the pernicious impact of Gore and his steering of NSF and other government funding seems to me to be the critical point where the ethical academics either got defunded and quit/retired, or went silent.
There is a strange-bedfellows phenomenon between “scientists” who fear the end of the World, and Communists.
Harrison Brown, who certainly has credentials as a prominent, notable scientists, in the area of Nukular Physics, progressed on to develop the “science-based fear-mongering” cottage industry.
His first book, Must Destruction Be Our Destiny, 1945, was really focused on the idea that humankind could now easily self-destruct, but he developed the over-population / planetary crash idea in the book The Challenge of Man’s Future, 1954.
This preceded Silent Spring 1962 Rachel Carson and Population Bomb 1968 Paul Ehrlich.
Lovelock developed and promoted a modern belief in the “Gaia Hypothesis” in 1965.
For the most part, these were genuine scientists getting on the Malthusian bandwagon, and as far as I know were not specifically driven by Marxist orientation.
The Marxists had been developing an interest in ecology / environmentalism. I don’t know a touchstone for when this really started to roll. It most likely sprang out of general opposition to capitalism, including the pollution output of big industries.
Ecology / Environment was NOT in The Port Huron Statement, something of a landmark in current Marxist beliefs in the USA.
Frankfurt School came to USA in 1935. This is is solid Marxism. They of course were against human domination of the earth, etc., and they likely may be credited for laying the foundation of these types of views in academia.
So, there is dabbling and admixture and cross-fertilization going on from 1950s, and we get the first Earth Day 1970. Fro that point forward, ecology is firmly part of the Communist portfolio.
Nukular destruction and then Environmental Collapse from pesticides, or pollution, become leading rallying points for Communists to be given the reins of society, and for us to get rid of Capitalism. Scientists love this because it sounds important – planetary collapse is certainly a worthwhile topic – and because there is money in it.
From 1970 onward, we have the scientists and the Marxists firmly in league with each other. The scientists weakly playing along with the politics of it all, with Marxists regularly using their veil, and Marxists throwing the term “science” around as they saw fit, whether it fit or not.
Or sacked, like Peter Ridd
You could get Megawatts of free energy from the spinning of George Mason in his grave.
Bill Gates and Barack Obama are so concerned about climate change that they bought seaside residential properties costing over $10 million to protect themselves against rising sea levels.
New poll finds a surprising 7 out of 10 voters favor strong government action to tackle climate change … if it involves not money whatsoever
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/doctors-smoking-cigarette-1930-1950/
Trays of mail, including absentee ballots were found in a ditch in Wisconsin.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mail-absentee-ballots-found-wisconsin-ditch
If your house has a Trump sign in the yard, what are the odds that something will happen to your absentee ballot between your mail-box and the postal center?
None as long as you don’t live in Outagamie county. LOL.
Not the first time mail has been found in a ditch in WI and won’t be the last. It wasn’t ALL absentee ballots of which the headline may imply.
Just north of Outagamie county there is a rash of thefts and vandalism to gigantic Trump signs (people are setting fire to them or defacing them–the last one I saw read Trump/Pence = You’re FIRED!). Now while I decry the vandalism of private property and the will defend the right to anyone able to have their own opinions, I have to say that on a creative streak–it does not compare to the Biden Corn Maze that features 2 stalks of corn forming an entrance to an empty field with a regularly sized sign.
But for all the vandalism to large Trump signs, there is equally a respect for the regular sized ones–as those are being left alone. So in the end, WI is simply WI–we accept your viewpoints, but don’t shove it in our face and for cripe’s sake, keep it normal sized.
Even the float parade on the Fox River a few weeks ago was subdued–both by the very large container ship entering into port and by the respect for other people to keep the boat wakes small and not swamp the fishing boats on the sides of the channel (a fact that other float parades have not taken into account).
Interesting, the last poll results ( from six months ago ) I remember reading about..climate issues were the least worrying item for voters out of a list of ten.
Not surprising – we’ve been ruled by the tyranny of a militant minority for a while now.
It would be great if a national paper would run a poll asking questions like:
Would you give up a quarter of your countryside and the national parks for subsidized wind, solar and batteries, in order to avoid 0.1° warming?
The thing is, most of us like the sound of having the politicians save the world, our economy, make world peace and give us lots of well paying easy jobs. Who wouldn’t say japper dapper doo.
This time the polls may be right. It is not so likely the woke city slickers will see a live candidate to candidate discussion, which would undoubtedly shock most of the woke at any age.
Sad the constitution doesn’t demand a face to face debate.
The Presidential candidate I’m voting for hasn’t mentioned it at all. One of the many reasons why I like him.
The Left loves the control associated with ‘Climate Change’ and convince themselves that everyone must think the same way as it is the correct ‘way’. They then go to the polls with a radical ‘Climate Change’ policy and ignore people’s actual desires and are greatly surprised when they lose the election by a lot. This happened at the last Federal Poll in Australia and we pray that it happens again in America.
I hope the climate change from summer to winter happens again for the 75th year in a row that I have been alive.
Or sacked, like Peter Ridd
The whole point of these polls is to shift public opinion, nothing less. From there they use their manufactured ‘public opinion’ to change policy. Been going on for years.
Anything from the Guardian on ‘climate change’ can reliably be considered as rigged and should be ignored.
You can make a poll say anthing you want it to say depending on who you ask the questions and how the questions are posed, and how the answers are interpreted.
I’m reminded of a recent presidential poll done in Arizona by Fox News Channel a couple of weeks ago, and the poll showed Biden ahead of Trump by about eight points.
A Trump spokesman took issue with the accuracy of the poll and when asked by Fox News hosts to explain why he didn’t trust their numbers, the Trump spokesman said that during the 2016 and 2018 elections, the exit polls showed that about 28 percent of the voters were Democrats, yet in this poll Fox News was using a figure of 48 percent Democrats, so they were querying almost double the number Democrats for their poll as voted in the last two elections.
So that’s one way that pollsters can skew the results of a poll.
BTW, the latest ABC poll shows Trump leading in Arizona by two points. The ABC poll is also a skewed poll so when they show Trump leading, that is a meaningful indicator. Despite ABC’s best efforts to skew the polls, Trump has taken the lead in Arizona. McSally has also taken the lead in the Arizona Senate race by two points.
Modern-day polls are basically propaganda instruments meant to form public policy by presenting certain issues as acceptable to a majority of the public.
“There may be a divide on Capitol Hill but the large majority of us are worried about climate change and want to see leaders deal with it,”
The expectation of the large majority being Capitol Hill leaders can organise free solar and wind power to smash power bills plus provide cheap electric cars that run on it rather than expensive fuel now. As long as that is happening everyone’s all for it and kumbayah in our time. What’s so hard about that?