By Justin Haskins
From April 29 to May 3, Rasmussen Reports and The Heartland Institute, a national free-market think tank, conducted a nationwide survey of 2,000 likely voters. Included in the poll was a series of questions asking likely voters how they receive news and information, as well as several questions about climate-change-related topics. The following results from the survey illustrate likely voters’ views on these important issues, as well as how those views are correlated with news media preferences.
Some of The Heartland Institute’s key findings from an analysis of the survey include:
- There is a strong correlation between a likely voter’s favorite television news outlet and his or her understanding of basic facts about climate change.
- Compared to viewers of Fox News, “another” cable news outlet, and those who don’t watch television news, viewers of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC are substantially more likely to believe that if CO2 emissions continue to increase at recent rates, humans will “become completely or nearly extinct due to climate change” within the next 100 years.
- For example, 58% of MSNBC viewers and more than half of viewers of ABC, CBS, and NBC said they think humanity could become extinct or nearly extinct within a century.
- About one-quarter of CNN and MSNBC viewers believe humanity could become extinct within 50 years due to climate change.
- Viewers of CNN and MSNBC are substantially more likely to overestimate the amount of global warming that has occurred since the late 1800s compared to viewers of Fox News or “another” outlet. 65% percent of CNN viewers and 67% of MSNBC viewers overestimated warming by at least 40%, and three in 10 CNN and MSNBC viewers overestimated warming by more than double the real figure.
- Viewers of ABC, CBS, and NBC were also substantially more likely to overestimate global warming. Six in 10 viewers of these networks overestimated warming trends.
- Respondents who don’t watch cable news and viewers of Fox News or “another” outlet (such as The Blaze TV or Newsmax) were more likely to correctly estimate the amount of warming that has occurred since the late 1800s. More than four in 10 of the respondents in these three categories answered correctly, compared to about three in 10 viewers of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC.
- 55% of likely voters believe climate change is primarily caused by human beings, compared to 45% who believe long-term planetary trends are the main cause.
You can download the full survey results and all crosstabs by clicking here.
(We strongly recommend that in addition to considering our summary bullet points below, you download the full results and view the crosstabs for this survey, because this is where you’ll find the crosstabs about media preferences and other important information.)
Justin Haskins is the Editorial Director and a Research Fellow at The Heartland Institute.
I’ll bet those that overestimated the climate “crisis” also overestimated sleepy Joe’s winning margin in November
Surely this is just because the climate issue is unimportant to most people.
It’s the economy and fairness that people care about.
So if the the conservative media is right about climate but wrong about social justice most reasonable people will choose to be misinformed on the less important subject.
Anytime you have to modify the word “justice” (economic justice, climate justice, environmental justice, etc., etc.) you can be sure you ain’t getting justice.
Socialists believe that it’s unfair that some people are more talented than others.
They seek to use government to handicap those who can do what they can’t.
And not just talented; diligent and hardworking, or anyone seeking to improve themselves.
Probably the most instructive survey taken in recent times was the 7-million persons worldwide survey into critical life quality issues carried out by the UN.
Of 16 common life essentials (eg health, housing, sustenance, education, transport, etc etc), climate change was rated last.
(I had bookmarked the link but seem to have lost it when changing computers)
You can find it by googling ‘UN shaping our future together’
UN destroying our future more like
It was the MyWorld2015 UN Survey, now retired; not because it’s dated or irrelevant, but likely because the almost 10 million repondents exposed some inconvenient disparities between the priorities of the ruling elites and the ordinary rabble of the earth. Luckily it’s archived on the Wayback Machine here and it’s still highly relevant:
http://web.archive.org/web/20200728091358/http://data.myworld2015.org/
Thanks for posting the link, stinkerp. I know I had it in one of my nooks and you saved me the time looking for it.
Regards,
Bob
That’s the problem, they aren’t wrong on the social justice issues.
It’s the socialists, who believe that they have the right to steal from those who have more than they do, who are wrong on just about every issue.
Sorry, M, but what are you saying?
“if the conservative media is right… be misinformed…”
So you are claiming the Hate Media (as we call it in Australia) are correct about climate change, but because no one who consumes Hate Media correctly follows Social Justice they are happy to get the climate change message wrong…??
How can they get it wrong under your argument? You have opened by saying conservative media are correct.
Sorry, M, but your post is word salad. Lay off the woke.
It is highly unlikely that anyone or anything is 100% right about everything.
Unless the world can be summed up in a single binary Yes/No question, I suppose (but it cannot).
So if we are convinced that X is wrong about something but many, many people still listen to X it is probably right about something else. Something more important.
“So if we are convinced that X is wrong about something but many, many people still listen to X it is probably right about something else. Something more important”
That makes absolutely no logical sense. Whether people believe something often has little to do with whether it is actually true, and someone/some group being wrong about one thing is absolutely no positive inference on their other views being correct just because lots of people buy into their falsehood.
Social justice is definitely not something that they are right about. It is a Marxist abomination against actual justice. As has been pointed out earlier, the addition of any adjective in front of justice invalidates and often inverts the meaning.
You could visualise this with a Venn Diagram with two partially overlapping circles. One being Justice and the other being “Social Justice”. Where these intersect social justice agrees with justice. However, there are segments of Justice that are denied by social justice (injustice) and social justice that are outside of Justice (injustice). The extent to which “social justice” overlaps with actual justice is undefined and for the more extreme “woke” end of the spectrum, the overlap is almost non existent.
Some people and collections of those are wrong about everything. Even about things that you would consider right when you haven’t seen who made the statement. Trump, for instance. And…
What has Trump been proven wrong in?
I know that leftists have been trained to believe that anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong, but the rest of the world doesn’t buy into that conceit.
Forgot /s, sorry.
what is highly unlikely is that your bias allows you to honestly evaluate anything.
M Courtney,
That might be the most ignorant thing I have ever read, and I’ve been around long enough to have been exposed to incredible levels of ignorance. The gulf between your perceptions about what’s going on and objective reality is so great that I won’t even try to bridge it. The best of luck to you in the future – you’re going to need it.
What you say may well be true but it isn’t helpful.
If you try to bridge the gap, it helps the rest of us, including Courtney, and it sharpens your thinking skills. It’s a winning proposition all round.
Bob,
It would literally take pages of text and references to published materials, and even then the chances of having an effect are very small. I don’t have the time and inclination, but are welcome to try if you wish. And if you do, good luck.
The fact that you automatically assume that “conservative media” is “wrong” about social justice shows that you are both misinformed and biased, and most likely hopelessly deluded.
You make an interesting point. Still, there’s this:
Based on your observation, they would think the extinction of the human race is a mere trifle compared with social justice issues. Yep, they really are that stupid.
I used to believe that it was ignorance that explained some political movements, but I currently think it is a matter of choice.
Mainstream elitists choose to read the New York Times, and as it affirms their prejudices, they rarely ever check out other sources.
“Mainstream elitists choose to read the New York Times, and as it affirms their prejudices, they rarely ever check out other sources.
Funny I think the same applies to any group that could be considered extremist.
Did Simon just admit that most readers of the NYT are extremists?
Would it be an idea to compose one of those daily quiz segments, but one on “climate change only, and offer it to online media outlets?
Maybe the low-info readers could become less low-info, and all through their own efforts.
Okay, but even the facts are under assault these days unless they are referring to residual, surviving facts at this point. Be careful highlighting any facts or their days will be numbered like the scrolls of Alexandria.
Polls are science? Biased news outlets sometimes produce and report poll data that disagree with their bias? They didn’t ask about Notional Population Reeducation or Primarily BS, or is it that no one actually pays any attention to either Democratic party official propagand source?
Start taxing EV batteries, iPhone batteries, and solar panels for landfill impact like we pre-tax tires and lead car batteries and maybe the information level will start to rise. Do the same with pre-tax of beachfront housing and homes in California forestlands and I’ll bet the information level rises again.
You still pay taxes on disposal of all TV sets too because all that CRT phosphorus is toxic and can’t be put in landfills. The high voltage charge remaining on the cathode power will kill people too. So maybe the information level will start to rise, but I don’t think so. Remember, over 800 people are killed every year from toasters.
.
.
Thus raising the average IQ in the World a small bit.
OTOH, maybe the ‘smart’ toasters are planning to take over the World, and they killed 800 very smart people who caught on to the toasters’ plot.
I dunno. So I don’t plan on buying a ‘smart’ toaster, just in case.
Sure… At least Darwin’s theory provides a lower bound.
The challenge in this survey is locating anyone who actually views cable news. The daily viewers are counted in six figures.
That’s not correct. Ratings recently showed seven figure numbers. Fox News averaged 2.2 million viewers during the primetime hours of 8-11 p.m. from March 29 through April 4, while no other basic cable network cracked the two-million viewer plateau over that time period.
All people I know who freaked out on climate change and the ‘planet is burning’ a few years ago are all MSM viewers of either Liberal-type or not the brightest of stars in the sky.
And a lot of them got jobs in the administration.
The 2 usually go together
I actually went and looked all all the questions and all the crosstab categories at the provided link.
Unfortunately, for this volume and level of detail, the 2000 person ‘standard poll sample’ is probably FAR too small to provide any reliable conclusions to such a complex and detailed question set. Even a doubling to 4000 would probably be too small.
My son excelled in math in high school (advanced math placement started in grade 7 junior high, calculus as a junior in high school, statistics as a senior), did financial econometrics in college, got an MBA at HBS, ran global consumer big data at BCG as a senior manager, and is now in charge of global big data at McDonalds—big data on Big Macs! (And fresh v frozen patties, and how crispy to make french fries, and where and when to bring back McRibs for how long, how happy are Happy Meals …).
I pinged him on this and without even looking at the crosstabs said even 4000 respondents probably too small, cause you want at least several hundred in each conceivable question/category statistical ‘bucket’. Beyond the poll questions, the cross tab buckets include age group (young,old, middle aged) , sex (only two genders in this poll), married y/n, TV channel preference, party affiliation (R, D, I), and probably some other stuff I already forgot. Too many buckets, so too few respondents for statistical validity.
Yeah but Rud all that really matters these days is how people FEEL
Not necessarily. More data is better, but even a relatively small sample can show trends. Ignoring small percentage point differences, it’s apparent that there are strikingly different opinions and basic knowledge held by viewers of FOXNews, non-watchers of TV news, and the Democrat advocacy news media (ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc.).
OK, it was half a century ago that I took statistics in grad school, but I have “refreshed” since in learning and teaching the math side of “Six Sigma”. So with that caveat:
I agree that the sample is too small to put confidence in any ONE question, but the difference in this instance compared to “are the fries (chips) too crisp” is that the conclusion is NOT based on the subject of any individual question but rather on whether the answers question to question are exaggerated or not (regardless of the subject of that question). I would then be able to conclude that based on X number of data points (samples) one side is less informed than the other.
(The individual subject of each question is not important to the study’s conclusion, what is counted is whether each guess is “right” or “wrong” and thus we have X # of tests of the hypothesis, sort of like grading a paper.)
What are “conservative media” ?
We had “conservative” media, we may even have “conservative” media as we have “conservative” politicians. In concern of climate change, they are all as green as possible – here in Germany, total coordination as in earlier times and as in the ex GDR.
In the United States we have the “mainstream” media that has essentially become a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party; all the over-the-air and cable TV network news companies except one (FOXNews) and every major newspaper of every large city, notably the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. “Conservative media” is shorthand for all the other organizations that don’t necessarily just portray events through the lens of Democratic Party/leftist/progressive ideology. Some are indeed fairly conservative or right-wing, but many attempt a balanced view.
hydrocarbon fuels are renewable but the rare earth minerals needed for green energy projects are not
Any thoughts?
Hydrocarbon fuels are not renewable either in the relevant time frames. I did the renewable biomass calculations more than twice, once in detail in a long chapter of ebook Gaia’s Limits, and then again a few years later in short form in essay Bugs, Roots, and Biofuels in ebook Blowing Smoke.
Well that’s true Rud, but the rare earth minerals needed for green energy projects are not renewable on any time scale. At some point the green dream will run into both the laws of physics and the laws of supply and demand. The collision will be like watching a garbage truck hit a rock face in slow motion. The bumper has just started to touch….
We can always go to the nearest supernova remnant and collect the rare-earths produced in the explosion. (do I need a /sarc?)
On this forum no. New York Times, CNN…
Fossil fuels once burned, can’t be burned again.
Rare earth minerals can be recycled.
Of course they can. First plants have to suck up the C and O and then the plants have to be buried in large amounts under great heat and pressure for millions of years.
Simples.
A general observation beyond my above critique of this specific poll methodology. More in line with my last guest post here (about hitting hard where it hurts).
ALL MSM are biased concerning global warming (now climate change since it stopped warming). Its only a matter of degree—from batshit crazy to just wrong. There are at least three reasons for this empirical observation:
Most reporters are also driven by peer pressure. They care very much about what their colleagues think of them, and the LAST thing they want is to be thought of as one of THEM (knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, Bible-thumping Trump supporters)! So if you stray from the accepted catechism in any regard, but especially on climate change, you will be cast out into the penumbra of polite society.
To an extent, this also applies to scientists and political advocates. To scientists who are not directly involved with climate studies, to vary from the consensus is to be seen as not supporting your fellow scientists against assault by some great unwashed mass of unschooled idiots. For political activists, you’re not a team player if you don’t cry “climate crisis” even if you have doubts.
We’re seeing an odd sort of analogy play out right now. The need for public mask wearing (questionable from the beginning) is becoming less and less supportable. And yet no one wants to be the one to say “enough”. When Gov. DeSantis (R-FL) rescinded local government mandates he was skewered by the press. Few politicians have the guts to follow his example and risk opprobrium.
Wow….Over half believe humans will be extinct in a century….shows that half of people don’t have functional thought processes….or maybe they just polled people who were potential voters AND watch cable news. I’ve always been of the opinion that watching too much ‘news’ makes one dumber and pessimistic.
NPR and PBS clearly have the most credulous (or the dumbest) audience.
Judging from the programming, it’s fairly obvious that the managers of NPR and PBS agree. I can only conclude that they must be contemptuous of their listeners and viewers.
I remember clearly how they reported on a premeditated deadly insurrection armed with a fire extinguisher (and no victims other than a lady attacker shot to death). AOC was scared to death.
Yes, and it’s interesting how they now don’t mention that Brian Sicknick’s death was ruled a stroke. There never was any evidence the he had been assaulted by anyone during the riot. I should also note that neither NPR, PBS, or the other MSM outlets have talked about Ashley Babbitt’s death. Why have they not demanded to know the results of the investigation of her homicide by a DC policeman? The silence on these two stories is deafening.
And it turns out AOC wasn’t even there!
I focus on just one of PBS’ shoes to make the case of what that “programming” is:
“NewsHour Global Warming Bias Tally, Updated 4/22/21: 81 to 0“
Oddly, the real news in the survey is not mentioned in the review above:
Biden Approval = Strongly Approve 33% Strongly Disapprove 41%
Where do you primarily read or watch news and opinion content? = TV (cable or network) 42% A Mix 28% Online sources 14%
Among cable news outlets, which one would you characterize as your favorite? Fox News 34% CNN 20% MSNBC 17% (Fox ~ matches combined CNN and MSNBC)
Generally speaking, would you say the news and opinion content you read and watch is mostly conservative/liberal/etc = Mostly/somewhat conservative 42% Mostly/somewhat liberal 34%
Which pollutant?
EPA revokes Trump-era policy that loosened clean-air rules – ABC News (go.com)
NPR and PBS are all the media we need…OK, maybe NYTimes and Wash Post….but most of all …..we need mo gubment…total gubment…like that model – the USSR. Each will contribute according to ability…and receive according to need…it will be the utopia that Joey Biden and all his demrat pals are workin’ so hard to produce. Uncle Joey can Zuck America up…he can do it….. if everyone helps him.
We will pretend to work and they will pretend to pay us
My version of the worksheet didn’t have an answer for the most relevant question.
“Is climate change caused primarily by human activity or by long-term planetary trends?”
What’s it from Rasmussen/Heartland? What’s it from almost every other credible scientific, technical, organization on earth?
As for the extinction question, that is a misunderstanding by the viewers of non Fox sources of what they are hearing from them. They have not heard that from those non Fox sources, or (as the worksheet states) from climate scientists.
The biggest correlation is between the fraction of those who accept the fact that AGW is the dominant source of earth energy gain for the last 40+ years, and their climate science accreditation and experience.
An energy gain is always measured as a rate. What was the dominant source that caused the identical earth energy gain from 1900 – 1940? You must know the answer to the first one because you know the answer to the second one.
Doonman, don’t confuse BigKoolaidBob with rational questions.
“Energy gain”?
Is that the new code word to try and hide the fact that the earth just isn’t warming up the way the climate change religionists want it to?
Interesting attempt to rationalize. What does it matter who it’s from? The questions and the results were posted for all to see. Who conducted the poll doesn’t change that.
Rasmussen, unlike every polling organization that purports to track political views, tries very hard not to oversample Democrats but keep the sample representative of the American electorate.That immediately makes it the most credible polling organization of them all.
Since you apparently didn’t read the poll results for comprehension but only to bolster your preconceived opinion, you didn’t notice that the response to the “extinction” question clustered around “> 100 years” for everyone regardless of political affiliation or preferred news outlet (except MSNBC, which is pretty funny). Rational people think that humans might become extinct because of climate change of one kind or another at some time in the far distant future beyond 100 years, whether from another glacial period or some unforeseen global change that humans are powerless to stop, like the dimming of the sun over a few billion years.
The biggest correlation is between the fraction of those who accept the fact that AGW is the dominant source of earth energy gain for the last 40+ years, and their climate science accreditation and experience.
Nothing of the sort was covered in this poll. Where’s you source?
Clearly the poll showed that on measured temperatures conservatives / FOXNews / talk radio consumers are far more likely to know the actual data (ie.; “science”) than “liberals” (more correctly, leftists and progressives), Biden voters, and CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC consumers. The difference is large enough to be statistically significant and of course embarrassing for your tribe.
Leftists, progressives, and Democrats generally have a very poor understanding of actual climate science (as opposed to the pseudoscience founded on climate models that have been invalidated by observations). Climate Science the Religion (or Orthodoxy if you prefer) to which you appear to ascribe is based on the holy climate models while climate science (the actual science) which suggests that human CO2 emissions may contribute somewhat to warming based on physics, but appears to be not nearly as significant as natural variation due to a host of other physical phenomenon, is based solidly on observations (ie.; “science”).
How do you know the earth has gained energy (and I assume you mean on average since it is constantly gaining and losing energy)? We don’t have any way of directly measuring the amount of energy in the system. While it is true that we can measure temperature, that is not a measure of energy, but of energy density at the location of that measurement. In an unbounded (other than by gravity) area like a planetary atmosphere, going from temperature to total energy is anything but a trivial exercise, and I would assert is currently impossible. Prove me wrong.
“How do you know the earth has gained energy (and I assume you mean on average since it is constantly gaining and losing energy)?”
NASA told me so 16 years ago.
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/earth_energy.html
“We don’t have any way of directly measuring the amount of energy in the system.”
True. But we have our brains and can calculate it from other measurements.
“While it is true that we can measure temperature, that is not a measure of energy, but of energy density at the location of that measurement. In an unbounded (other than by gravity) area like a planetary atmosphere, going from temperature to total energy is anything but a trivial exercise,”
I think that NASA would agree with you that it’s not a “trivial exercise”. But it is do-able. NASA does it all of the time.
“Prove me wrong”
Do you mind if I let NASA? Please see above.
Folks, let the anti NASA diatribes begin. WUWT acolytes could go on all day with their canned disses at all of the technical, professional, educational organizations that agree with NASA on this. But after awhile it gets ridiculous and I just defer to the wisdom of Raylan:
Translation, those I consider experts can never be wrong, and to prove it I’ll insult anyone who disagrees.
“Translation, those I consider experts can never be wrong, and to prove it I’ll insult anyone who disagrees.
They have all been wrong at one time or another. But since they almost all agree on this, in spite of the fact, by orders of magnitude that the $ are in denial, the chance that they are is too small for me to calculate on this engineering laptop.
And of course no data based rebut by Mark W of anything in my first link. Par for the course, folks……
So the guy who presents no data or facts believes that not presenting facts in every post proves the other wrong.
As to everyone agreeing, nothing could be further from the truth, but leftists are trained to believe that everyone agrees with them.
Less whine, more review of the thread. NASA already made my case, and I linked to it. Plenty of facts, data…..
Not an anti NASA diatribe, just pointing out that appeals to authority are not arguments, only noise.
“Not an anti NASA diatribe, just pointing out that appeals to authority are not arguments, only noise.”
The link was not an appeal to authority. The mention of the fact that their view is shared by almost every relevant pro and pro organization, especially with the relatively cubic $ available from denial, versus that boring ol’ scientific process, just goes to how unlikely it is that they are wrong. As with Mark W, you are also invited to write up a data based rebut to the link.
Bob,
I suppose you didn’t think anybody would actually visit the page you linked. First, it’s from 2005, second it has this huge disclaimer:
Next problem is this little doozie:
Computer models and “precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content” is all they have. Utter nonsense; this was just a piece of fluff written by PR flacks, not scientists. There is no discussion about the total amount of energy in the atmosphere, or the ocean for that matter, nor how to calculate it. Just the usual hand-waving, model estimates, and pure speculation that we have come to expect. But ooooh, NASA said it, so it must be true. Rubbish. You fail.
I clearly stated that it was from 16 years ago. It made the case quite well, and you have not pointed out anything that has changed.
The all purpose wave off to any technical documentation in WUWT remains, “Bbbbutt, it used MODELS”! First, that’s clearly not all they used. Second, models are tools. Tools that WUWT selectively agrees with or not, depending on whether they help their cause or not. FYI, since the closer to actual emissions the AGW models model, the closer they agree with actual earthly energy gains, they pass the “Good enough to use for planning” tests with flying colors.
And you all STILL whine, finger point, and generally complain about why you can’t break any traction outside of subterrannea. See the Raylan rule, above…
When are we going to get poll results from likely ballot harvesters? I think that might make more sense as the population ages.
Yes, but I think these are the same people who still think Trump won the 2020 Presidential election.
Tom, you opened this tangential issue to this post. Now I will finish it with indisputable verifiable facts. There are at least four direct lines of evidence PROVING the 2020 election was stolen for Biden.
Moron.
I love how facts make the Trump haters absolutely speechless.
I love how the Trump cult members are so brainless.
Says the guy who can’t actually refute any of the arguments given.
Bruce Cobb says “Moron”
Why, yes Bruce, you are one, nice to see you recognize that about yourself. But other than your tourettes acting up, that’s really irrelevant to whats being discussed and certainly doesn’t address any of the points Rud brought up.
BTW, I personally have no opinion on the validity of the points Rud brings up, but when I see one person bring up a list of points and another person simply insult them in return, it’s not the person who brought up the list of point to whom the insult applies. All you managed to do was reveal what kind of person you are. Now feel free to insult me, It’ll just give me more to laugh at you about.
Another brilliant fact filled argument from another Griff wannabe. Project much, Brucy?
Rud,
Point 1: You must know such statistical anomalies mean absolutely nothing. They work until they don’t. You cannot provide a theory on why this must work, and correlations do not necessarily mean anything, which I know you understand. Since 1900, 9 states have had a voting for the winner accuracy of over 80%; Trump won only two of them. My rule is just as good as yours.
Rud,
Just so you know, I’ve always thought that if one party or the other was going to cheat to win elections, it would be the Democrats, because they have a sense of entitlement about governing. So, I am not a partisan or someone with blinders on. I have reviewed the Heritage Foundation’s data base on voter fraud (Voter Fraud Map: Election Fraud Database | The Heritage Foundation). It is largely just individual instances of someone breaking the rules. There are no instances of the kind of conspiracy and widespread cheating it would take to swing a Presidential election. Furthermore, if the Republicans knew even before the election that the Democrats would cheat, why didn’t they have a better plan to catch them? Where was Project Veritas? In the absence of any real proof of a conspiracy involving public officials, the charge of widespread voter fraud is just nonsense. Unless you have real proof, just put a lid on it.
Tom, it is like trying to reason with monkeys at the zoo screeching and throwing feces. But bless you for trying.
So you think that audit has any credibility at all? Hell the company have never run an audit of any kind and the guy leading the show is a Trump conspiracy theorist who has made outrageous statements in the past. He is the definition of biased.
Once again, no data, just assumptions that anyone who doesn’t agree with Simon is incompetent and evil.
What data is needed to know this Cyber Ninja clown show are totally incapable of counting apples in a barrel, let alone conducting an independent audit. They have “never” done one before. Nuff said.
Seems voter fraud is for both sides…
https://www.thedailybeast.com/barry-lee-morphew-voted-for-trump-on-behalf-of-his-missing-wife-suzanne-morphew
And not everyone on the right thinks he is that great anymore.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/14/capitol-riot-proud-boys-leader-ethan-nordean-lashes-out-trump/5089270001/
There is more evidence that the 2020 election was stolen than there is supporting the belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate.
Wrong. There is no evidence for either one.
Poor Bruce, he just can’t accept the fact that he’s wrong.
The evidence has been given, but as usual you refuse to look.
Poor moronic Mark, continuing to Believe in the “stolen election” Big Lie.
Once again, Bruce is unable to actually refute any of the arguments given, he is limited to insulting anyone who dares to disagree with him.
I’ve heard that hatred rots the brain. We can count Bruce as exhibit 1.
“Exxon uses Big Tobacco’s playbook to downplay the climate crisis, Harvard study finds”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/exxon-uses-big-tobacco-s-playbook-to-downplay-the-climate-crisis-harvard-study-finds/ar-BB1gHLxb?ocid=Peregrine
“For decades, ExxonMobil has deployed Big Tobacco-like propaganda to downplay the gravity of the climate crisis, shift blame onto consumers and protect its own interests, according to a Harvard University study published Thursday.”
I sure get tired of comparisons of climate skeptics to people defending tobacco- and holocaust deniers. Really ticks me off.
When you have no facts, distraction and insult are the only tools left.
The implication from this survey is that Fox News viewers know more about the true situation with the Earth’s climate than do viewers of the leftwing tv channels.
I think it is something else.
Contrary to alarmist claims (ever heard that before?), Fox News does not promote the skeptic side of climate change. About the best Fox does is bring on Bjorn Lomborg or Mark Marano and they never go into much detail about the actual science of climate change, they mainly ridicule the fixes proposed by alarmists, but they don’t refute the notion that fixes are necessary.
I think the difference between the two viewships, conservative and the looney left, is that the leftwing channels scream about the coming climate disaster constantly, keeping the alarmists alarmed, whereas Fox News and other conservatie media do not.
Very few people on the left or right challenge the notion that Human-caused climate change is real. That’s probably because most of them do not have the expertise to rebut their challengers if they do, so they remain silent on the subject or even give it a nod of acceptance, for public consumption.
The only thing challenging the actual science are places like WUWT and a few brave individual scientists speaking out.
We can’t count on the conservative media to counter the Human-caused Climate Change narrative. They are not up to it. At least, not yet. They have a ways to go.
Fox News ought to give Mark Steyn a special show, say on the weekend, where he gathers together skeptic scientists and maybe a few alarmists, and goes into great detail about the science of climate change and CO2.
That would shake things up. Steyn is one of the few people who could pull this off, and he is under contract to Fox News. Use this guy, and do a service to the whole world by telling the truth about CO2 and the Earth’s climate!
Tony Heller could be Mark’s first guest. 🙂
You’re right. Fox etc are afraid to state actual facts due to the backlash.
In the debates I so wanted Trump to state the real facts but he & his minions carefully dodged .
At some point the real science has to be stated openly but I think it won’t happen until the cycle makes it so obvious, like it’s starting to do now. No one has the courage and power to avoid the crazy backlash except a second term Republican and we got cheated out of that.
“You’re right. Fox etc are afraid to state actual facts due to the backlash.
In the debates I so wanted Trump to state the real facts but he & his minions carefully dodged .”
I think debating Human-caused Climate Change is a very complicated subject, and not many people have a handle on the whole thing.
That’s why WUWT and places like it are so valuable because we have experts from *every* scientific field weighing in on the subjects here, and where someone might not have a specific answer for a challenge, another person will, and we all share in it. It takes a website’s worth of knowledge to explain CO2 adequately.
I think that’s why most people don’t publicly challenge the narrative. It’s not that they believe it, it’s that they can’t adequately debunk it, and that applies to Trump and most other Republicans. The only Republican I can think of that throws the CAGW narrative back in the alarmists’ faces is Oklahoma U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe.
Mark Steyn could create a television version of WUWT on the Fox News Channel on the weekends.
What better time is there to challenge the Human-caused Climate Change narrative than now, when it is front and center for the public and some of our politicians are planning on spending $Trillions of dollars of our hard-earned money on trying to fix it?
The Overton Window has been pushed so far left that what was a main stream view only a few decades ago is now un-utterable “hate speech”.
There will soon come a point where it effectively closes completely. At that point we could plunge into a dystopian nightmare or throw off the shackles and fling the Overton Window wide open.
“I think the difference between the two viewships, conservative and the looney left”
Didn’t you just post the other day that name calling is what the left do because they have no arguments?
I’m just stating the truth. The Left *is* loony.
Conservative Advantage strikes again.
This is the paradox. Leftists are nominally considerate. Nominally. They, or at least some of them, feel they do have the answers and honestly wish for others to join them in being correct about everything.
Conservatives are nominally selfish. Many of them do not really care too much what others do, provided they stay the drokk away from their family and friends. They don’t want you to try and change them, and in return attempt not to mess with your life too much either. Their care factor is localised.
What this means in real terms is a ‘selfish’ conservative has no personally requirement to confirm to the consensus and is free to examine all opinions and pick the solution that best improves their personal lot in life.
A ‘considerate’ Left wants everyone to be better, so conforms to the consensus because everyone can’t be better if everyone isn’t working together. For The Greater Good! (The greater good). There is the Correct Way and ways that distract from the Correct Way.
Summary? The Right are significantly more open minded than the Left.
“Leftists are nominally considerate”
Only to those who believe *exactly* like them. Anyone else is a *ist or a *phobe of one kind or another that needs to be silenced.
Probably worth remembering opinions are great, they are what make dinner parties interesting.
Yes, opinions are fun, but its observations/facts that matter.
Science does not rely on opinions, its core function is to disprove them.
There was also an interesting MIT study that aimed to vilify “anti-maskers”, but ended up finding that they were practising quite sophisticated data literacy.
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/05/12/oops-mit-researchers-infiltrate-anti-maskers-but-find-they-practice-a-form-of-data-literacy-in-spades
Thanks for sharing that MarkH
“simply increasing access to raw data or improving the quality of data visualizations will not bolster public consensus about scientific findings,”
That study from MIT covered every angle except the obvious one: that the data doesn’t actually support mask mandates and the “anti maskers” correctly perceived that fact.
Strikingly similar to the recent poll that showed conservatives were more likely to correctly estimate the hospitalization rate for Covid. But “follow the science” right?
If I did a survey of my neighbors opinions on anything, it would make a great basis for a paper about psychotics, not me…them 🙂
If one pays attention to actual thermometers at various places around the world over time we can conclude that regardless of vast differences in local climate (the difference between Phoenix, AZ and Nome, Alaska) there is a roughly thirty year pattern of warming and cooling. Meanwhile the Climate Change alarmists/scammers decry a scientific average temperature that no human being has actually lived in during the entire history of man. That’s why “climate change” is pretty much of zero interest in opinion polls.
Conservative viewers are more likely to have seen and recognized agenda news and tracked this problem over time. They are more likely to notice that a lot of MSNBC content contributors went off to work for the Biden Administration after the election. Gone are the days of Dan Rather getting a personalized tour of the WH by newly elected President Bill Clinton. These days the rewards and stakes are much higher.