Looking at the graph from 2008 on, saying that a majority of Americans "still" think global warming is real is like saying a guy who fell off his roof is "still" not injured.
Posted on 03/14/2010 6:09:25 AM PDT by ricks_place
Even as predictions about the possible effects of climate change get more troubling by the day, Americans are increasingly skeptical of the science. The latest evidence is this concerning Gallup poll:
A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years. That percentage is dwindling, however. The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming's effects have already begun or will begin shortly.Depressing news for environmentalists, who have spent years building the public case for concern.Meanwhile, 35% say that the effects of global warming either will never happen (19%) or will not happen in their lifetimes (16%).
The 19% figure is more than double the number who held this view in 1997.
Environmental groups often explain why they are losing the public relations war by, among other things, citing George Will’s “campaign” against global warming and other such efforts, arguing that they have made the science seem less settled than it is. Americans are having trouble telling the difference between relatively small criticisms of the science or scientists -- minor mistakes in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report or the release of overheated private exchanges among a few climate scientists, for example -- and the solid case for the bottom-line on global warming: that it’s extremely likely it’s happening, it’s extremely likely that it’s at least partially our fault, and, if unabated, it’s extremely likely to have some rather unpleasant consequences.
But a big factor is also that the issue became more partisan as the Democratic Congress got serious about legislating.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
PATENT BULL$HIT
Why> The American public possesses more Common Sense than the climate data and carbon manipulators. That’s why.
Why? Because politicians and scientists have been lying to us to achieve political goals. That’s why!!
Why are climate scientists considered scientists?
“Climate scientists” are not losing the American public. It’s just that we have stopped listening to the charlatans and poseurs like Jim Hansen and started listening to real climate scientists - who actually know something about the subject - like Richard Lindzen and many others.
The “press” is nothing but a whore’s union, and the Washington Post is prime among them.
It’s called “political science.” It’s taken over just about all the mainstream science periodicals, and is unavoidable in every other form of media. People get suspicious of constantly accomodating the latest, leftist political hobby horse du jour.
It’s been going on now for at least three decades. It’s getting reminiscent of the old Lysenkoism under the Soviet Union, quite frankly. Erstwhile scientists have allowed themselves to become a mere propaganda arm, due to whoring after government grant money.
Duhhhhhhh—just who do you think is BEHIND THE SNOW SHOVEL?
This type of headline about science is all too common.
WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHAT "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE" THINK????
If 100% of the American people believe the sun revolves around the earth, or that peach pits cure cancer, or that relativity is false (or if it's true), SO WHAT??
The beliefs of the American people have ZERO to do with the physical universe. The beliefs of the American people cannot change ONE SINGLE THING in the realm of science.
Is it real, or is it not? That's the question, not what a bunch of idiots think.
Climate scientists are merely politicians seeking federal and foundation grants for their “studies.”
Well stated, sir!
Follow the money Bud!! this has always been about scaming the tax payers in a powergrab which has been a proven hoax!!
They want to rip down hydro-electric dams, they don't want to build nuclear plants, they live in big homes and drive big cars.
It was obvious it was a scam all along.
I do not agree with your addition at all. The "carbon dioxide reducing" regulations if universally enforced across nation boundaries would greatly decrease economic activity worldwide and thus impoverish humanity. Less world wealth would lead to unemployment, dislocation, death, wars, real environment devastation, man-made disaster. Even if only some major economies adopt "carbon reduction" schemes, the world suffers economic loss. Trade works to increase the wealth of all nations. Government regulation forcing businesses to avoid poisoning the environment are necessary, Government "carbon reducing" regulation recklessly distorting the economy is dangerous foolishness.
If not for alternative media sources to the DBM, people would still be on board with the global warming hype because they would never have been exposed to all the facts.
Looking at the graph from 2008 on, saying that a majority of Americans "still" think global warming is real is like saying a guy who fell off his roof is "still" not injured.
BTW as that 10-14% figure for “will happen in our lifetime” hardly varies at all for a period of over twelve years, as the other categories move up and down, that says to me that we have some “dead enders” who would never change their mind as they freeze to death in the dark. Another perfect example of a data point for my tagline.
Because we’re COLD, you idiot!
“A majority of Americans ... say the effects of the problem
have already begun or will do so in a few years.”
-
And just what do these people base their answer on?
Personally observed effects?
Personal analysis of the data?
Or the brainwashing from the media and politicians?
My honest answer to the question is “I have no idea,
and I don’t think anyone else does either.”
I have no predisposed faith in any of the agenda-driven
quasi-scientific reports that I have read;
and I have personally seen nothing to indicate this
one way or the other.
Survey:
Do you think it will be a good year for growing tomatoes?
Now, how do I answer that question?
Well, last year was good, but the year before was not.
How do I “know” what it will be like this year?
Or next year, or the next one after that?
By facts?
By speculation?
Or because I heard someone on TV from the national tomato institute
say something about it one way or the other?
I’ve started my seedlings in the basement, we’ll see...
Add to that the fact the weather is something average people can observe. People know whether it's been getting warmer or colder. The warmist's weather models failed to predict the leveling off of temperature gains for the past fifteen years. People pay attention.
Depressing news indeed. All those years of lying to the public in order to advance their political agenda. This little pinhead journalist believes that the dust up over the IPCC is just a matter of a few "minor errors". He is clearly one of those who has fallen for the environmental propaganda and is more than happy to continue carrying water for them. These are not minor errors, they are evidence of widespread and very deliberate fraud. The American public understand this, intellectual twits like Stephen Stromberg have yet to catch on.
Because the scientists rigged their data to meet their own agenda!!! Why would anyone believe them now. They’ve lost their credibility!!!
In answer to the article title:
Look out the window at all the global warming on the ground!!!
BINGO!
These scientists have spent their credibility. No matter what they say going forward their findings will be met with scorn and sceptisim by the American public.
Offhand, I’d say it may have something to do with how the “evidence” is/was manipulated, the phony numbers used, the phony polar bear pics, the emails encouraging a cover up, the insistence that the debate is over, the carbon credits scam, the fact that al gore is a lying nimrod, the fact that the people pushing this scam are well known liars and crooks, the thousands of scientists who disagree with the scammers, the money trail, the fact that there hasn’t been any warming for over a decade, greenland was once green, no SUVs on Mars, incredibly STUPID commercials with child actors(what kind of idiot would accept scientific instruction from a child?), the liars keep moving the goalpost and losing track of their lies, al gore is an confirmed jerkwad, ect...
Take your pick. Or you can just sum it up with the truth...
There is zero compelling evidence to support this crap.
No bias here, just move along.
Maybe because average people are able to read thermometers even if climate scientists can't.
Check out the comments at Washington Post. Got lots of people refuting this Stromberg dufus....Oh he went to Harvard
http://www.thecrimson.com/writer/3546/Stephen_W._Stromberg/page/2/
Why are climate scientists losing us on global warming? Could have to do with the heaping tons of bovine excrement that they are dishing out.
38 at my casa this morning.
It may not be BS. Was the earth warming between 1970 & 1990? Probably. The satellite readings - about the only thing I trust anymore - indicate some warming.
Has it warmed over the last 20 years? Probably not.
Has man caused any of it? Well, I’m waiting for evidence the Neanderthals drove their SUVs until 2 mile thick ice melted all away...
But if you asked me if the earth has warmed some over the last 50 years? Perhaps. But that doesn’t mean it still is, that it will warm, that warming is bad, or that we are causing it.
I’d be far more frightened if the earth had cooled further over the last 100 years. If the average summer highs in Tucson were 85 instead of 105, I’d be scared. We have LOTS of evidence of severe ice ages in the past!
Their theories might still be correct. The falsified data might be:
"Fake but accurate"
Americans are having trouble telling the difference between "relatively small criticisms" of the science or scientists -- minor mistakes in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report or the release of overheated private exchanges among a few climate scientists, for example -- and "the solid case" for the bottom-line on global warming: that it’s extremely likely it’s happening, it’s extremely likely that it’s at least partially our fault, and, if unabated, it’s extremely likely to have some rather unpleasant consequences.This, from the same kind of people who were certain on the basis of no credible evidence at all that the Duke Lacrosse Team had committed a gang-rape of Crystal Mangum.People who wouldn't know "solid evidence" if it reached up and bit them.
Because the term "climate scientists" now means the same as snake oil salesman, used car salesman, etc. There hasn't been a "climate scientist" advocating the disaster of global warming who hasn't been unmasked as a charlatan or a fool. Is the American public more aware of this than others? Maybe. At least they are exposed to opposing views by a few reputable media and the internet.
The “minor” mistakes by the Panel point to the likelihood of more serious mistakes and manipulation. We’ve noticed that whenever they make a mistake, it invariably is in the direction of indicating more warming. We’re very aware of the case made by dissenting scientists who say there are major mistakes. This Stromberg guy, in typical liberal fashion, misunderstands our skepticism and in the most condescending way.
Fixed.
That poll is a measure of the effectiveness of media propaganda efforts on American gullibility and, to some degree, how well the Dept. of Education does it's job. That the percentage is falling shows Americans can overcome both obstacles.
We succeed in spite of what the government does to us and the obstacles they place in our way. Imagine how great we could become and how much we would offer to the world if the Dept. of Education actually taught science, math, critical thinking, etc. and then government simply got out of the way!
How about the unpleasant consequences of turning the economy upside down in order to "combat climate change"? Do we even know that the proposed fixes will be effective? What if the cure is worse than the disease? Why don't the warmists ever ask these questions?
Most sentences usually have a verb in them. I guess his writing ability isn't any better than his understanding of science.
Jim, you’re correct of course — but the issue of what the populace thinks about it is vitally important; without public support the politicians can’t get their grubby hands on controlling and taxing energy.
Besides I believe that global warming is a good thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
