« BYD Auto Plans Full EV for China in Two Years | Main | DOE Providing Up To $7M for Research in Stabilizing Fast Pyrolysis Bio-Oils to Support Upgrading to Fuels »
Harris Poll: 67% of Americans Believe Humans Contributing to Warming
18 April 2008
A new Harris Interactive poll has found that 67% of Americans believe the activities of human beings are contributing to an increase in global temperatures—a level only slightly changed from last year’s 65%. In the 2007 version of this poll, 21% said they did not believe the activities of humans contributed to an increase in temperatures while this year 17% do not believe this.
However, only 30% believe global warming will present a threat to them and their families within their lifetime; 39% believe it will not; 31% are not sure. Last year, 36% believed it would be a threat within their lifetime while 41% said it would not and 24% were not sure.
There has been a change in feelings towards the amount of the increase in temperatures. Last year, 50% of those who believe humans are contributing to an increase in temperatures characterized that increase as substantial; this year 40% say it is substantial.
Just under this (38%) believe the change is moderate, while one-third (33%) said it was moderate last year. One in five (18%) say the increase is slight, while 14% said slight last year.
Only one in ten (11%) Americans say that they have looked up their personal and/or household’s carbon footprint. The younger people are, the more likely they have looked up their footprint. Almost one in five (18%) Echo Boomers (those aged 18-31) say they have looked up their carbon footprint and/or their household’s footprint as have 11% of Gen Xers (those aged 32-43) compared to just 9% of Baby Boomers (those aged 44-62) and 6% of Matures (those aged 63 and older).
Americans claim that they are doing things that will reduce it and their carbon emissions. Almost two-thirds (63%) of Americans say they may have reduced the amount of energy they use in their home, while two in five (43%) have purchased more energy efficient appliances. Additionally, more than one-quarter (27%) of Americans have started purchasing more locally grown food while one in five (21%) have stopped drinking bottled water.
Much smaller numbers (2% each) have purchased a hybrid car or purchased carbon offsets from an organization.
While most people are doing something, one-quarter of adults (27%) are doing nothing to reduce their emissions. And, while younger Americans may be more likely to look up their carbon footprint, they are also more likely to do nothing about it. Three in ten Echo Boomers (29%) and Gen Xers (31%) say they are doing nothing to reduce their emissions compared to one-quarter (26%) of Baby Boomers and one in five (20%) Matures.
The Harris Interactive poll surveyed 2,529 US adults surveyed online between April 7 and 15, 2008.
April 18, 2008 in Climate Change, Market Background | Permalink | Comments (59) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/28247418
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Harris Poll: 67% of Americans Believe Humans Contributing to Warming:
Comments
along side this poll should have included an iq test...
Posted by: Brad Godfrey | Apr 18, 2008 6:40:58 AM
Let's hear it for the echo chamber.
Posted by: Derek | Apr 18, 2008 8:19:37 AM
People claiming that there is CURRENT GHG "global warming" today are selling the biggest bill of goods. Granted we need to get off fossil fuels for any number of very good reasons, and as soon as possible. As far as the belief in "global warming" can influence some to reduce their FF use sooner rather than later, GHG alarmism may have some short term positive effect. But it is at least intellectually dishonest to claim that there is proof any warming to date has been caused by GHG. The zealots that have sold GHG as being the cause of every weather fluctuation of the last 20 years have done everyone a great disservice.
Is Tuvalu under water yet? No? The Maldives? Remember the 2005 hurricane season? 2007?
One thing that we can not ignore is the climatic fluctuations of the past, including Ice Ages big and small. Some call it "natural variation" and are happy. But some THING or THINGS are causing it and it is NOT man-made CO2.
Posted by: Hybrid fan | Apr 18, 2008 8:21:39 AM
I have long believed that those who already have a philosophical hatred of the automobile or our Western way of life in general, have a strong emotional vested interest in the idea that the world is coming to an end because of man-made CO2 or whatever.
Saying that 67% of Americans believe that our way of life is contributing to or causing global warming, is no more helpful than saying that 80 or 90 percent of the residents of Salem believed witches were causing all kinds of illnesses in children back in 1692.
We need strong laws at both federal and state levels to crack down on anybody who shouts down, assaults, or intimidates speakers on college campuses who seek to present views contrary to the politically correct party line. If we can assure freedom of speech at our universities for all, maybe then we will have a better idea of whether man-made emissions are causing weather fluctuations, or whether global warming theories are the modern day equivalent of 1692-era witchcraft hysteria.
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | Apr 18, 2008 9:51:26 AM
When you mention GW to people, some will ask "how long do we have?". That may be another way of asking how long can we put it off until we have to do something. This is more evidence to support my idea that a lot of people will not do something that they do not want to do until they have to.
People may still see conservation as freezing in the dark. They may see environmentalism as more tree hugger dreaming. If we want to affect change, we have to be leaders and show the way. If people can see that they can have a good life and not be harming the environment, then they will take an interest.
Back in the late 90s people were offered green power. They could get their electricity from a renewable source, but they had to pay a bit more. People were willing to pay more and got on a list, but there was not enough green power to go around, because there was no investment money to develop it. It is a big machine and no one effort can turn it around. Lots of efforts by lots of people might be the show of collective leadership that we need right now.
Posted by: sjc | Apr 18, 2008 10:02:51 AM
Interesting scorecard on mass media control. What is not measured is the influence of global adventurism (oil wars), national security, artificial pricing (food and fuel) and general ecological awareness. These externalities have great if somewhat hidden influence on human perception.
If the proposition of global warming turns out to have been something of a "hoax" - will Al Gore give back his Academy Award?? (let him keep the Nobel)
Posted by: gr | Apr 18, 2008 10:13:28 AM
I think that the most interesting information from this poll is that:
only 30% believe that global warming is a threat in their lifetime, polled this year versus 36%, polled last year -- against 39% no short-term threat, polled this year versus 41%, polled last year. I suppose in a culture where people have to be physically witnessing a large number of other people grabbing their throat, choking, and then collapsing to the ground to admit that there is a problem -- it should be fascinating to see at what point people start their expected 'panic'. I get these remarkable images in my head of groups of panicked mobs breaking into family bomb-shelters in the 50s/60s when they hadn't taken the time to prepare for themselves - the cowardice and pathetic, selfish nature of the average person.
As well, I wonder how many of the individuals define the term 'threat' in their minds as they're being asked these questions - 5F temp difference? only half the drinking water available? 8 foot sea rise? quadrupled food prices? - a fascinating sociological experiment if you ask me... oooh good luck nevada, california, new mexico, colorado..
Just glad that I am living above the 54th parallel.
Posted by: Jer | Apr 18, 2008 10:27:13 AM
Eventually, GHG warming may happen. And when it does, many will look back at the "boy who cried wolf" and fail to act in time. It's quite possible that they would fail to act anyway. But having been fooled once makes it much more certain... they won't get fooled again. The boy who cried wolf indeed. Only we'll all get munched this time.
Thank you algore. Thank you very very much.
Posted by: Hybrid fan | Apr 18, 2008 10:44:35 AM
It would appear that 90% of the 33 percenters are posting here at GCC.
Posted by: DS | Apr 18, 2008 10:58:22 AM
"We need strong laws at both federal and state levels to crack down on anybody who shouts down, assaults, or intimidates speakers on college campuses who seek to present views contrary to the politically correct party line."
Amen Alex. Amen. We must follow the facts if we ever expect to find the truth. The problem today is people with canned PC dogma have stopped looking, and worse, are shouting down those who are still actively searching.
We need to find the truth. Right now, where my home is it is sunny and 70F outside; flowers are blooming. During the last Major Ice Age the ice was over 2 miles thick! Something rather major has changed, let's find out what.
Posted by: Hybrid fan | Apr 18, 2008 11:04:35 AM
Let's see if I understand. Manmade activities take carbon sequestered in the ground, such as coal and oil and gas, and burn it so the carbon is released in the air as CO2. Now the amount or concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, to some indeterminate extent, mankind is contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Next, we have a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature. The higher the CO2 level, the higher the temperature. Therefore, since the temperature has been going up, and the CO2 level has been going up, mankind must be making a significant contribution to global warming.
And 67% of Americans believe the above!
I am doing my part, I am fat and lazy, so I am not exhaling as much CO2 as all those bicycle riding liberals, and am sequestering as much carbon as fat as possible. Where's my prize?
Posted by: | Apr 18, 2008 12:03:04 PM
The best defense is ignorance. De Nile is just a river in Egypt. Who needs to know more?
The Harris Poll missed asking
~ "How many people in other countries do you think blame Americans for contributing to global problems?" ... non, some, most of them, all of them.
Posted by: John Taylor | Apr 18, 2008 12:22:57 PM
I've got your prize right here, why don't you hop in your 5 ton SUV and come get it? Or I could hop on my bicycle and bring it to you - I wonder which one of us would be putting more CO2 into the air then?
Posted by: | Apr 18, 2008 12:24:36 PM
you guys are funny... lol.. :)
Posted by: | Apr 18, 2008 1:44:50 PM
The missing multiple choice question is:
Q1: How much more TAXES are YOU WILLING TO PAY per year to halt 'global warming/climate change'?
A1: a) less than $1,000
b) $2,000 - $4,000
c) $5,000 - $8,000
d) $10,000 or more
e) NOT ONE THIN DIME
And to qualify the above question, the following would have to be asked:
Q2: Do you think that the government would use your 'global warming/climate change' taxes wisely and reduce CO2 and other 'green house gas' emissions?
A2: a) yes
b) no
c) don't know
Maybe even this should be asked:
Q3: Knowing that dry air contains 0.038% (380 ppm - parts per million) of CO2 {this may be temporarily higher in areas with volcanic activity (and China) or lower in large agricultural areas during growing season (see NOAA.gov website)}, ethanol production releases CO2, and whenever you exhale you release CO2, how should taxes be used to reduce CO2?
A3: a) to outlaw all burning of hydro-carbons in cars/trucks/heavy construction equipment, power plants, locomotives, ships, aircraft
b) to subsidize bicycles, sail ships, wind farms, solar and nuclear power plants (oops, some of that we do already!)
c) to restrict flatulence, exhaling for all living, breathing life forms
d) put the money in the social security 'trust fund'
e) hand the money over to the UN
f) don't know
g) see Q1 e)
Back in the 1970's they came up with the "don't eat eggs - they're full of cholesterol" scare. 20 years later it was "sorry, we were wrong - keep eating eggs - only worry if you eat dozens a day".
Other than just a big scam to get our tax money, there is absolutely nothing. If you want to discuss intelligently long term climatic variations, let's do that. Not this scare mongering hoax that's based on FLAWED computer 'models' and less rather than more reliable temperature readings over the last 110 years. I have a problem with past temperature readings being used to 'forecast' future extreme temperatures and 8 meter rising sea levels. Past activity is no indication of future performance!
Posted by: hansb | Apr 18, 2008 1:48:33 PM
Its amazing how 1/3 of the American people, and a number of educated people active on this site deny a role for human activities in global warming, when about 99.9% of the scientists in the world are more or less convinced at a >90% confidence level. Those of you that buy fire and other forms of insurance, are unlikely to ever file a claim in your lifetime, but nevertheless pony up the sizable premiums to protect your families and financial security.
Its amazing how the same people cannot imagine spending a few percentages of their income to mitigate the risk (not certainty) of climate change, even if the probability of catastrophic cost to their children and future generations is higher than a fire engulfing the roof over their heads. Maybe these folks would not even buy fire insurance unless they were forced to by their lenders.
It is also startling how ignorant people are about the history of our planet,and the known episodes of extreme climate change driving 95% of the species to extinction, and spreading tropical conditions to the poles.
Future generations will probably laugh and curse simultaneously while reading the archives of this website.
Posted by: MeanNGreen | Apr 18, 2008 2:13:00 PM
"MeanNGreen:
...when about 99.9% of the scientists in the world are more or less convinced at a >90% confidence level.
...known episodes of extreme climate change driving 95% of the species to extinction..."
You must have missed the conference in NY recently (last month, if memory serves me right) with 600 - 700 scientist REFUTING the UN/algore hoax.
You better come up with some better references than just 95% this and 99.9% that, pal! That shows ignorance at its best.
And as far as fire risk goes - been there, done that.
Posted by: hansb | Apr 18, 2008 3:02:59 PM
While we're busy outlawing people that shout down those who disagree with the basic science of gw theory, lets outlaw taking money from large ghg emitters to shout FUD to anyone who'll listen.
Posted by: Neil | Apr 18, 2008 3:15:50 PM
The Harris Poll did not ask me.
Global warming has not followed the "hockey stick" graph predicted the UN.
Five government agencies reported that in 2007 an average global temperature drop of > 0.5 C. (Comment: I doubt we have the technology to measure a so-colled global average temperate. And what would a global average temperature really mean? How could it be determined what contributes to it? What about the molten lava in the Earth?)
Harris, ask us, Do you believe Al Gore and those like him promote global warming for taxes and political control? Yes/No
30+ years ago, the statement from the experts was global cooling.
I believe the hidden purpose of the Koyoto treaty was to harm or overtake the US enconomy. Thankfully president Bush rejected it.
Posted by: Lawrence Miller | Apr 18, 2008 5:27:33 PM
There is no scientific doubt that GHGs moderate the climate. There are a lot of other things as well that alter the climate. The primary and by far the largest and most obvious changer of the climate is the heat and light and other effects of the Sun.
That is the basic scientific truth.
The second scientific truth is that no one has calibrated the effects very accurately. In other words "how much" warmer or colder. It isn't Science until you can measure it; and it is damn difficult to measure that accurately, or to determine a very tiny rate of change + or-. That is the crux of the problem. Whatever is happening, is happening very slowly, either way, and not very clearly.
It is not clear where or why the CO2 trace gas seems to be rising in the atmosphere. It may turn ou tot be a simple out gassing. Mankind's contribution is only a very tiny amount of the annual CO2 flux, from land, to air, to sea, to air, to land and back et cetera.
We used to be sure how long CO2 stayed in the atmosphere, 5.7 years, per Henry's law; but the AGWers even proposed that we don't know that, and some AGW scientists suggest 50 years, some suggest 100 years, others suggest 300 years. They can't even agree among themselves. But they all agree if it is only 5.7 years, than GW due to GHG and then due perhaps then to Man, is insignificant, CO2 residency of 5.7 years.
Then the CO2 effect is between .5 and closer to .05 degrees per century. Instead of worrying about what might happen in a decade, we would need to worry in millennial periods. Periods equivalent to the time between now and the building of the Great Pyramids in the past.
For lots of reasons, Mankind does things differently then it did in Pharaoh's time. Presumably we won't be relying on Oil for cars in 3000-5000 years. Will there even be cars or Oil?
Even the IPCC has said we are fed up. We are going back to 5.7 years on our next reports, as all the experiments repeatedly suggest and confirm. Unless the AGW scientists can get their act together, and produce some evidence to support their own theories. For over thirty years, the GW proponents haven't been able to do that, but their theories are still used in place of the old 5.7 year Science, that still seems correct.
Nor are we sure what CO2 levels used to be 75, 100 or 150 years ago. Unbelievable but true.
There were scientists alive 100, 150, and 200 years ago. And they measured the CO2 in the atmosphere. They were so accurate that they found and document a tiny lunar CO2 oscillation that the Mauna Loa scientists of CO2, did not notice nor see, until they went back and very carefully looked at their data. The effect exists. But Global Warmers reject their other readings. Why? Because the average these old science studies report was that CO2 averaged 330 ppm only 40 ppm lower than now, in the 1800s with several episodes of CO2 above 420 ppm, some 40 ppm higher than measured today at Mauna Loa. These old scientists even attributed these multi-year episodes to massive volcanic eruptions like Tabor and Krakatoa.
Global Warmists say we have never had CO2 higher than now at 380ppm. Fire and Brimstone GAIA preachers warn of "tipping points" at 381 or 385 or 387.5 or whatever, with irreversible changes than happening to the world. And the moderns say CO2 used to be 280 ppm, not 330 ppm by their study of tree rings, and the entrapped gas measured very sloppily, in Antarctic ice cores, (and perhaps they read tea leaves, and animal entrails as well).
Agreeing with a tiny effect of a portions of a single part per million, while rejecting as inaccurate measurements of 30-100 ppm is highly suspicious for bias. But such is the case.
It is a scientific truth that the body fights infection by running a fever, that is, it elevates the body temperature, from the usually normal 98.6 Degrees F. It makes a hell of a difference if the human body,(or the world temperature) climbs by 50 or 5 or .5 or .05 or .005 degrees.
The pseudo-scientific claptrap begins there. It was feared that GW might raise the temperature by 50, or 5, degrees per century. But in the 1970s no scientist was sure. By the end of the first decade of the 21st century, we still aren't sure. But we have refined the answer somewhat. We know its not 5 degrees; nor 50 degrees. We have narrowed the effect down some. It might be .5 degrees or .05 degrees but its is probably not .005 nor .0005 degrees. But Humanity sees annual temeperature changes of 50-75 degrees summer to winter, and life goes on. How is it credible to worry about a 5 degree change extinguishing Man? It simply isn't. The most reasonable answer, as we get more accurate seems to be a GHG effect somewhere closer to .05 degrees than .5 degrees, per century for the doubling of CO2 from 300 to 600ppm.
Just as in a human body, a 5 degree fever could be life threatening. (Yet a temporary 5 degree rise in a Jacuzzi is normal.) A .5 degree fever may indicate a mild cold. A .05 degree fever might even be considered normal.
The effect is similar in the world. A 50 degree rise might be life threatening. A 5 degree rise would probably stop being mostly beneficial, and start to be a problem. A change of .5 degrees to .05 or less is insignificant, and totally inconsequential. It is probably wholly beneficial to the world and its current inhabitants.
Where are we? Best guess closer to .05 than .5 degrees warming per century, if things stay the same. But it doesn't. For the last decade its been getting colder rather than warmer. For the last 40 years on balance its been getting warmer. For the last 70 years its been getting colder. Therefore... Much ado about nothing... Probably.
Meanwhile, A dramatic climactic change of 5 degrees is like moving 5 degrees in latitude closer to the equator. For hysterical Ted Turner that is like moving from his Montana ranch to Colorado. Yet he also lives and works in Southern California and Atlanta Georgia equivalent in climate to 20 or 25 degrees warmer than Montana. Does he have a screw loose to worry over AGW? Y-E-S. So do a lot of other people who have no perspective...
Posted by: stas peterson | Apr 18, 2008 6:18:27 PM
There are more outspoken climate scientists every day. Once it is confirmed that CO2 does not drive temperature (fact known for 30 years) should we stop rushing to replace tungsten light bulbs? No, we continue to do the things that will lower our "Energy Footprint." This is socially and scientifically defensible. But we gotta keep in mind that going green can be expensive, and that some solutions have side effects - like the toxic mercury in CFLs.
The move toward sustainable, alternative energy is a good goal. The means to the end need some serious new thought. Because in the end the facts will out and some may have... egg on their face. It is all part of the end of denial due to inevitable "peak disclosure."
Posted by: gr | Apr 18, 2008 6:28:44 PM
Couple of months ago ClimateAudit, leading web site where skeptical climate scientists exchange their opinions, ran the poll and long discussion about antropogenic role in 20 century warming.
Surprisingly, there was overwhelming consensus that yes, humankind did contribute to 20 century warming, due to land use changes, increased population, GHG effects of methane and CO2. And this effect was no more than 0.2C from total 0.6C warming in 20 century.
Of cource, such BS as “climate catastrophe” or “tipping points” were dismissed unanimously.
Posted by: Andrey Levin | Apr 18, 2008 7:42:31 PM
Only 67% have fallen for the hoopla? I guess that's why Al Gore is spending $300 million on whiny ads.
Posted by: Matthew | Apr 18, 2008 8:42:42 PM
All those Liberal Retards who claim to be Green are telling the Truth.
They are infact as Green as they come.
And by that, I mean they are naive and gullable.
Those suckers will buy into anything as along as a Pie Chart is part of the presentation.
When General Electric wants to sell more washing machines, all they have to do is call it Energy Efficient and the Liberal Retards come running.
And it's those same Liberal Retards who vote Democrat, because they think that it's the Policically Correct thing to do. Rubbish !!!
The Democrat party relies heavily on young, inexperienced voters. AKA - Liberal Retards.
What a bunch of sheep they are.
Posted by: Jim | Apr 18, 2008 8:51:38 PM
After acid rain destroyed your forests
And chemical pollution hit your oceans
And 1/2 of the arctic ice melted
And you were shown the evidence of global destruction
Your answer is denial.
The best defense is ignorance. De Nile is just a river in Egypt. Who needs to know more?
Is it any wonder that the rest of the world hates America?
Posted by: John Taylor | Apr 19, 2008 2:09:01 AM
It is amazing the level of skepticism here about GW on a forum called Green Car Congress.
I am sure that 99.9% of scientists (climatologists?) do not believe that we are close to a tipping point that will dramatically change the climate. But I do suspect that they feel that the climate has and will change from elevated CO2. These are very different positions.
Posted by: David | Apr 19, 2008 2:49:47 AM
Yesterday I wrote " we need to get off fossil fuels for any number of very good reasons, and as soon as possible." Toward that end I come to sites like Green Car Congress to sample many of the new technologies that will help us reduce our use of FF. I suppose many do the same.
It is obvious however from reading the above posts that many others here also do NOT believe man made CO2 emissions have caused past or current temperature changes. It is equally obvious that some do. I guess that means that, by definition, the question isn't settled; even among people who otherwise agree that we need to reduce our FF use.
The bottom line is that we need to reduce FF use. What is or is not happening to "climate" is a totally separate issue, although some see it as a trump card to bludgeon others into compliance to what we all think or feel is a worth goal.
Posted by: Hybrid fan | Apr 19, 2008 5:15:02 AM
Lawrence Miller wrote: "I believe the hidden purpose of the Koyoto treaty was to . Thankfully president Bush rejected it."
Actually, as a point of historical fact, back in the 1990's congress preemptively rejected the Kyoto treaty that was eventually signed by Gore. Indeed they condemned any treaty that would harm or overtake the US economy (as Kyoto would have done) by a vote of 95-0*. Clinton never did sign it, or attempt to send it to congress for ratification. Neither did Bush.
*for those who want to research it, the vote was S.Res 98 in July of 1997
Posted by: Hybrid fan | Apr 19, 2008 5:36:31 AM
Jim: Retards come in all flavours ... particularly "neo-con", a flavour that voted for the biggest retard of them all. Who did you vote for?
Posted by: Neil | Apr 19, 2008 6:25:14 AM
[quote]Its amazing how 1/3 of the American people, and a number of educated people active on this site deny a role for human activities in global warming, when about 99.9% of the scientists in the world are more or less convinced at a >90% confidence level. Those of you that buy fire and other forms of insurance, are unlikely to ever file a claim in your lifetime, but nevertheless pony up the sizable premiums to protect your families and financial security.[/quote]
It shouldn't be surprising to anybody. The disinformation campaign is well funded, and well educated people worked selling BS on behalf of the tobacco industry for decades.
The evidence has gotten considerably stronger every day following the last IPCC report, yet we have a number of people on this thread pretending that they know more than the climate science community as a whole. The implied egotism of that position is ludicrous. Equally ludicrous is the idea that climate scientists are in the habit of shouting down opposing view points.
Posted by: Andy | Apr 19, 2008 7:59:14 AM
Neil, the so called "retard" destroyed Hussain because it was feared he was trying to get nukes and biologicals.. it could not be allowed, the world agreed.. Iran will not be allowed either. In any case the mistake is that we tried to do the right thing and rebuilt the country afterwards, yes, Bush is a softie.. should have installed the Iraqui military in power and told them to behave
Of course hind sight is wonderful..
Posted by: | Apr 19, 2008 8:17:49 AM
Also 68% of Americans believe that Elvis is alive, and 80% belive in UFO's.
Posted by: Globetrotter | Apr 19, 2008 8:32:02 AM
Americans wont believe in GW until an *expert* like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or Benny Hinn tell them to.
Posted by: ai_vin | Apr 19, 2008 9:20:22 AM
For discussion of the facts of global warming by atmospheric physicists and climatologists see
http://realclimate.org
Posted by: richard schumacher | Apr 19, 2008 9:41:57 AM
For the latest spin in the disinformation campaign visit realclimate.org.
Posted by: Andy | Apr 19, 2008 10:58:29 AM
I goofed. Realclimate is actual peer reviewed climate science.
Posted by: Andy | Apr 19, 2008 11:07:22 AM
Hansb, and the other GW Deniers: no one on this site is advocating sensorship of free speech. Everyone also agrees that we should pursue energy efficiency, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and curtail air pollution to boost our economic and physical well being.
Everyone respects the free speech rights of members of the Flat Earth society, Elvis spotters, holocaust deniers, and creationists that believe the earth is a few thousand years old. If it helps these people cope with life in these stressful times to hold onto these myths, than so be it.
Similarly, those of you that rail against liberals, treehuggers, and activists that passionately challenge our government's inaction on Climate Change, Energy Security, and waste of our national treasure and precious blood protecting middle eastern oil producers, - go ahead, keep voting for your favorite son, and watch the national debt soar, while the U.S. dollar continues its free fall.
Furthermore, it doesn't rally matter to coastal residents, subsistence societies, farmers, polar bears, etc, whether the ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, and the climate is warming because of a complex combination of CO2, carbon black, methane, some obscure geophysical change in the global heat balance, or even a wobble in the earth's orbit. Satellites in space and digital images don't lie, and they confirm the warming trend in the upper atmosphere and the accelerating retreat of the glacial ice. Finally, there is not a shred of scientific evidence that building more pulverized coal plants, driving fewer plug in electric vehicles, imposing zero carbon taxes is going to cool our beloved planet, or moderate its fever anytime soon.
Posted by: MeanandGreen | Apr 19, 2008 12:32:42 PM
I just wish people would make up their mind based on the science. That is peer reviewed published science. This climate science is summerized by the IPCC every couple of years as well as other reviews in various high quality science journals. Forget the blogs, magazines, institutes statements, pseudo scientific conferences, polls etc etc, because there are no standards for this type of information. Anyone can say anything and who are you to believe?
Keep your sources peer reviewed. Its actually pretty simple. Your local library probably has web access to some of these journals. Nature, one of the most prestigious Science journals also has a great journal club page where you can keep up with the latest papers.
http://spotlight.nature.com/climate
Unfortuantely its obvious that the majority of posters here are ignoring these papers.
Posted by: | Apr 19, 2008 1:37:39 PM
@JT,
The forests are fine, there is 30-40% more forest than there used to be in North America. So much for acid rain killing us all and the forests too. Ooops.
Chemical Pollution was supposed to kill every blessed thing in all the Oceans of the World by 1974, and 1975 at the latest, per the wonderful Climate Ecologist and pseudoScientist Dr. Paul Erlich. Oops.
You can get great bargains on his doomsday and fire and almost brimstone books from the 60s and 70s. They are quite hilarious comedy. Sort of like "The Inconceivable Truth" will be shortly.
I remember the hysterical press writing endless stories about ice melting in the Arctic. Ice usually does melt in the Summer.
I don't remember the press heralding that the Antarctic sea ice was a million square kilometers larger than we had ever measured. But then, ice usually freezes in the winter.
I also don't remember the hysterical press reporting that the Arctic Ice all froze back this winter, but it did. Oooops.
I don't remember being shown ANY scenes of ACTUAL destruction. Do you? I heard lots of hot air forecasts that in a decade, or a century or a millenia, things might be a little warmer. Like moving a couple of blocks further South in the town in which you live. That will kill us all, for certain. Ooops.
What destruction were you referring to? The Islands that weren't submerged in the rising seas? (that aren't rising much if at all differently than they have for several centuries.)
Perhaps you are referring to the crops that failed and weren't harvested? We seem to have harvested more corn than ever before. And turned a lot into ethanol. Or perhaps you were referring to the totally sterile Oceans. Or the vacuum that Gaia's Mother, Mrs. Nature, hates, between the ears of fire and brimstone idiots, like Algore, who has made almost $150 million on Global Warming, so far.
Preaching without quite ever managing to graduate from preacher school? Its his true calling and what he studded in college, but not very successfully. Pat and Jerry would like to be as successful in passing the collection plate.
Obviously, the two, 2, t-w-o, Science courses he took in college and almost flunked both, make him a Scientist of great repute. NOT!)
Ai_vin,
You and they are INDEED listening to a Baptist Preacher man just like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. What do you think Algore majored in in college. It certainly wasn't the "D"s he earned in his extensive science curriculum of as many as two college science courses.
Algore's background is actually quite interesting and Bizarre. Algore makes Dr. Ravelle, from who he learned half of all his Science, into a walking saint. If you read any of his goo and dribble. And then turns around and contradicts every darn thing that Dr. Ravelle had ever said. Really Bizarre!
Posted by: stas peterson | Apr 19, 2008 9:35:11 PM
The problem here is that how you view GW has a lot to do with someone's world view and like it or not - politics. That view from the middle is that "tree huggers" are alarmists and have been ringing an alarm for all of recent memory. This alarm would be effective except that it changes from decade to decade. There are people who take science about GW and look at extreme versions and run with it. Al Gore would be an example. His movie takes an extreme view on a very valid subject.
Fact - there are people who believe any consumption is bad. They want no cars, no industry, no growth etc. People who have this view jump on GW facts and possible models and exaggerate them. Some people who have these views definitely fit the "limousine liberal" model - Leonardo, Gore. Preach and then go to bed in a 8,000 sq foot house or fly Lear jets around the world.
Fact - the climate is very hard to predict. No question - there is serious debate about the impact of GW. Not a debate that it exists but the impact.
Fact - reducing CO2 output is very difficult. It costs significant money. Money that can be used to feed the poor etc. Asking people in rural China to not have a car is pretty difficult. Ditto the rural farmer in Brazil to not clear land to feed his family. Any major legislation has to have teeth, be agreed to by the entire world, and will still have bad unintended results (might have some good ones too).
Fact - Kyoto was a significant failure as nobody met targets. Nice idea - didn't really work. Did start the ball rolling however.
Fact - people believe in global warming and buy an SUV and live in horribly inefficient houses. People I know and you all probably do too.
Lastly - not one presidential candidate has proposals with teeth. All have easy answers. Hard answers come with changing what we drive and how we live. No one has the guts....
Posted by: DP751 | Apr 20, 2008 3:38:19 AM
I'd like to reply to Stan Peterson's last post but I hardly know where to start. He made so many wrong statements I lost count. Hell, he even mis-spelled his own name.
Posted by: ai_vin | Apr 20, 2008 8:17:06 AM
One problem with the peer review process is the peers, like potential jurors, all have bias. In the judicial process (at least in the West) each side can challenge the juror prior to accepting him/her. In peer review, it is not disclosed what conflicts of interest, who is receiving what funding, peers have.
So, some, not all peer reviews, like some juries, can be stacked to agree with whatever the paper may claim. If your research funding is politically dependent on your adopting the "party line" - you may just let your bias influence your work.
This is currently being addressed by peak disclosure. Could get bumpy.
Posted by: gr | Apr 20, 2008 11:15:45 AM
And 68% of the human population believe that UFOs are piloted by egomaniacal aliens!
Posted by: | Apr 20, 2008 11:20:36 AM
"passionately challenge our government's inaction on Climate Change, Energy Security"
This guy obviously doesn't read this site much which regularly reports the billions being spent by DOE and all the fed agencies on energy research. And the fact that US energy policy has legislated domestic/alternative production more in the last five years than in the last three hundred.
Posted by: | Apr 20, 2008 11:33:16 AM
I'm always amused how people ranging from the President of the United States, Congressman, to visitors at this site equate government spending on R&D, and taxpayer subsidies for farmers and large corporations that divert food crops to unsustainable biofuels TO EFFECTIVE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY.
However, anyone familiar with decades of air and water quality regulation in the US and other industrialized countries understands that absent market based emissions control regulations (e.g., the cap and trade rules for SOx emissions from power plants), command and control measures to reduce pollution from transportation and industry, or RPS goals for public utilities, - there would be little or no pollution controls adopted by business and consumers, or utility power purchases of more expensive renewable generation. This zero or minimal adoption of pollution control technology, and/or renewable generation (absent regulation) would occur irrespective of the level of R&D investment by government, universities, and industry.
In other words, in a free market system, a for profit business that can legally dump its waste (including CO2), at zero cost into the common air, water, and soil, - or burn the cheapest fossil fuel, (i.e., pulverized coal) to generate electricity and provide industrial heat, will never voluntarily divert investment and profits towards pollution control or installation of clean technology.
Of course, R&D investment, when combined with well designed market incentives, can accelerate adoption of alternative energy technologies that reduce both criteria pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
But it is foolish to believe or argue that any low or zero emission alternative energy technology, (e.g., solar photovoltaics, plug in electric vehicles, etc.), will ever be cheaper than pulling solid carbon, liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons out of the ground, and burning them without pollution controls.
Similarly, despite decades of investment in R&D by the DOE, a 911 attack spearheaded by nationals from the largest oil exporter on earth, U.S. dependence on imported oil from unstable parts of the world has continued to grow unabated.
The bottom line is that R&D is meaningless absent strong financial, regulatory, or legal incentives to adopt and implement the new technologies.
Posted by: MeanNGreen | Apr 20, 2008 10:45:09 PM
There is a difference between being "Green" and being "Stupid." Lomborg is green. Gore is stupid.
Posted by: Al Fin | Apr 21, 2008 7:01:04 AM
What is humorous is the flaccid attempt by those paid to hand-wring, write half truths and whine about environment not obeying THEIR vision of a green world. These enviro-fascists are little different from political fascists - if they don't get it THEIR way we are all going to hell in a hand wringing basket!
If you want a case study of anti-pollution efficacy compare air quality in the LA basin from 1970 to today. In spite of vastly increased vehicle density - air quality is several orders of magnitude improved. But that's a positive story which enviro-fascists are employed to negate.
The gloom and doomers are being sorely challenged by hundreds of "skeptics" becoming mainstream. The Nobel Committee has been petitioned to recall Al's prize... Policy in action.
Posted by: sulleny | Apr 21, 2008 8:53:31 AM
"In other words, in a free market system, a for profit business that can legally dump its waste (including CO2), at zero cost into the common air, water, and soil..."
However since the early 60's (e.g. Rachel Carson era) there have been caring citizens and scientists who raise red flags about environmental hazards. Those flags result in legislation which alters the course of unbridled markets (e.g. banning of DDT). It's called democracy, where business is checked by citizenry and legislated by government. Never perfect but evolving, we now have an emerging corporate profile that the market demands be environmentally responsible. Else, would Toyota have introduced a risk like Prius? Expanding organic agra industry? Effective parks and marine sanctuary programs?
Some are threatened by the evolution of corporate responsibility since it inhibits their argument for State control of business and lifestyle. Today, those shouting loudest about GW and climate are recognized as thinly disguised agitators for State-controlled centralization. Which like all monopolies fail due to lack of internal and external oversight. AKA market.
Posted by: sulleny | Apr 21, 2008 9:20:58 AM
Its looks like you're arguing the case FOR the enviro-fascists - "since the early 60's there have been caring citizens and scientists who raise red flags about environmental hazards. Those flags result in legislation which alters the course of unbridled markets. It's called democracy, where business is checked by citizenry and legislated by government, we now have an emerging corporate profile that the market demands be environmentally responsible."
Thus proving "their argument for State control of business and lifestyle" because it works.
Posted by: ai_vin | Apr 21, 2008 3:11:21 PM
No. Tunnel vision does not eliminate a truth, only the vast majority of it.
In the 60s, rather than stacking the deck with ringer science ala AlGore, (CO2 drives temperature) Ms. Carson went to the mat alone, with hard facts indisputable to this day. Unfortunately the loudest GW screamers suffer daily setbacks ("the debate is over") as to the veracity of their claims.
What you've missed ai- is that the un-indoctrinated, i.e. regular, non-fascist eco-freaks, have raised the awareness enormously. What eco-fascists cannot seem to grasp is this:
"Exaggeration leads the coalition of disbelief." Had eco-fascists listened to this admonition years ago - they would not be headed for the humiliation they are today.
Posted by: sulleny | Apr 21, 2008 7:05:55 PM
Ah, I get ya.
Of course I have my own pet peeve - people like stan peterson.
People who say things like 'hey look the ecofreaks were wrong about acid rain killing the forests.' Never mind the history, never mind it was the ecofreaks who (because they raised the red flag) got the government to put in new regs to lower the sulphur content in the fuels we burn and put scrubbers on the smokestacks and other things that reduced the acid rain and allowed the forests to grow back.
Posted by: ai_vin | Apr 22, 2008 3:07:40 AM
gr, judging from the success of modern science the peer review process is working at least adequately. So why do so many here ignore these papers? We might ask the same question of young earth creationists.
Posted by: marcus | Apr 22, 2008 10:14:38 AM
Climate skeptics fear their livestyles will become expensive if we reduce the stuff we dump into the air. But climate skeptics have always had expensive & quick lifestyles. Few of them took the bus, train or drove 45MPG Geo Metros or Ford Festivas, when they could afford bigger vehicles. Skeptics pay more speeding tickets too, since they pretend to believe their wastage doesn't hurt anyone. Certainly, skeptics are instrumental in the over-use of fossil fuels, & the present rising oil prices. Skeptics now have extra reasons to be skeptical since enmass admission of guilt on their part is too hard for them to admit.
Few skeptics wear 2 sweatshirts & kept the thermostat down to 60 degrees.
Precursors to climate skeptics were the ones who drove belch-fire burpers & were unset when pollution controls were instituted. But now I see these climate skeptics & their precursors on this website thread are taking credit for the pollution curbs of the past. The pollution curbs of the past are directly as a result of environmentalists...& no others.
These skeptics, entotal, are the same skeptics that blame me for pointing out the present day air pollution lung & heart disease increases to children & poor people who live near freeways.
Yes, the answer to all these problems of human & climate health is to....first, save & not waste...second, promote those technologies so you can save & not waste, even more.
Posted by: litesong | Apr 22, 2008 10:29:57 AM
If one cares to point out the wastefulness of behavior why must we use rickety science to do so? Why not simply point to unsustainable inequities of the action? Because heretofore it has taken fear and threat to alter human behavior? Perhaps. But today, presently, we embark on an era where altruism and good will motivates as well if not far better than fear. As one is a destructive emotion and the other a constructive social action - we argue for motivation by good will.
I would remind litesong that had there not been a groundswell of caring, concerned citizens to hear and support the voices of early environmentalists - we would be far worse today than we are. There is a distinction between demanding clean air and demanding alteration of individual lifestyle. Success in the latter requires careful positioning of ideas so they are adopted by populations. This is accomplished with far greater success by demonstrating the achievements of good will rather than self-preservation.
Posted by: sulleny | Apr 23, 2008 8:34:03 AM
sulleny;
While I hope your optimism for the future is justified I have also seen the decades long efforts of environmentism lost in just a few short years due to the efforts of a small group of people who have no sense altruism or good will and are all about self-preservation.
I also must note that 25% of all the oil mankind has ever consumed in our history has been used up in just the last 10 years, and consumption rates are still going up.
Posted by: ai_vin | Apr 23, 2008 9:31:17 PM
You know I've never understood why people think that kyoto would destroy our economy. It seems to me that high oil prices, fighting wars with people funded by oil money and expensive food in part caused by trying to mitigate the previous things are doing a darned good job of destroying the economy already! The jobs we would create by becoming a world leader in non-carbon power and related technologies could put us back on the world map with exports other countries want rather than just being the country that buys everything from China.
And to put taxes in perspective, apparently we can spend trillions on a war (again against people funded by oil profits we send them) and not raise taxes so what's the problem spending trillions on creating technology and jobs in power areas without raising taxes, as well? If you think we must raise taxes to stop sending money to people trying to hurt us, surely we must raise taxes to fight the people we're sending the money to who are trying to hurt us?!?!
Even if the climate scientists are "only" 90% convinced that there's a big downside to fossil fuel consuption causing global warming, one could argue that there's nothing but upside to pursuing a low-fossil fuel strategy.
Personally, after reading a LOT of arguments on both sides of the global warming issue, I'd have to join in with the 67% on the pro man-made global warming side, too. There may be some holes in the arguments, but the bulk of the pro-arguments are more compelling than the holes and the con-arguments.
(And with little downside that I can see, I'm pretty willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the pro-arguments, too).
Posted by: DaveP | Apr 24, 2008 3:05:51 PM
What is wrong with reducing our energy comsumption through conservation? I shaved close to 20% off of my electric bill by unplugging appliances, when not in use, and by installed compact flourscent lights. Save money and fight global warming. It's easy!
Posted by: Jay Boisseau | May 5, 2008 9:09:42 AM
New York Immigration Lawyer Marina Shepelsky, located in Brooklyn, assists clients from the New York metro area and across the United States in all immigration and naturalization matters.
Posted by: Rene | May 6, 2008 8:32:07 AM
The negative commenters on this strand are all completely wrong in almost everything they say. If you don't think humans are causing the problem because you think thats unlikely, fine. But suggesting that ALL of the temperature recorders aren't capable of recording the temerature accurately is just rediculous. If you can't trust scientists to even record the temperature, then why are you using the computer they invented and why do you trust it to record your thoughts? Its either the earth is getting hotter or NOBODY HAS A CLUE. No in-between position makes any sense at all.
I choose to believe scientists, especially when its completely obvious they are ALL in agreement.
Posted by: doug card | Jun 18, 2008 4:30:22 PM
