Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« Study: Increasing CO2 and Decreasing O2 Will Result in Significant Expansion of Oceanic Dead Zones, With “Severe Effects” on Marine Animals | Main | Hitachi Consolidating All Automotive Li-ion Battery Activity to Hitachi Vehicle Energy Ltd. »

Print this post

Survey: Only 34% of US Voters Believe Global Warming is Caused by Human Activity

18 April 2009

A new Rasmussen survey found that just one-out-of-three US voters (34%) believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. Forty-eight percent (48%) of all likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while seven percent (7%) blame some other reason. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure. These numbers reflect a reversal from a year ago when 47% blamed human activity while 34% said long-term planetary trends.

A plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame. Most Democrats (51%) still say humans are to blame for global warming, but 66% of Republicans and 47% of adults not affiliated with either party disagree.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of all Americans believe global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 33% who say it’s Very Serious. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s a not a serious problem. The overall numbers have remained largely the same for several months, but the number who say Very Serious has gone down.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats say global warming is a Very Serious problem, compared to 19% of Republicans and 25% of unaffiliateds.

Other results:

  • 49% of Americans think the President Obama believes climate change is caused primarily by human activity. This is the first time that belief has fallen below 50% since the president took office. Just 19% say Obama attributes global warming to long-term planetary trends.

  • 48% rate the president good or excellent on energy issues. Thirty-two percent (32%) give him poor grades in this area. Sixty-three percent (63%) of adults now say finding new sources of energy is more important that reducing the amount of energy Americans currently consume. However, 29% say energy conservation is the priority

  • A growing number of Americans (58%) say the United States needs to build more nuclear plants. This is up five points from last month and the highest finding so far this year. Twenty-five percent (25%) oppose the building of nuclear plants.

  • While the economy remains the top issue for most Americans, 40% believe there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. Thirty-one percent 31% see no such conflict, while 29% are not sure.

Results are from a national survey of 1,000 likely voters, conducted 15-16 April 2009.

April 18, 2009 in Brief | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef011570290706970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Survey: Only 34% of US Voters Believe Global Warming is Caused by Human Activity:

Comments

How many Rep. are creationists? To progressively poison ourself with man-made pollution is not glorious nor an act of God.

Why are so many against energy consumption reduction? What is so glorious to over-consume all types of energy?

What is missing in our education?

Will we ever learn?

Harv,

"How many Rep. are creationists? To progressively poison ourself with man-made pollution is not glorious nor an act of God."

Funny, but I could swear that CO2 was here BEFORE man.

"Why are so many against energy consumption reduction? What is so glorious to over-consume all types of energy?"

If the AGW clowns hadn't hung their whole show on CO2 - people would NOT be against energy conservation!

"What is missing in our education?"

Healthy skepticism.

"Will we ever learn?"

Oh, we ARE learning Harvey. A whole lot!

The first thing to go when people start losing their jobs is the dedication to costly hobbies and to misguided efforts to save the planet.
The hobbies are of no consequence. Not so for environmental concerns.

Excess spending for pet “pseudo green” projects that promise new jobs but clearly cannot deliver increases the despair of those with common sense and will backfire.

Environmental sciences are just that – sciences.

We should beware of throwing money into programs that satisfy our emotions but make no economic sense.

When money is tight, and times are tough people will throw out the good expensive programs with the bad.

American are ignorant people anyway, their poor educational system (one of the worse in the world) make them unable to be willing to learn or to feel compelled to acquire knowledge, that's why america as these gross image worldwide of thick unrefined cow-boys that just refuse to learn.

Yeah Harvey as you said 50% of people in america don't believe or understand evolution, therfore how do you expect them to understand such a complex topic as global warming and its multiple interactions.

The only good thing is that america has elected a smart guy as president and who is someone who has some vision and who is going to make whine and complain all this deniers who have infected that nice site, that's the really good thing ahead of us.

Um, TH.
To which education system do you owe your writing skills?

ToppaTom

How many foreign languages can you write in ?

This tells me that some groups have done an effective job of instilling some confusion on the matter. I do not argue about global warming nor climate change. I think we waste a lot of finite fossil fuels and can do a better job using them more wisely and have cleaner air. The rest may be a bonus.

Only 34% of US Voters Believe Global Warming is Caused by Human Activity...

Wow... 66% of US Voters are not mind-numbed, Globalwarmist! What a great, reassuring, sign. No doubt some of the voters have listened when science taught them that Ohio was covered by glaciers in the recent (compared to Earth's age) past. Global Warming® (now rebranded Climate Change® so that whichever way Earth's temperature heads one is correct) has been happening throughout Earth's history - WITHOUT the presence **evil** of SUVs!!! The entire Globalwarmist movement is about $$$$$$$, government and/or individual control of other people's lives (see the people on here complaining about others not complying with energy usage levels that they are happy with - similar to Christian complaining that not enough people are going to church, are sinning too much, or don't pray enough), and worshiping the god of Climate Change®.

It is obvious where the denial is coming from. The people who post on this site every day about how stupid concern for the environment is and how dumb people are who try to solve the problem are good examples. We cannot and should not try to "convince" people who are ruled by emotion and dogmatic ideology.

I enjoy this site because the owner is primarily concerned about democracy and social justice. Some people like to come on here to tell us we are stupid... i guess whatever floats your boat.

Sad but not surprising. This is the same population that enabled GWBush for 8 years.

Goracle

the fact that your are an imposter who try to confuse everybody by citing non relevant informations is not new, and 100% of people on this site are not dumb about it, right ? if people are so convinced that global warming is not man made why did they elected someone who was clear that he would take action agaisnt it if elected ? so they might not be that convinced of it after all...

Yes green industry is about $, and then ? what's wrong that industries can make money in selling solar panel and heat pump or windmill ? I don't see what the problem is ? mister "Iamproudofbeingstupid"

Goracle, you've got it backwards. The people who deny climate change are not really denying climate change, at least that's what I've found. They don't want the government to tell them what to do, they don't want to conserve energy and they don't want change their lifestyles one bit. Some of this is perhaps understandable, but the fact is that if the deniers admitted that climate change was real, they'd also have to admit that they, and the government, should do something about it. I really have no interest in telling people what to do, but if you are behaving in such a way that you are endangering the planet on which we live, somebody ought to.

As far as money goes: well, the deniers have money in mind too. Take a coal mining company for example. They will deny that emissions from the burning of coal cause climate change. I don't think they really have an opinion on the matter one way or the other. It's just that admitting coal burning causes climate change would lead to the obvious conclusion that we should burn less coal, which would of course lead to lower profits for the coal mining company. What would you expect them to say?

There is no doubt in my mind that our CO2 is reaching Mars, Saturn, Titan. etc since thier temperature has increased 2C degrees in the last 20 years.
But seriously I believe we should be sensitive to our energy needs and use, if for no other reason for energy independence. We just should not go nuts over it.

Reel$$

Tks for the point by point answer. Air pollution is much more than CO2. Our city is going to ban wood burning stoves and wood fire places due to fine particle emission.

Yes, extended recessions favour learning and since this one may last about 3 1/2 + years, we may be more aware and learned by 2012-2013.

Is 3 1/2 + years long enough to change our energy consumption ways by much? May be.....

Even -10% to -15% would help.

More energy efficient road vehicles, rail, ship, aircraft and home HVAC could do even more.

(Our very recent, well isolated, up-to-date SEER 23 heat pump equipped, all electric heat/air conditionned home uses 17 Kwh/day (average for last 24 months) instead of 37 Kwh/day for our previous place. Our pre-1990 house used 65 Kwh/day).

Very high speed e-trains extensive networks (+ apropriate connecting urban commuter e-trains) could do a lot to reduce highway traffic jams and reduce waisted time and energy.

It can all be done within about 2 decades. Do we have the will to do it? We may need two or three more leaders like the present one.

I am all for clean energy & energy independence, but I am NOT for conservation. People should have the freedom to use all the energy they want to buy.

Tree... While I respect your multi-lingual ability, your facts are often suspect: "50% of people in america don't believe or understand evolution..."

In the interest of substantial debate, kindly cite your source.

Harv, thank you for your comments.

AGW, like a storefront facade is collapsing. Once the dominoes start to fall, the entire structure is called into question. I am honestly saddened to witness the demise of the valid aspects of green consciousness. The demise is entirely due to one fatal misstep: Hansen et al, and AGW. His thesis has been destroyed by hard evidence and fact. The present and possibly extensive cooling trend on Earth is primary testimony.

PR stunts and media gateways can no longer eradicate facts. Check out what is *really* happening to the PR stunt called Catlin Arctic Survey:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7998501.stm

And what's *really* going on with arctic sea ice:

http://tinyurl.com/c53lem

And what's *really* going on with antarctic ice cap:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,25348657-912,00.html

Unfortunately people here do not want to face these facts. It's called cognitive dissonance. But had the purveyors of green NOT oversold the "CO2 pollutant" claims - the current backlash would not be ripping apart the constructive and necessary elements of ecological conservation.

Put simply: a hand overplayed. As witnessed by this poll - the blowback is enormous and only just beginning.

Peter, It's interesting that you would disqualify the opinion of a coal mining company (they make money on coal usage) with regard to climate yet **not** disregard the opinion of organizations and companies (see the government, university research grants, and "clean energy" companies for example - they gain power make money/gain power on their side of the issue) who profit handsomely by selling the impending "Global Warming catastrophe."

Hitler sold the issue that Jews were bad for the world. Hitler's plans were being carried out by many of his believers until he was stopped by the deniers. Thank God for people who look at both sides of the issue then decide. Yes, that would include 66% of the population who don't believe that man is a major factor in Earth's always changing climate (see Ohio/glaciers for proof).

REel$ has solved the energy crisis. Oh now we are in for it! Our liberal conspiracy to clean the air and water is now going to backfire. Now the Limbaugh party is going to take over and make us pollute again! Is this your logic?

Hey reel?? What does plurality mean?

Goracle, I'm not giving any more weight to the opinions of one side or the other. I am simply pointing out that your argument that climate change is not happening because the parties who want to make us think it is stand to profit cuts both ways. Sure, if we as a society collectively decide that climate change is occurring, windmill companies stand to profit. If we decide the opposite, coal companies stand to profit. This is very predictable.

This is why we should trust science. Science is based on observation and mathematical models and is generally more reliable than the biased opinions of those who stand to profit. Science says climate change is happening, that we're causing it, and if we don't do something about it, the planet Earth will soon not be a very pleasant place on which to live.

I note that although Hitler did try to come up with scientific evidence that Jews were inferior, he never managed to come up with anything approaching the reliability of the data we have on climate change. The reason I believe that climate change is occurring is not because I think Al Gore is an awesome dude, but because the science shows it to be true.

I am all for clean energy & energy independence, but I am NOT for conservation. People should have the freedom to use all the energy they want to buy.

You can't really have the former without the latter. Nuclear won't be able to ramp up fast enough to ameliorate Peak Oil or significantly impact emissions from coal burning (especially if there is not some carbon taxes and/or capNtrade.

Reel, you've cherry-picked a couple of news articles and a blog.

Please read completely through the following and let me know your thoughts;

Talking Points

Reel$$ and toppatom's "facts" are a lot like Matt Drudge with a siren headline "It Snowed Today! Global Warming a Hoax!"



Its a degree of trust issue. We simply dont trust anyone to do it without getting US personaly into a heck of a mess. So we only let em go so far before we stomp em flat. And that goes for all sides on this issue.

"People should have the freedom to use all the energy they want to buy."

I would say that people should be able to buy all the energy that they NEED. Wasting energy just because you are wealthy enough is NOT acceptable.

SJC: Al gore has a huge house and lot's of cars. He also Jets all over the world spreading "the message" (instead of tele-conferencing). How much energy does he "need", and who gets to make this choice? I want to conserve as much as I possibly can, and I can't afford a lot, but I don't want someone choosing for me (as Al wouldn't).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2013 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group