BYD Auto Plans Full EV for China in Two Years
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

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.


Brad Godfrey

along side this poll should have included an iq test...


Let's hear it for the echo chamber.

Hybrid fan

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.

Alex Kovnat

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.


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.


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)


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.

Hybrid fan

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.


It would appear that 90% of the 33 percenters are posting here at GCC.

Hybrid fan

"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.

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?

John Taylor

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.

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?

you guys are funny... lol.. :)


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

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 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!


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.


...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.


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.

Lawrence Miller

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.

stas peterson

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...


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."

Andrey Levin

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.


Only 67% have fallen for the hoopla? I guess that's why Al Gore is spending $300 million on whiny ads.


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.

John Taylor

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?

The comments to this entry are closed.