Canadian Natural Resources Limited Proposes New Bitumen Refinery in Alberta; Gasification for H2 Generation and Integrated CO2 Management
Novozymes and Fiberight Showcase Ethanol Produced from Waste Office Paper and Cardboard in Drive Demonstration in Washington

Yale & George Mason Survey: US Public’s Concern About Global Warming Dropping

Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to the results of a national survey released today by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities. The survey found:

  • Only 50% of Americans now say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” about global warming, a 13-point decrease.

  • The percentage of Americans who think global warming is happening has declined 14 points, to 57%.

  • The percentage of Americans who think global warming is caused mostly by human activities dropped 10 points, to 47%.

  • In line with these shifting beliefs, there has been an increase in the number of Americans who think global warming will never harm people in the United States or elsewhere or other species.

  • Americans who believe that most scientists think global warming is happening decreased 13 points, to 34%, while 40% of the public now believes there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is happening or not.

Despite growing scientific evidence that global warming will have serious impacts worldwide, public opinion is moving in the opposite direction. Over the past year the United States has experienced rising unemployment, public frustration with Washington and a divisive health care debate, largely pushing climate change out of the news. Meanwhile, a set of emails stolen from climate scientists and used by critics to allege scientific misconduct may have contributed to an erosion of public trust in climate science.

—Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change

The survey also found lower public trust in a variety of institutions and leaders, including scientists. For example, Americans’ trust in the mainstream news media as a reliable source of information about global warming declined by 11 percentage points, television weather reporters by 10 points and scientists by 8 points. They also distrust leaders on both sides of the political fence. Sixty-five percent distrust Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sarah Palin as sources of information, while 53% distrust former Democratic Vice President Al Gore and 49% distrust President Barack Obama.

The results come from a nationally representative survey of 1,001 American adults, age 18 and older. The sample was weighted to correspond with US Census Bureau parameters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3%, with 95% confidence. The survey was designed by researchers at Yale and George Mason Universities and conducted from 23 December 2009, to 3 January 2010, by Knowledge Networks, using an online research panel of American adults.

Resources

Comments

The Goracle

.

The public is quite wise. Lets ge rational and work on energy independance and pollution. Lets not run in circles screaming in panic about the false god of Globalwarmism.

Oh... look: more fraud, illegal acts, and lies by the Global Warming® (since rebranded Climate Change® since rebranded CO2 Pollution®) "scientists."

Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data

Scientists using selective temperature data

OK, now lets hear the usual responses: "We hate you." "You're stoopid." "Climate Change is all Bush's fault."

Science!!!

.

Jer

I think this poll is more indicative of a 'maturing' of public opinion on climate change rather than a disbelief in its existence. I think people are coming to believe that we have adequate time, money, and technological prowess to overcome the worst of climate change. I further think that people are coming to believe that living in some state of hyper-panic, whether justified or not, is not the best way to solve a large and complex problem - and that we need not make large lifestyle-scale sacrifices to overcome the worst of climate change. That reasonable, smart long-term choices coupled with government-guided private industry technological innovation will overcome the coming difficult generations of weather uncertainty. I further think that the public believe that there is a reasonable 'mobilization' out there in science, politics, and economics to tackle this problem - and that they have now less to worry about. Some may interpret this as climate change fallacy, but i don't see any reason to disbelieve completely and not make reasonable pro-climate-improvement choices in your purchases and lifestyle.

Myself: I personally believe that we are living in a certain way that is causing changes to the way the earth functions as a whole as compared to if humanity hadn't ever existed. Further, I believe it is unconscionable to allow these changes to happen when it is affordable, though not easily, and technologically feasible to attempt to ameliorate these changes, despite how slowly they are going, that natural changes occurred in the past that may have been greater, and that everyone should feel a reasonable, certain level of duty to make choices that are pro-climate-amelioration. Time to stop taking sides and get above the fray into rational compromise.

sulleny

Jer: You make a reasoned argument for compromise. And that is of course always a constructive way to go forward. But your understanding of "climate change" is too narrow. While on the surface the battle is over the science of climate - there is far more at stake beneath.

This is not a fight about temperatures on Earth - it is a fight about the tyranny of orthodoxy. And long corrupt, festering science used by self- anointed elites to cow masses of people.

This process of instilling fear so as to offer savior, provided the plebeians remain obedient - must end. It is based on cynical, destructive practices typical of religious cults, e.g. heaven's gate and scientology. We have hard evidence that "scientists" at various senior level posts have colluded to falsify data, hide data, censor opposing data and personally attack climate skeptics and agnostics.

We now have credible evidence that falsified data was used in part to solicit public funds which then were channeled to select organizations benefiting senior climate change advocates - like IPCC Chairman Pachauri.

This is not to be tolerated in an age of openness and transparency. Nor is the trillions in expense that cap and trade represents to developed nations. If the rationale is to invent a mechanism to raise funds for un-developed nations - it had best be done openly and honestly. Not with phony science and hysterical climate crises.

So, unless and until these high level transgressions, financial chicanery and science falsifications are completely and fully brought into the open and corrected - there will be no room for lifestyle "amelioration." Amelioration starts with a full and open hearing on all parties that have contributed to the corruption. It is called cleaning house. It has been needed since President Eisenhower warned us in 1961 to gravely watch for just what we have today.

It is necessary to take these steps before full scale healing can begin and discussion of lifestyle amelioration is practical. A big task ahead of us. But one that can no longer be delayed.

Will S

I see the poll as indicative of bigger immediate fish to fry (the recession), small self-inflicted wounds by a tiny number of climate scientists dwarfed by orders of magnitude by the evidence, and an effective propaganda campaign to inflate the significance of those wounds by vested interests through their proxies.

JMartin

The climate change argument has always been a political loser. Half the population does not believe it (or understand science) and many who do believe it can't deal with such a long term problem. Those concerned with Climate change (the left) would have been better served to push for reduced dependence on foreign energy to begin with.

It is relatively easy to shift subsidies from oil to renewable energy without picking a fight by opposing oil entirely. Either route can solve the problem, but Energy independence will gain some support from the right. Economics will take care of oil soon enough if we expand renewables.

Jer

sulleny: You make a reasoned argument for being vigilant and holding the 'powers that be' to be accountable to provide accurate information so that we who function within this system can make choices - in my, not always humble but well-meaning, opinion.

--and i imagine that you are very attentive to all types of media, likely very active in getting your ideas out, and thoughtful in your assessment and opinions...
However: i can not subscribe to a lifestyle where I allow myself to be bombarded with constant controversy, conflict, and opinion-overload. Some may accuse me of refusing my duty to be well-read, well-versed, and aware of the issues. I cannot constantly sway to and fro in the winds of debate and headlines. Many find this discussion and debate entertaining - often creating friendships and alliances in the meantime. Many think that they are making a difference - whatever that means. Regardless, life is short. Becoming polarized and quick-to-take sides is the all-to-often result of such an approach to life. There is a point of diminishing returns - where very little offered beyond a certain point adds to the total big picture. I choose to read a few scientific monthly journals on the issue, avoid perhaps 90% of mainstream day-to-day 'news'/ blogs on the subject, and compare the salient points to my own value system - and voila, a watered-down but entirely satisfying personal approach to a awesomely complex and overwhelming 'issue'. I am often accused of having a slightly naive and underdeveloped approach to issues - but honestly, if I am not a climate scientist with 20-years of experience and a career in climatology to uphold, then spending upwards of 20+ hours a week immersing myself in the issues -beyond my own work-, to me seems a less-than-ideal way to spend my life. I am not an activist, though i have had activist ideas and tendencies. That old cliche, perhaps -> Pick your battles. I'm not sure about the 1961 reference, that pre-dates me 20 years.
The thing is, that a lot of issues have conflict, controversy, high-ranking officials in positions of trust acting less-than-ideally. There will always be exceptions and conflicts with ubiquitous ideas. I mean - look at smoking, exercise, dieting, and parenting - there seems to be a prevailing wisdom on these issues, a common sense -- but you can always find, if you open yourself up to the incredible detail (noise to some) a number of experts who challenge the conventional wisdom and a number of experts who support the conventional wisdom but were found to falsify this or hide that. At some point you need to ask yourself: am i following with this level of detail because it is going to influence my life substantially or am i just being swept away by the fascinating drama. Each to their own, i suppose.

sulleny

Jer: FYI in his farewell address to the people President Eisenhower said this:

"A steadily increasing share [of research]is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded."

Consolidation of knowledge and powers i.e. is gravely to be regarded. What we find in the "climate change" fiasco is just this. A small handful of government/academic shielded scientists controlling key, pivotal areas of science. Science that deeply affects conduct of social systems. That will cost people around the world trillions of dollars and obviate elected government and democratic representation.

This is not about peering into the minutia and details of atmospheric chemistry - Jer - it is about a small faction of self-appointed elitists trying to dominate world politics. It affects each and every human being on Earth. And aside from being attacked by an alien enemy - there is likely no bigger issue at stake on the planet.

You say: "The thing is, that a lot of issues have conflict, controversy, high-ranking officials in positions of trust acting less-than-ideally." If George Bush or Vlad Putin or Tony Blair had been found to be corrupting facts, deleting evidence, killing opposing opinion, they would be tried and impeached. This is what is happening now to the climate science "experts."

It is not an issue of "conventional wisdom" or not. It is about living in a world where truth, justice and ethical behavior are held above political self interest and ideology. It is the reformation of old orthodoxy into a new order where men control their own destiny and knowledge is a tree whose fruit is available to all.

SJC

Using less fossil fuel, using it more wisely and efficiently makes sense, no matter what else you believe.

The comments to this entry are closed.