Friday, October 23, 2009
Fewer Americans Believe the Earth is Warming
New Pew Research Center poll shows a decline in the number of Americans who believe climate change is a serious problem.
By Kevin Bullis
Today President Obama said that climate change skeptics are being pushed to the margins, but that may have been wishful thinking.
Poll results from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released yesterday say that the number of people who believe "there is solid evidence that the earth is warming" dropped from 71 percent in April of 2008 to 57 percent now. Only 36 percent said there was good evidence warming is due to human activity, down from 47 percent in April of 2008. Only 35 percent say climate change is a serious problem.
The numbers of climate change believers have been declining for the last few years among Democrats, Independents and Republicans. For independents, for example, 79 percent believed there was solid evidence in 2006, compared to 53 percent now. It might not be a coincidence that Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," came out in 2006.
Now here's the really odd thing. In spite of these low numbers, 50 percent of Americans believe there should be limits on carbon emissions, even if this causes energy prices to rise. Only 39 percent oppose it.
There's an uncharitable interpretation--that Americans are being inconsistent. But there's also a more hopeful interpretation. Climate change models are full of uncertainties. No one really knows just how much the Earth will warm, or what impact this will have, particularly on regional weather patterns. Maybe Americans are learning about these uncertainties, hence the lower numbers siting "solid evidence," yet concluding that the risk is high enough that we should do something to avoid the worst possible scenarios.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
Nevertheless, surveys on questions of science are pretty much absurd - in a nation as backwards about science knowledge as the United States.
Americans are more likely to get their "information" on climate change from Fox Snooze or talk radio then peer-review journals or otherwise reputable sources..
Eideard
10/23/2009
Posts:2
Or maybe more Americans have looked to sources other than the television and found that temperatures seem to be flat or slightly declining the last 11 years while CO2 has increased. In other words, the predictions of the fear merchants presented in the MSM *and* Fox and CNN have proven false. It wouldn't be the first time scientists have been wrong.
kstauff
10/26/2009
Posts:89
Secondly: Asking the ignorant what they believe is a waste of time. It bespeaks to America's intellectual poverty: "If everyone agrees with me then I must be right."
Kingofallmed...
10/24/2009
Posts:5
Don't blur the issue by calling it Climate Change; making the ebb and flow of the environment the fault of mankind doesn't change the fact that the idea of man made global warming is fundamentally wrong.
Carbon Dioxide and Methane are created by warmer climates, not the other way around. The irresponsible amount of money being used to propagate this idea could be used to cure disease or find alternative energy sources. Congresses projected spending for 'Climate Change' (as of last year) was 20 Trillion by 2050.
Danieleveld
10/24/2009
Posts:17
I'm sure they will deliberate with all the objectivity shown in Bush vs Gore.
durs
10/24/2009
Posts:29
don509
10/25/2009
Posts:1
The "scientists" that recently promoted and sponsored the "Catlin Expedition" have become C list celebrities. They failed to do much science because they discovered that the arctic is, well, damn cold. Al Gore has become a C list celebrity, and a very wealthy one at that. He has made over $100 million dollars since leaving office in 2000 when his net worth was only a few million dollars. Where has he made it? His movie, his books, his lectures and from selling carbon credits, a commodity which is now essentially worthless.
There is big money to be made by the media, academia, politicians and film makers selling the fear of global warming to Americans and the rest of the world. Billions are being spent that could be better spent on clean water and malaria vaccine. Instead, it's lining the pockets of the well positioned hucksters of today. It's a sad shame.
kstauff
10/26/2009
Posts:89
For an objective and admittedly skeptical view of the state of the field, I suggest http://wattsupwiththat.com. If one is really interested in understanding the field, it's important to monitor *both* sides of the debate.
kstauff
10/26/2009
Posts:89
ronmichael
10/26/2009
Posts:2
Seosev
10/28/2009
Posts:4
kstauff
10/28/2009
Posts:89
Global Dimming
... Global Dimming Geography IB HL Mr. Verity Nils Werner Global Dimming Global dimming is an alarming phenomenon. Visible pollution particles that are released into the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned cause global dimming. Similar to global warming, this process changes rainfall patterns worldwide.
The amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth in the Middle-Eastern region has decreased by twenty-two percent because more sunlight is being reflected back into space.
The visible pollutant particles from burning fossil fuels reflect sunlight and cause an increase in precipitation by causing more droplets to form. This causes clouds to reflect even more sunlight. It is very likely that global dimming has been disguising the negative effects of global warming by stopping some of the sun's energy from reaches the surface of the earth. A worldwide effort is being done to a control or limitation on pollution. There is a very possibility that as the air.......
Read / See more: http://www.coursework.info/International_Baccalaureate/Geography/Global_Dimming_L831161.html#ixzz0VI57KSEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUD66kjLVNw (go to 4:17 minute mark)
Seosev
10/28/2009
Posts:4
I do thank you for clarifying though. I wasn't able to watch the video at my current location, but I'll do so when I can.
kstauff
10/29/2009
Posts:89
What if we make these changes, what's the worst possible effect, a small decline in GDP? Sounds to me like unless the science supporting climate change is completely spurious, then this is certainly an investment worth skipping the 2-cars-per-household lifestyle. Obviously this sort of "high risk investment" will have to be mandated/funded/driven by governments in our current instant gratification society (who wants to hold options with a 200 year vesting date?!)
One extreme is that all of humanity is saved, we create the early preconditions to live long enough to move off this little planet in a few billion years (if we last that long, and I imagine we all have grand thoughts of our very distant ancestors one day making that leap throughout the now apparently distant universe). The other extreme? We spend a whole lot of money which results in less pollution, fewer cases of asthma, and replacing smokestacks with wind turbines.
We can all breathe easier if we play it safe.
welrifai
11/08/2009
Posts:1
Observation of the climate has already largely discredited AGW theory. Studies supporting the theory have been shown to be faulty and perhaps even fraudulent (Mann and Briffa, respectively).
Your risk assessment of 5% seems incredibly high to my eyes and makes no mention of the considerable benefits of both warming and increased CO2 on plant life, which I will note is the basis for animal life on Earth. I would also add that our climate is not and never has been static. It *will* get much colder in the next few thousand years; our geologic record indicates cycles of warm and cold periods, with ice ages on the order of tens of thousands of years. Right now, we are in a period of warmth. If you'd like to learn more about the paleo-climate, I encourage you to see this article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/searching-the-paleoclimate-record-for-estimated-correlations-temperature-co2-and-sea-level/
kstauff
11/10/2009
Posts:89