Climate Change Poll Finds More Americans Now Believe The Globe Is Warming

Republican debates on climate change may be what influenced more Americans this year than last to believe the world is warming, according to Inside Climate News.

A Reuters/Stanford/Ipsos poll found "the percentage of Americans who believe the Earth has been warming rose to 83 percent from 75 percent last year in the poll conducted Sept 8-12," the group reported.

Jon Krosnick, a political science professor at Stanford University said Americans are forced to think about their stance on global warming when watching Republicans debate climate change, according to Inside Climate News.

ThinkProgress.org reports that based on a Yale/George Mason study in May, 71 percent of Americans think global warming should be very high, high or of medium priority for the President and Congress.

But, HuffPost's Tom Zeller reports that while Americans prioritized the environment ahead of the economy for thirty years, in the wake of the economic downturn of 2008, a majority of Americans are saying the economy is more important.

The same is to be said on a global scale as Reuters reports that concerns over climate change have risen only slightly since 2009, as consumers around the world worry more about issues immediately impacting their daily lives.

However, most still believe it is happening, even if its not at the top of their list of concerns. According to International Business Times, a study by Yale and George Mason University found it is mainly members of the Tea Party who do not believe climate change is occurring. Legalplanet.com reported the majority of Democrats (78%), Independents (71%) and Republicans (53%) believe in global warming, while only 34% of the Tea Party agree with them.

The Hill is quick to point out that there still remains a "sharp partisan divide over its causes." As the poll describes:

37% of Democrats believe global warming is the result primarily of human action, while only 14% of Republicans believe this. Conversely, 43% of Republicans believe global warming is the result of natural causes, up from 35% in 2010. Self-identified Tea Party members display still more certainty (49%) that global warming is caused by natural events.

---

Comments

[powder chowder]

02:39 PM on 10/04/2011

Global warming is obviously caused by tea baggers blowing hot air out of their rear ends any time they speak.

[maxwells]

04:42 PM on 09/22/2011

Of the top 10 scientists skeptical of anthropogenic climate change cited by:

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table.html , we have:

#1: Roger A. Pielke, Sr. meteorologist, who actually says, “... humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities.”
pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2006/07/25/misquotation-of-my-views-on-climate-science/

#2: Arie Bodek, particle physicist, with no climate-related research papers at all (WNCRRPAA)
#3: Freeman Dyson, after 1988, only one peer-reviewed climate paper (and questionably so)
#4: Richard Lindzen, discredited Iris hypothesis, and has received indirect funding from Exxon Mobil.
#5: John E. Rhoads, astrophysicist WNCRRPAA, not same as J E Rhoads, whose 1937 paper on nervous complications in leukemia contains the phrase “mountain climate”.
#6: William Happer, particle physicist WNCRRPAA
#7: Antonio Zichichi, particle physicist WNCRRPAA
#8: Lowell S. Brown, quantum physicist WNCRRPAA, not same as LS Brown of feminist theory.
#9 J. Scott Armstrong, professor of marketing and advertising WNCRRPAA
#10: Sallie L. Baliunas, whose publisher admitted her paper's conclusions could not be supported by the evidence and that the journal should have requested appropriate revisions prior to publication. Baliunas' receives regular indirect funding from Exxon Mobil

[maxwells]

04:34 PM on 09/22/2011

Checking more PhD global warming deniers.

Tim Ball claims,

"I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatolog­y and I have an extensive background in climatolog­y, especially the reconstruc­tion of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatolog­y at the University of Winnipeg."

But Prof. Dan Johnson says Univ. of Winnipeg has never had a climatology department.

"...he was a junior Lecturer who rarely published, and then spent 8 years as a geography professor. His work does not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere and the few papers he has published concern other matters...­.

http://sci­enceblogs.­com/deltoi­d/2007/06/­ball_aband­ons_lawsui­t.php
http://www­.desmogblo­g.com/timo­thy-f-ball­-tim-ball”

And what were Tim Ball's total of FOUR peer-revie­wed publicatio­ns about?

1983: "a long and relatively continuous record of daily and monthly average temperatur­es has been created for Central Canada."

1982: "Changes in the migration pattern of geese are reflected in the changing date of arrival at the same location over a long period of time."

1981: "This paper describes historical climatic research based on content analysis of Hudson's Bay company records."

Amazing science, Tim. Previous to fossil fuel shilling, Tim was a "bean counter".

[maxwells]

04:47 PM on 09/22/2011

Then we have:

Dr. Patrick Michaels - Cato Institute (right wing think tank) fellow and editor of the "World Climate Report", has received $100K from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, a Colorado fossil fuels cooperative.

In February 2009, Michaels in sworn testimony before the Congressional House Energy and Commerce Committee, said that 3% of his $4.2m in financial support came from the oil and gas industry.

However, on Aug. 15th, 2010, here's what Pat Michaels said while being interviewed on CNN:

ZAKARIA: “Can I ask you what percentage of your work is funded by the petroleum industry?”

MICHAELS: “I don’t know. 40 percent? I don’t know.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/08/16/113717/oil-fueled-pat-michaels/

“Michaels has also received direct funding from the Koch brothers. From their base in Wichita, Kansas, the Kochs control the largest privately held oil company in the US. They gained notoriety during the mid-term elections for bankrolling a leading, conservative Tea Party organisation, Americans for Prosperity.

For years, the Koch brothers have been funnelling money to organisations which oppose government regulations and deny the existence of climate change.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/25/michaels-climate-sceptic-misled-congress.

The Kochs also own America's largest privately owned coal and oil company.

[maxwells]

04:49 PM on 09/22/2011

Or how about Dr. Sherwood Idso -

together with sons Craig and Keith, runs a family business called "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which has been directly funded for many years by Exxon Mobil - e.g., $10k in 1998, $15k in 2000, $40k in 2003, $25k in 2005, $10k in 2006, etc.

Sources: Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions Report, ExxonMobil Foundata 2000 IRS 990, Exxon's World Wide Giving Report.

Sherwood and Craig Idso sit on boards or are members of various right-wing think tanks, like the George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, and SPPI.

http://www­.marshall.­org/
http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/G­eorge_C._M­arshall_In­stitute
http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/S­PPI
http://www­.heartland­.org/event­s/2010Chic­ago/speake­rs.html

which all receive funding directly from Exxon.

[eaarth2]

03:45 PM on 09/21/2011

If Americans really knew the deep deep trouble they are actually in with climate change- they would overthrow their Government.

The Media first of all in the future will be criminally held responsible- along with every denier in congress or the white house.

[Publicola]

02:51 AM on 09/21/2011

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

[FrankLuchan]

01:42 AM on 09/21/2011

And here is a long list of distinguished SCIENTISTS who dispute that global warming is man made:

With his public resignation, Nobel Laureate Giaever joins a long list of distinguished “skeptics,” which includes Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and member of the National Academy of Sciences, Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, William Happer, physicist, Princeton University, Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada, and Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia (just to name a few from a long list).

[Publicola]

02:48 AM on 09/21/2011

Luchen: "...distinguis­hed SCIENTISTS... Fred Singer..."

Fred Singer...

You mean this Fred Singer?

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/fred_singers_latest_whopper.php
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/S._Fred_Singer
http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/fred-singer

Why yes, you do.

Thanks for the laugh.

[FrankLuchan]

11:56 AM on 09/21/2011

Hey, Publicola, aren't you one of the folks who thinks that banning DDT with nearly ZERO scientific reason was a wonderfull thing.

It would seem that millions of dead Africans don't really agree with you on that theory either.

[Publicola]

12:22 PM on 09/21/2011

The premise of your question is false, Luchan - no surprise that you don't understand that issue either.

[Publicola]

03:10 AM on 09/21/2011

And here is a long list of "distinguis­hed" SCIENTISTS who dispute that evolution is real:

Dr Raymond V. Damadian - Inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging); Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist - Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory; Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist - a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist - Among the awards he has received are the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award, the latter in recognition of the practical significance of his work for the grazing industry; Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General); Dr. Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist, worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory as a guest scientist... Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist); (just to name a few from a long list)...

and...

Dr. Roy Spencer, climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and a prominent AGW "skeptic".

[FrankLuchan]

09:58 AM on 09/21/2011

And trenberth, mann, and jones who lie cheat and steal are 'distinguished'?

I'll go with these folks. They've never LIED to save their skins.

[Publicola]

11:48 PM on 09/20/2011

U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2010):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs.

Increasing temperatures and GHG concentrations are driving a multitude of related and interacting changes in the Earth system, including decreases in the amounts of ice stored in mountain glaciers and polar regions, increases in sea level, changes in ocean chemistry, and changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation events, and droughts. These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems. Although the details of how the future impacts of climate change will unfold are not as well understood as the basic causes and mechanisms of climate change, we can reasonably expect that the consequences of climate change will be more severe if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

[FrankLuchan]

11:10 PM on 09/20/2011

Of course the climate is warming.

We are coming out of an ice age.

What a bunch of dopes.

[Publicola]

11:41 PM on 09/20/2011

3 words for you, Luchan:

Holocene Climatic Optimum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

HTH.

[FrankLuchan]

01:47 AM on 09/21/2011

It would seem that a long list of distinguised scientists think you have no clue what you are talking about.

[Publicola]

02:26 AM on 09/21/2011

Luchan: "It would seem that a long list of distinguis­ed scientists think you have no clue what you are talking about."

It would seem that you are throwing mud to obfuscate your lack of understanding about the Holocene Climatic Optimum, as well as your lack of understanding of the glacial-interglacial cycle over the past several hundred thousand years more generally.

[FrankLuchan]

11:08 PM on 09/20/2011

It would seem this poll has the same veracity as the poll that says taht a 'majority' of scientists believe in global warming.

That poll had 77 respondents out of 1000 and somehow that became a 'majority' of scientists.

[Publicola]

11:37 PM on 09/20/2011

FrankLuchan: "That poll had 77 respondent­s out of 1000 and somehow that became a 'majority' of scientists­."

Gotta love science deniers who misunderstand what they read and/or just make crapolla up.

Or not.

[jimboy71]

11:43 PM on 09/20/2011

Link. Or do you ALWAYS make stuff up?

[qwert1234]

04:29 PM on 09/19/2011

I have linked a presentation on CO2 and climate by Richard Alley.

The whole talk is informative, but an important point I noticed was a brief mention of cosmic rays. You can jump to this part at about 42 minutes in. Basically, 40,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field decreased significantly and large amounts of cosmic rays poured in (as is evidenced by a large spike in Beryllium-10) and the climate didn't seem to respond to it at all.

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

This seems to be a strong piece of evidence against cosmic rays having a large effect on climate. But don't take my word for it, listen to Dr. Alley.

[ubrew12]

05:58 PM on 09/19/2011

Excellent discussion of CO2 and climate from a paleoclimatologists perspective. Basically, he is saying CO2 is a primary regulator of Earths climate, and always has been. Makes you wonder where the 'it's all happened before, and will happen again' advocates are getting their information. If CO2 is a primary thermostat of Earths climate, just where do these 'experts' think our current excess of CO2 came from?

[FrankLuchan]

12:10 PM on 09/19/2011

Is there warming happening?

Sure.

Is there ANYTHING you can do about it?

Not at all.

And when it starts cooling, there is nothing you'll be able to do about that either.

Next thing you'll be telling us is that we need to start sacrificing virgins in order to keep the planet from warming.

Well, there is one thing you can do. Destroy large cities like New York, LA, Chicago, and SFO. These behemoths give off HUGE amounts of heat (look up UHI). We need to return them to their natural environments.

[jimboy71]

03:35 PM on 09/19/2011

Up the meds.

[Cindy M Brito]

07:23 PM on 09/19/2011

WOW.

[StephenBP]

10:58 AM on 09/19/2011

Humans are putting over 30 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year.

We are putting in so much that nature cannot scrub it out as fast as we are putting it in and it is building up.

The carbon dioxide mixes throughout the earth’s atmosphere and can be found at all altitudes above the surface.

Carbon dioxide is a green house gas like water vapor, and, unlike water vapor, it is constantly there, 24/7/365. And it doesn’t precipitate as rain or snow or ice. Most of the atmosphere is below the freezing point of water, and has little water vapor in it, but all of the atmosphere has a similar high level of carbon dioxide in it. Half the earth is always bathed in sunlight and the earth is slowly, inexorably heating up because of it.

If someone can’t follow the discussion up to this point without argument, then they probably don’t know enough basic chemistry or physics, in my opinion, to weigh in on this argument.

Amen.

[FrankLuchan]

12:12 PM on 09/19/2011

So you're saying that you know more than Dr. Giaever?

Sorry. I'm going with Dr. Giaever.

[jkanon]

01:05 PM on 09/19/2011

I am going with the 98% of the more than 1300 scientists world wide who do more in the field of climate investigation than anone else. They agree global warming is man made.

[ubrew12]

01:16 PM on 09/19/2011

No one knows more than Dr. Giaever. Why, he's Dr. Giaever, after all! (Well, OK, maybe Dr. Seuss knows more...)

[icedover4ever]

10:17 AM on 09/19/2011

Only God himself controls the climate of this world. Anyone who thinks that man can change the climate of the world needs to dust off that old Bible and read a little bit. Man is just that, man. He didn't create the world or the changing of its seasons nor can he control them.

[Jeremyewilliams]

10:41 AM on 09/19/2011

Yes, fairy tales>science.

[icedover4ever]

02:48 PM on 09/19/2011

You have the right to believe whatever you wish, as do I. Don't call my beliefs fairly tales and I won't call you a completely lost soul.

[ubrew12]

01:33 PM on 09/19/2011

Can only God control the river? Dam! Can only God control the waves? Harbor! Like it or not, humans have an impact on this planet. Clearly, it is not just God in control of the river or the waves, so how do you support the claim that only God controls the climate? While still largely in God's hands, humans are negatively impacting the climate with our pollution. God helps those who help themselves. You're misusing the Bible to preach passivity.

[icedover4ever]

02:46 PM on 09/19/2011

Humans do have an impact on this planet. We were placed in charge of taking care of it. So in that regard, I do believe that we should take every step that we can to minimize pollution and the misuse of this planet. However, controlling the flow of the river and the conserving the existing animal population is much different from controlling the changing of the seasons. The seasons will change. They always have and they always will. It makes no difference how big your car is. The seasons will still change and it won't always be the same each year. I am NOT misusing the Bible. I don't know what kind of Bible you follow, but mine tells me that My God is bigger than any of us and is ultimately in control. So to me that means that he is bigger than my carbon footprint.

[MikeWebster]

06:36 AM on 09/19/2011

Good to see that at least a certain number of American's accept good common sense and evidence based science, than the mindless unreality promoted by the campaign of climate change denial.

What people also need to understand is that the change in the climate will have a direct economic impact vastly greater than any impact of taking action to reduce the actual amount of climate change we are in for.

The other thing that most of these people do not fully understand is that AGW carries with it a good chance of destroying civilization, and even the entire human race. People are entirely too sanguine about the coming effects of Global Warming.

[FrankLuchan]

12:13 PM on 09/19/2011

Is the climate changing? YES.

Is there anything you can do about it? NO.

Try reading the recent science out of CERN.

You're AGW theories are a little dated. Well, OK. A LOT dated.

[StephenBP]

02:23 PM on 09/19/2011

Actually Frank, if you bothered to read the actual CERN paper, and not the right wing spin doctored reports about it, you might be able to realize that the paper does not effect the global warming debate AT ALL.

Of course, I really doubt that you can read an actual scientific paper.

[jimboy71]

03:39 PM on 09/19/2011

Yet the CERN paper says nothing you think it does. At all. Because you didn't read it, and won't read it, because you don't care to.

Does it bother you at all that you parrot stuff you read elsewhere and never check to see if it is true?

[Gottlieb]

12:23 AM on 09/19/2011

I like The Economist's coverage Climate Change polling.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/american-public-opinion-and-climate-change

They have some excellent graphs and insights.