Sadly, Bush's legacy lives on. Fewer Americans believe in global warming.
Tim Howard
paid off. Also it is probably one of the indirect consequences of the
terrible economic mess Bush put us in; people tend to deprioritize
environmental issues when they are concerned with their economic situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poll: Fewer in U.S. believe in global warming
By DINA CAPPIELLO
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Oct. 22, 2009, 6:43PM
WASHINGTON � Americans seem to be cooling toward global warming. Just
57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer,
down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of
people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to
rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for
possible action against climate change.
In a poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People &
the Press, released Thursday, the number of people saying there is
strong scientific evidence that the Earth has gotten warmer over the
past few decades is down from 71 percent in April of last year and from
77 percent when Pew started asking the question in 2006. The number of
people who see the situation as a serious problem also has declined.
The steepest drop has occurred during the past year, as Congress and the
Obama administration have taken steps to control heat-trapping emissions
for the first time and international negotiations for a new treaty to
slow global warming have been under way. At the same time, there has
been mounting scientific evidence of climate change � from melting ice
caps to the world's oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded
temperatures this summer.
The poll was released a day after 18 scientific organizations wrote
Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming. A federal
government report Thursday found that global warming is upsetting the
Arctic's thermostat.
Only about a third, or 36 percent of the respondents, feel that human
activities � such as pollution from power plants, factories and
automobiles � are behind a temperature increase. That's down from 47
percent from 2006 through last year's poll.
"The priority that people give to pollution and environmental concerns
and a whole host of other issues is down because of the economy and
because of the focus on other things," suggested Andrew Kohut, the
director of the research center, which conducted the poll from Sept. 30
to Oct. 4. "When the focus is on other things, people forget and see
these issues as less grave."
Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of
Victoria in British Columbia, said politics could be drowning out
scientific awareness.
"It's a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer
in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a
full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to
instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public," he said.
Political breakdowns in the survey underscore how tough it could be to
enact a law limiting pollution emissions blamed for warming. While
three-quarters of Democrats believe the evidence of a warming planet is
solid, and nearly half believe the problem is serious, far fewer
conservative and moderate Democrats see the problem as grave.
Fifty-seven percent of Republicans say there is no solid evidence of
global warming, up from 31 percent in early 2007.
Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of scientists agree that
global warming is occurring and that the primary cause is a buildup of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels,
such as oil and coal.
Jane Lubchenco, head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, told a business group meeting at the White House
Thursday: "The science is pretty clear that the climate challenge before
us is very real. We're already seeing impacts of climate change in our
own backyards."
Despite misgivings about the science, half the respondents still say
they support limits on greenhouse gases, even if they could lead to
higher energy prices. And a majority � 56 percent � feel the United
States should join other countries in setting standards to address
global climate change.
Eric Gisin
which Americans mostly reject, and Britons will soon reject, and Czechs banished.
How can any sane person claim there is runaway AGW when it stopped 10 years ago?
"Tim Howard" <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:4ae3dbb2$0$23781$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
jose el fontanero
> Nope, it shows that gullable greenies are associated with national leftism,
> which Americans mostly reject, and Britons will soon reject, and Czechs banished.
>
> How can any sane person claim there is runaway AGW when it stopped 10 years ago?
>
>
> news:4ae3dbb2$0$23781$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>
>
>
> >I guess all those years of the Bush administration's "skepticism" have paid off. Also it is
> >probably one of the indirect consequences of the terrible economic mess Bush put us in; people
>
> - Show quoted text -
Definition:
Mass hysteria is a form of groupthink, in which several people with
something in common begin to think in the same way. In mass hysteria,
the group members all develop a common fear that often spirals into a
panic. The group members feed off each other’s emotional reactions,
causing the panic to escalate.
Jeff Strickland
"Tim Howard" <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:4ae3dbb2$0$23781$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>I guess all those years of the Bush administration's "skepticism" have paid
>off. Also it is probably one of the indirect consequences of the terrible
>economic mess Bush put us in; people tend to deprioritize environmental
>issues when they are concerned with their economic situation.
Global Warming is a crock of shit, just as the impending Ice Age was in the
late 60's and early 70's.
Call for clean air, that's a good idea. But clean air should be a national
priority, not driven by California. If California wants to press the federal
agencies for stronger rules, that's probably okay, but California ought not
devise rules that only apply here, then wait for everybody else to catch up.
Air Quality is more of a local issue -- cleaning the air in Los Angeles
isn't going to benefit Little Rock, so state rules should be applied to
stationary targets within a state. Automobile emissions is a federal issue.
Tim Howard
> causing the panic to escalate.
So they consensus of every major international scientific association is
"mass hysteria"?
Tim Howard
> "Tim Howard" <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
> news:4ae3dbb2$0$23781$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>> I guess all those years of the Bush administration's "skepticism" have paid
>> off. Also it is probably one of the indirect consequences of the terrible
>> economic mess Bush put us in; people tend to deprioritize environmental
>> issues when they are concerned with their economic situation.
>
>
> Global Warming is a crock of shit, just as the impending Ice Age was in the
> late 60's and early 70's.
>
minority of scientists believed another ice age was coming, and the
theory was discredited well over 30 years ago. Global climate change,
global warming, the greenhouse effect, whatever you want to call it, is
believed by most scientific associations around the world. Global
warming has been studied for over a generation now, and the theory has
stood up to a lot of criticism. Plus scientific analysis is a lot
better now than in the late 60s.
> Call for clean air, that's a good idea. But clean air should be a national
> priority, not driven by California. If California wants to press the federal
> agencies for stronger rules, that's probably okay, but California ought not
> devise rules that only apply here, then wait for everybody else to catch up.
>
> Air Quality is more of a local issue -- cleaning the air in Los Angeles
> isn't going to benefit Little Rock, so state rules should be applied to
> stationary targets within a state. Automobile emissions is a federal issue.
>
If CA has to be the trailblazer and drag other states into forcing
cleaner cars, then so be it.
Jeff Strickland
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "Tim Howard" <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:4ae3dbb2$0$23781$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>> I guess all those years of the Bush administration's "skepticism" have
>>> paid off. Also it is probably one of the indirect consequences of the
>>> terrible economic mess Bush put us in; people tend to deprioritize
>>> environmental issues when they are concerned with their economic
>>> situation.
>>
>>
>> Global Warming is a crock of shit, just as the impending Ice Age was in
>> the late 60's and early 70's.
>>
> Conservatives love to bring up the ice age analogy. The fact is only a
> minority of scientists believed another ice age was coming, and the theory
> was discredited well over 30 years ago.
Yes, it was discredited 30 years ago, THAT'S the point. It was all the rage
40 years ago. That's the point.
Global climate change,
> global warming, the greenhouse effect, whatever you want to call it, is
> believed by most scientific associations around the world. Global warming
> has been studied for over a generation now, and the theory has stood up to
> a lot of criticism. Plus scientific analysis is a lot better now than in
> the late 60s.
>
>> Call for clean air, that's a good idea. But clean air should be a
>> national priority, not driven by California. If California wants to press
>> the federal agencies for stronger rules, that's probably okay, but
>> California ought not devise rules that only apply here, then wait for
>> everybody else to catch up.
>>
>> Air Quality is more of a local issue -- cleaning the air in Los Angeles
>> isn't going to benefit Little Rock, so state rules should be applied to
>> stationary targets within a state. Automobile emissions is a federal
>> issue.
>>
> If CA has to be the trailblazer and drag other states into forcing cleaner
> cars, then so be it.
I don't agree with that.
Not because I don't agree with the idea, but I don't agree with the
rationale. To the extent that local rules help the local environment, they
are generally good. But California wants to invoke rules locally that they
think will impact the global environment.
You have flies, and three neighbors with pig farms and chicken ranches. You
can close your windows to keep the flies out of the house, but your
neighbors still have pig farms and chicken ranches. You have enacted a
regulation that helps you locally, but the global problem is entirely
different. You can build a dome over your property that keeps the flies out
of the yard, but the pigs and chickens are still around.
The problem to solve is how to get bacon and eggs, but not flies.
California is on a path that will benefit California at the expense of
everybody else, but there are still huge sources of the very emissions that
California seeks to eliminate coming out of the pig farms and chicken
ranches across the road. California can be a valuable part of the
discussions, but it ought not be able to hold the rest of the country
hostage to a problem that very well may be a natural phenomena -- it is well
known that the galaxy heats and cools all by itself.
I don't oppose cleaner cars, or cleaner anything for that matter, but cars
is a subject that should be driven (no pun intended) nationally. We had
49-state cars, and another car just for California, back in the days leading
up to the ice age that didn't happen. It was chaos. The chaos is beginning
again. Let's make clean cars, and let's allow -- even encourage --
California to lead the engineering effort, but let's not allow a standard
for CA, and another standard for everywhere else. CA already has clean gas,
but nobody else has it. If a refinery goes down somewhere, they can take gas
from CA and send it there causing the gas prices here to go up -- supply &
demand pressures. BUT, if a refinery goes offline here, we can't get gas
from anywhere else, so supply & demand rears its ugly head again. We could
improve the environment and the supply chain if the whole country used the
gas we use.
Green is not bad, but CA can't be more green (relative to cars) than the
country as a whole. We've tried that before, and the chaos was huge. CA can
be more green for a variety of stationary emission sources, but it should
not be in charge of the transportation infrastructure, especially not that
which is part of the interstate infrastructure.
Eric Gisin
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> Global Warming is a crock of shit, just as the impending Ice Age was in the late 60's and early
>> 70's.
>>
> Conservatives love to bring up the ice age analogy. The fact is only a minority of scientists
> believed another ice age was coming, and the theory was discredited well over 30 years ago.
> Global climate change, global warming, the greenhouse effect, whatever you want to call it, is
> believed by most scientific associations around the world. Global warming has been studied for
> over a generation now, and the theory has stood up to a lot of criticism. Plus scientific
> analysis is a lot better now than in the late 60s.
One of those loony scientists was John Holdren in 1971,
as documented at http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873.
Obama sure picks winner czars.
Ivantheterrible
> I guess all those years of the Bush administration's "skepticism" have
> paid off. Also it is probably one of the indirect consequences of the
> terrible economic mess Bush put us in; people tend to deprioritize
> environmental issues when they are concerned with their economic situation.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Poll: Fewer in U.S. believe in global warming
> By DINA CAPPIELLO
> ASSOCIATED PRESS
> Oct. 22, 2009, 6:43PM
>
> 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer,
> down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of
> people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to
> rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for
> possible action against climate change.
>
> In a poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People &
> the Press, released Thursday, the number of people saying there is
> strong scientific evidence that the Earth has gotten warmer over the
> past few decades is down from 71 percent in April of last year and from
> 77 percent when Pew started asking the question in 2006. The number of
> people who see the situation as a serious problem also has declined.
>
> The steepest drop has occurred during the past year, as Congress and the
> Obama administration have taken steps to control heat-trapping emissions
> for the first time and international negotiations for a new treaty to
> slow global warming have been under way. At the same time, there has
> caps to the world's oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded
> temperatures this summer.
>
> The poll was released a day after 18 scientific organizations wrote
> Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming. A federal
> government report Thursday found that global warming is upsetting the
> Arctic's thermostat.
>
> Only about a third, or 36 percent of the respondents, feel that human
> automobiles — are behind a temperature increase. That's down from 47
> States should join other countries in setting standards to address
> global climate change.
George W Bush was not the only one to say global warming is BS.
Russian scientists did extensive research and tests over several
years.
They came to the same conclusion.
Since the Russians put up a satellite before we did, put a man in
space before we did, put up a space station after we couldn't, and
devised many weapons that were better than ours, I think their
scientific opinion bears some consideration.