Poll: US belief in global warming is cooling

Post Reply New Topic

overwide link
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.

But many of the supporters of reducing pollution have heard little to nothing about cap-and-trade, the main mechanism for reducing greenhouse gases favored by the White House and central to legislation passed by the House and a bill the Senate will take up next week.

Under cap-and-trade, a price is put on each ton of pollution, and businesses can buy and sell permits to meet emissions limits.

"Perhaps the most interesting finding in this poll ... is that the more Americans learn about cap-and-trade, the more they oppose cap-and-trade," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who opposes the Senate bill and has questioned global warming science.

Regional as well as political differences were detected in the polling.

People living in the Midwest and mountainous areas of the West are far less likely to view global warming as a serious problem and to support limits on greenhouse gases than those in the Northeast and on the West Coast. Both the House and Senate bills have been drafted by Democratic lawmakers from Massachusetts and California.

One of those lawmakers, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, told reporters Thursday that she was happy with the results, given the interests and industry groups fighting the bill.

"Today, to get 57 percent saying that the climate is warming is good, because today everybody is grumpy about everything," Boxer said. "Science will win the day in America. Science always wins the day."

Earlier polls, from different organizations, have not detected a growing skepticism about the science behind global warming.

Since 1997, the percentage of Americans that believe the Earth is heating up has remained constant — at around 80 percent — in polling done by Jon Krosnick of Stanford University. Krosnick, who has been conducting surveys on attitudes about global warming since 1993, was surprised by the Pew results.

He described the decline in the Pew results as "implausible," saying there is nothing that could have caused it.

I keep hearing that we are actually entering another Ice Age.

We have a problem, we have a problem, does everyone agree? Good, for we have a solution that will only cost $50 Trillion and be run by the government, by taxing everyone and thing.

The views on climate, and confidence in government, are both being polled.

It has been hotter than this, with sea level seven meters higher, in recent geologic time, 25,000 years ago, then came an ice age. No human cause.

What would be the government response to an ice age, new taxes for more pollution?

The world is warming because of cutting down forests, paving everything. The west is drying due to killing off the migratory buffalo, and replacing them with stationary cattle.

Plowing releases water from the soil, and the drought is spreading. The same cause, over plowing, produced the dust bowl of the 1930s, when there were less greenhouse gasses.

Drought killed off the cultures of the Southwest from 1100 to 1400, no greenhouse gasses.

The National Debt is over $10 Trillion, 2/3 of the Gross National Product, and Washington wants more huge projects.

Global Warming went out with Weapons of Mass Destruction, and saving the banking system.

This is a revolt against anything the government says.

You know, it doesn't matter if it's real or not. Because when action is taken against CO2, there is a tendency for rules for other pollution to be slapped on along with it. Conserving energy on the basis of lowering CO2 emissions is good because it also lowers general pollution. People need a motivator, and there's no motivator like the end of the world, even if it's not true.

Of course, that does require people to believe in global warming, so it's a shame that's going down. Polls are always kind of iffy though, and the educational system is brewing up a generation which will be much more agreeable when it comes to conservation.

I just know that in most states, the highest temperature recorded occurred in the 1930s.

It does not surprise me. Some people don't believe in climate change full stop, not whether it is man made.

In any event it is to late to use the lowfi solutions. Nuclear solution is the likely stopgap, plus some clever science.

The fact of the matter, undoubtedly we some influence things, as do other animals even microscopic (cynobacteria anyone?). It is not really so much a moral issue as what do we value, and whether we care about our demise.

The climate is not always going to be stacked in our favour. We exist is a very narrow window, in the history of the earth. Ironically when mammals emerged we were small ground dwelling animals, which was lucky because it was fricken hot.

You can blame Al Gore and the liberal elite for their fear mongering the last few years. The polar bears aren't all dying, the Day After Tomorrow, superhurricanes, or whatever else aint going to happen. Conservation is a great thing I can't stress that enough and we need to find alternative energy so we can choke out those Fascists in the desert.(gee, what about nuclear energy?) Those are great things but what they want to do is tax any and everything that moves under the guise "we're all going to die". I've always been a skeptic though, living in Wisconsin does that. It's pretty hard to say the Earth is heating out of control when it's -5F out here in December and has been getting colder and snowier the last few years.

I believe in climate change as being the nature of our planet. I dont believe in trying to stop it happening or even slowing it down.

I think people do belive it that much because in some cases unless you talk about hurricanes the weather has not been behaving like its getting hotter.That I and the earth might have a failsafe for when a sometimes illogical carbon based simain descened sentient life form wouldn't destroy the only planet with a halfway decent atmospher in the known universe.

Climate is inherently ambiguous because of its complexity, but I think it's evident that somebody in this debate is manipulating the facts they present to lead people to a conclusion, and they probably have some kind of a motive.

Hmmm...Which side is more likely? Maybe there's money involved.

On one side are the academic scientists. Most any scientist that gets quoted in the media has tenure, so they can't get fired from their job no matter what they say.

On the other side are the fossil fuel companies, who stand to lose god knows how many trillion dollars if the status quo - their monopoly on humanity's energy supply - is disrupted.

So who's more likely to be lying?

I've often wondered why the question of pollution turns into a political issue. I mean we can probably say that no the world won't end but it's pretty freakn' obvious when you see heavy smog in some places.

I wouldn't assume fossil fuel is exactly safe for the ozone but some people seem to assume that it's safe to use...

The problem is not climate change, it is the politicization of science. The politicians latch onto the latest scientific discoveries, then grab attention with their alarmist rhetoric in an effort to keep their names in the headlines and win the next popularity contest. Earth's climate changes. Period. And there is nothing we can do about it. To think that humans can change Earth's climate is by far the most arrogant and homocentric bullsh!t I have heard in a long time. We should not spend another cent trying to stop climate change, it is wasteful and a distration from the real problems faced by humanity.

Just my geological $0.02.

I have a degree in atmospheric science with a minor in math and physics and a strong focus on climatology. I can tell with absolute certainty that humans do indeed have a significant impact on the climate. The overwhelming majority of scientists have been in agreement on this issue for over 20 years. We also know, with about 99% certainty, that CO2 is the most significant contributor to the actual observed and recorded warming trend over the past 100 years or so. What is unknown is whether or not our climate will continue to warm at the current and alarming rate, or whether a trend towards neutral, or even cooling is possible. There are so many complex variables to consider as well as feedback mechanisms that it really does become mind boggling. Just consider chaos theory. The old saying of how if a butterfly flaps its wings in Texas it can spawn a tornado in Kansas contains truth. The silly idea of George Carlin ("how can a f*cking soda can destroy the Earth) is soooo 1985. Besides, it's not the Earth we are worried about.

Then there's the political issue of cost. This really is solely a political issue because we can actually realize reduced spending by going green over the long run. It makes sense not to crap up the planet and use finite and polluting energy sources. Imagine how much we could have saved if we embraced solar, thermal, and wind energy sources 20 years ago. Not only would our energy bills be smaller, but our kids might be healthier considering the alarming rates of asthma and allergies. Every time I visit NYC, I end up blowing black snot out of my nose for the whole next day. That can't be good. Then think of all of the lives and money that could have been saved by not even invading Iraq (yes, oil had a lot to do with that). Anyone who claims that going green is expensive over the long haul is protecting his stocks and campaign contributions.

The scientists haven't become politicized, they have been bringing the same report to Washington for decades now. I've seen it and it's a rather boring display of data and calculations. It's not unlike the crazy idea that we could possibly deplete the Ozone layer. Oh those crazy scientists . Last time I checked (several years ago) the hole was about the size of Antarctica. Most parents these days don't let their kids out of the house without sunscreen, thank goodness. When I was a kid we layed out like a bunch of lobsters. Times have changed and so has our planet, but not for our benefit.