Climate Change

61 Percent of Scientist-Skeptics Believe the Earth is Warming

|

A new AP-GfK poll recently found that 78 percent of Americans believe the earth's temperatures are rising. Even among the third of Americans who are skeptical of scientists, 61 percent say global temperatures have been rising over the past 100 years. This percentage is up significantly since 2009 when less than half (47 percent) of these scientist-skeptics agreed. However, it remains to be seen whether this is a permanent change in public opinion, or an ephemeral reaction to particular events such as Hurricane Sandy. For instance, after Hurricane Katrina, 85 percent of Americans thought temperatures were rising, while that number stands at 78 percent today. Nevertheless the median voter is likely becoming persuaded that climate change is in fact occurring.

Opinion of government handling of climate change is nuanced. For instance, 57 percent think the US government should do a "great deal" about global warming. A quarter of Americans think government efforts to curb global warming would hurt the economy while 46 percent think government action would help the economy. However, when polls provide specific and tangible consequences of government action, Americans resist. For instance, a Pew Research Center poll from April 2012 found that 74 percent of Americans thought "there needs to be stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment." But then immediately after when asked if Americans should be willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment, 53 percent immediately disagreed.

Americans care about the planet's health, and they want clean air, water and soil. However, most Americans are not prepared to deal with the very likely painful consequences of government action to only attempt and not necessarily succeed in even making a dent in slowing climate change.

Further survey work should be conducted to gauge how effective Americans think the US government would be in slowing climate change. It should also measure what costs Americans would be willing to bear in order to at least try government's hand at combating rising temperatures. It should also ask to what extent they believe market innovations will provide solutions to climate change.

NEXT: Hungarian Jews Push Back Against Proposed List

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Further survey work should be conducted to gauge how effective Americans think the US government would be in slowing climate change.

    I think the government will be as effective tackling climate change as it was tackling drugs and poverty.

    1. Oh, it’s far worse.

      While there are some people who will get their efforts subsidized by the government with the excuses of guns or poverty, both the amount of money in play and the number of options go up by an order of magnitude when we’re talking about climate change.

      There are only so many ways to sell a Taser or a tank to the police. But there are thousands of ways to sell Green Tech? to the government and billions of dollars to be made by it.

  2. You say opinion on government action is “nuanced”, I say its incoherent, ignorant, self-contradictory, and delusional.

  3. So, what is China going to do about it? They’re the ones burning all the brown coal.

    1. But we’re the ones who feel guilty about it.

  4. Sometimes dude you jsut have to roll with it. WOw.
    http://www.Anon-ot.tk

  5. Global warming is a conspiracy by the oil companies to make the earth more habitable for the reptile overlords who secretly control everything.

    1. Can I interest you in a t-shirt?

    2. David Ickes was right!

  6. Any word on what those scientist-skeptics understand the cause of the agreed upon warming to be? Because that might tend to change the response. Earth bound activities having little to no effect upon the energy emanating from the Sun.

    And ‘doing a great deal’ about global warming is so open ended as to be well beyond nuanced. Are we talking about efforts to reverse the process, or changes to mitigate the negative effects of any warming, or efforts to capitalize on the positive effects of warming?

    1. The output of the Sun has been measured for several centuries. Since the 1950s, solar output is down slightly, but the Earth is 1 degree F warmer. Moreover, the pattern of warming for AGW is different for the pattern of warming for increased solar output; it’s akin the difference between wrapping yourself in a blanket and standing next to a fire. The AGW pattern shows up in the data. Increased solar output isn’t the cause.

      1. *citation needed

      2. This likely refers to total solar luminance which varies only slightly, however, sunspot activity causes greater changes in solar magnetic activity, emission in certain UV bands, as well as solar wind, all of which affect earth’s climate.

      3. The AGW pattern shows up in the data.

        No it doesn’t. The pacific and Indian oceans have not warmed (cooled a bit actually) and the Atlantic has warmed.

        AGW should warm the earth evenly.

        Also Antarctica has not warmed but the Arctic has…again uneven.

        Ditto for north hemisphere vs south hemisphere…again uneven.

        Also the earth has not warmed in 16 years and it actually cooled in the 70s

        Again uneven.

        Should also point out satellite maps show CO2 concentrations are uneven and combined with temperature data show no discernible pattern. In other words where your blanket is thickest does not show warming greater then where it is thinnest.

        Since the 1950s, solar output is down slightly, but the Earth is 1 degree F warmer.

        By the way you are an idiot. since the 50s Solar output is at historical highs all during that 1 degree F of warming (and for fuck’s sack use Celsius like a normal human being discussing science.)

        http://www.climate4you.com/ima…..ce1610.gif

        Turn on burner to high on constant flame. Put cold water in pot on burner.
        According to you that water will never heat up and boil.

  7. …or an ephemeral reaction to particular events such as Hurricane Sandy.

    People are idiots. And all of this is based on a mindset of the planet having a single, global temperature.

  8. If temperature changes go one way then the environMENTALists can claim that policy works and more is needed, if temps go the other way then they can claim policy isn’t restrictive enough and more is needed.

    Heads they win; tails we lose.

    1. Same logic used by religious groups to justify their silly ideas. If you are fortunate, god is rewarding your for good works. If things go bad, god is testing you.

      Not surprising, since AGW more closely resembles a faith-based religion than science.

      1. Human activity must be affecting the climate, therefore if the climate changes it is due to human activity.

        Circular reasoning is circular.

  9. 46 percent think government action would help the economy.

    So 46% of Americans are completely ignorant about economics? Seems low.

  10. A quarter of Americans think government efforts to curb global warming would hurt the economy while 46 percent think government action would help the economy are economically illiterate morons.

    FTFY.

    And we’re seriously fucked if that many people are really that stupid.

    1. Oh they’ll wise up when it seriously affects them when the “low hanging fruit” of carbon-burning is picked:
      ban NASCAR, allow only one airplane flight per year per person, cut commuting by 20% by instituting four day weeks (for 4 days pay, of course), no lighting of Christmas trees, no air conditioning on days under 90 degrees,
      why do we need umpteen dance and music troupes when we can listen to CDs instead of traveling to the performance?
      Same with eating out – no restaurant is allowed to provide parking; you walk to it or not go.

    2. Did you happen to note the recent election results?

  11. Unfortunately, this is a common problem. People tell pollsters they want [entitlement reform/global warming action/deficit reduction/small government], but they don’t want tax raises or benefit cuts or any inconvenience whatsoever. The politicians understand, and the status quo grinds on.

    Instead of visible controls on CO2, we’ll probably get a number of smaller initiatives to tinker around the edges: pollution controls on coal, stricter methane controls, more efficiency standards, unfavorable regulations on red meat production, etc.

    1. Instead of visible controls on CO2, we’ll probably get a number of smaller initiatives to tinker around the edges

      Hey dumb ass, US emissions have dropped like a stone and at far faster rates then any predicted by any proposed program (cap and trade carbon tax) to lower CO2…and the reason why is because of fracking.

      “Tinker around the edges” has already solved you idiotic non-problem and did it faster then thought possible by anyone.

  12. Who says that AGW is a bad thing? Look at the trend in growing days since 1900.

  13. 8 percent of Americans believe the earth’s temperatures are rising.

    That would because it has. Still does not tell us why it has risen and if people are responsible for it.

    What a stupid fucking question to ask.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.