Consensus: AGW Just Not A Concern For Americans

The anthropogenic global warming hysterics always talk about consensus. Well, how’s this?

A new poll suggests that Americans, preoccupied with the economy, are less worried about rising global temperatures than they were a year ago but remain concerned with solving the nation’s energy problems.

The findings are somewhat at odds with President Obama, who has put a high priority on staving off global warming and vowed Tuesday in his Inaugural Address to “roll back the specter of a warming planet.”

(Click photo for full size)

In the poll, released Thursday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, global warming came in last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. Only 30 percent of the voters deemed global warming to be “a top priority,” compared with 35 percent in 2008.

That’s consensus. People just do not care that much, and more and more people are realizing what a load of bunk AGW is. They realize they have been conned. They realize that the people who push AGW fail to live the lives they say everyone should live. “Give up my SUV? But, I have to get the kids to soccer practice! The government should Do Something!”

And, yes, people do have more important concerns at this time, which can decrease their concern with AGW. The Times provides all the spin necessary. But, it is kinda hard for most people to get excited about a made up issue that, if addressed, would raise their cost of living and force them to change their lifestyles by government decree.

The declining interest in global warming and other environmental issues might be unsurprising at a time when Americans face far more imminent threats to their jobs and homes. “Strengthening the nation’s economy” was the top-ranked concern of voters in the Pew poll. A relatively cool year and a harsh winter in North America and Europe have not helped, inspiring some commentators and a small cluster of scientists to make skeptical remarks about “global cooling.”

Which flies in the face of no warming since 1998, and several years of cooling temps, not to mention that 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating that AGW is bunk, as well as 650 international scientists joining a Senate minority report stating AGW is bunk. That is a “small cluster of scientists.” Glad the Times can tell us the truth. Which should be another hint for the AGW Believers that they are being spun.

PS: just for clarity, I am concerned about the environment sliding down from 56% in 2008 to 41% in this poll, but, one thing about that is that AGW has been linked with environmentalism that with one sliding, the other will.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “Consensus: AGW Just Not A Concern For Americans”

  1. C3H Editor says:

    Hopefully, the public will prevail and Obama will listen. If not, Obama will be wasting money and effort going after the CO2 boogey-man, as the the charts below show. (There have been many periods of historical climate change and none of them were caused by CO2.)

    C3H, Editor

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/01/us-temperatures-much-more-influenced-by-sun-ocean-cycles-than-co2-climate-models-still-are-co2-based.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/01/combine-the-pdo-amo-and-what-happens-a-huge-natural-climate-change-machine-unrelated-to-human-co2.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/01/new-satellite-and-landbased-temperatures-confirm-what-youre-feeling-its-cold-out-there-since-2003.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/01/global-warming-is-rapidly-increasing-ocean-temperatures-and-soon-will-be-boiling-oh-really.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/01/climate-science-is-not-neat-tidy-like-sending-an-astronaut-to-the-moon-its-messy-chaotic-and-unpredi.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/01/over-last-5000-years-there-have-been-3-major-warming-periods-plus-the-current-one-its-the-least-warm.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/01/extreme-historical-warmth-cold-periods-what-the-greenland-ice-cores-show.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/01/climate-alarmist-scientists-say-sun-activity-has-little-relationship-with-temps-but-co2-does-mislead.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/01/basic-science-represented-by-actual-data-global-temperatures-not-related-to-co2-levels.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/01/last-76-years-us-temperatures-have-barely-budged-12100s-of-a-degree-nasa-temp-records-reveal.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/01/what-are-the-major-greenhouse-gases-what-are-their-contributions-to-warming.html

  2. Reasic says:

    Teach,

    Now you’re obviously intentionally trying to mislead:

    The anthropogenic global warming hysterics always talk about consensus. Well, how’s this?

    You’re comparing apples and oranges. The consensus exists in scientific literature, not public opinion. Besides, here’s a better poll, which actually compares the views of scientists in climate science fields:

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    It sounds like your logic here is that people don’t care, so we shouldn’t do anything about the problem. Let’s just assume for a minute that climate scientists actually know what they’re talking about, and are correct about agw. Should we then instead go with the opinions of the public, who don’t fully understand the threat? That makes no sense to me. Either AGW is correct or not. I’ve provided you arguments in favor of AGW, which you STILL have yet to address, and yet you continue pushing this inactivist propaganda as if nothing ever happened.

    More things you got wrong:

    I’ve already explained to you that recent “cooling” is explained by El Nino/La Nina events. You’ve not responded to that, either. You just ignored it and kept on with your drivel. Also, there were not near 31,000 “scientists” in the Oregon Petition. That was a farce, which anyone and everyone could sign. They even sent ME one! Inhofe’s 650 number is way off as well. You can’t just make a poll or petition of anyone you want, whether they have a Ph.D. or not, and use it as proof of anything. The proof for AGW lies in the actual research that has been and continues to be done in that field. A bunch of economists and engineers will not change that. It’d be nice if you’d just once try to have a scientific discussion, instead of bringing up all of these red herrings about petitions and polls. At least it’d give you a little credibility. Right now, you have none.

  3. Reasic says:

    Editor:

    Wow. Where to start? Your first post is a regurgitation of Anthony Watts’ regurgitation of Joe D’Aleo’s confusion over temperature correlations. In it, D’Aleo makes several major bungles. First, he uses only US temp data, as if that’s going to explain away GLOBAL warming. Temperature trends in small regions of the planet vary greatly. Then, he compares it to a reconstruction of total solar irradiance, which is no longer credible (Hoyt). He also fails to acknowledge or account for the fact that there are more factors at play in our atmosphere than just CO2. A rebuttal is herE:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/

    I don’t have time to go through each and every one of your links. It’s information overload. I can, however, give you two questions that no skeptic so far has been able to answer for me:

    1. If the Sun is primarily responsible for recent global warming, how is it that the stratosphere is cooling? Right now, the lower troposphere is warming, while the stratosphere is cooling. If the Sun were primarily to blame, we’d expect to see a uniform warming throughout the atmosphere. The cooling in the stratosphere is a clear signal that greenhouse gases are the primary cause of recent warming.

    2. Another common misconception is that water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. While it is more abundant, and therefore supplies more of the total greenhouse effect, it does not CAUSE a CHANGE in temperature, because of its very short atmospheric lifetime (7 to 10 days, versus 100 to 250 years for CO2). This means that water vapor quickly condenses and evaporates in response to changes in temperature, rather than causes changes.

    So, before you go spouting more confusion on this issue, please answer these questions for me.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7411 access attempts in the last 7 days.