North Carolinians Have Mixed Views On Climate Doom

Thirty plus years of spreading awareness and this is the best they can get

NC has mixed views on climate change, study finds

Less than half of North Carolinians consider climate change an issue deserving urgent action while six out of 10 believe human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels is at least partially to blame for global warming, according to a newly released poll.

About 47% of more than 1,000 state residents surveyed by High Point University in March said they considered climate change an emergency and 39% believed it was not. The remaining 14% did not offer an opinion.

As for why the planet is warming, 35% agreed that actions such as the burning of fossil fuels are mostly to blame and 26% suggested it is a mix of human and natural factors. Another 20% said rising temperatures are caused primarily by “natural patterns in the earth’s environment” while 10% said global warming doesn’t exist.

Climate scientists have identified emissions of heat-trapping pollution — primarily carbon dioxide — as the leading contributor to climbing temperatures in North Carolina, the U.S. and globally. Experts also believe that a warming atmosphere is contributing to the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather.

Experts: “why won’t you people listen to us? We’re Experts!!!!!!”

In the new poll, which the university said has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%, a majority (55%) of North Carolinians said they think that extreme weather events in the U.S. over the past few years are related to climate change. Less than one-third (29%) responded that there is no correlation and 16% didn’t offer an opinion.

But just 37% said they worry that they or a family member would be impacted by severe weather compared to 47% who weren’t concerned.

But, it just says “climate change’, making no distinction on causation. Do I think that weather patterns have changed because we are in a typical Holocene warm period? Yes. Do I think this is mostly Your Fault? No. Do I think it is doom? No. But, seriously, after all this time and Doomsaying, the best they could get was 35% saying it is mostly caused by humans, and in a state which is about 50-50 Democrat/Republicans.

Link to the poll here, and, it is interesting that it was taken in March, and just released April 21st. Perhaps a bit of massaging?

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

14 Responses to “North Carolinians Have Mixed Views On Climate Doom”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Come on, it is North Carolina. After all, 50% of the voters voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020! Are there any MAGA voters attributing global warming to CO2<

    In the new poll, which the university said has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%, a majority (55%) of North Carolinians said they think that extreme weather events in the U.S. over the past few years are related to climate change.

    Teach agreed, contradicting Anthony Watts and Willis Eschenbach and other commenters here. Teach says the extreme weather events result from natural global warming.

    Teach should know that scientific theories are not disproved by polls. But if he thinks polls are critical:

    Myers et al., 2021
    Krista Myers led a paper which surveyed 2780 Earth scientists. Depending on expertise, between 91% (all scientists) to 100% (climate scientists with high levels of expertise, 20+ papers published) agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among the total group of climate scientists, 98.7% agreed. The agreement was lowest among scientists who chose Economic Geology as one of their fields of research (84%).

    Lynas et al., 2021
    In 2021, Mark Lynas et al assessed studies published between 2012 and 2020. They found over 80,000 studies. They analysed a random subset of 3000. Four of these were skeptical of the human cause of climate change, 845 were endorsing the human cause perspective at different levels, and 1869 were indifferent to the question. The authors estimated the proportion of papers not skeptical of the human cause as 99.85% (95% confidence limit 99.62%–99.96%). Excluding papers which took no position on the human cause led to an estimate of the proportion of consensus papers as 99.53% (95% confidence limit 98.80%–99.87%). They confirmed their numbers by explicitly looking for alternative hypotheses in the entire dataset, which resulted in 28 papers.

    • James Lewis says:

      Dear Elwood:

      Actually if the assessment was to be accurate you need multiple subsets. What Lynas has here is a one time result.

      Not scientific.

      And ” The authors estimated…” shows plainly that science is not involved.

      Come back when you have proof.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        I’ll take your suggestion under advisement! Please explain what subsets you find necessary. Thanks.

        N.B. – Scientific theories are not proven.

        Is it your belief that climate scientists and scientists in general do NOT accept the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, LOL?

        Science is all about estimates! That’s why they show the 95% confidence intervals.

        A sampling of a population is an estimate of the total population.

        This is not to say that researchers don’t make mistakes, they do. But deliberate fraud is rare in peer reviewed literature.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Rimjob: This is not to say that researchers don’t make mistakes, they do. But deliberate fraud is rare in peer reviewed literature.

          Un huh, yeah sure… Climategate and Michael Mann et.al come to mind.

          The real-world effect of changing the CO2 and GHG atmospheric concentration on climate, whether natural or emitted by humans, has never been measured, only modeled. ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) is defined as the ultimate warming due to an instantaneous doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
          The ultimate climate response to that doubling will not occur for hundreds or thousands of years and everything else affecting the climate, like cloudiness, and insolation will not stay static for that long, so it is an artificial quantity that cannot be measured. Importantly, the IPCC estimate of ECS can probably not be falsified through real world measurements, which means it is not a proper scientific hypothesis.

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/24/the-mysterious-ar6-ecs-part-1/

          #ScaryStuff
          Bwaha! Lolgfy https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  2. david7134 says:

    There is no meaning to polls of average individuals. They are not receiving truthful information. A better poll would be the honesty of any media presentation. That would include the so called solutions to this horrible situation, not really. Have a presentation as to the fact a tax will do nothing. Also that the end result is global government. Then the fact that the western world would be sacrificing unilateral.

    I have not seen any evidence of excessive weather. All the horrible weather events have been experienced in the past. And weather is not climate.

  3. H says:

    Teach was apparently disappointed in the results of that poll and thinks those results might have been massaged, by the conservative Christian university.
    Teach in which direction and by how much do you think the results might have been “massaged” ?
    Many older people have views on this that are radically different from those who have longer term interests in the environment.

  4. Jl says:

    Oh, my-the Lynas paper was debunked long ago. First, a subset of 3000 papers out of 88,000 from 2012 to 2020 found only 4 skeptical papers? A quick visit to NTZ will point one to over 2000 published, peer-reviewed skeptical papers from that time period. It took me all of about 30 seconds to find those, and the actual number is probably much higher. What crack research team did Lynas use for his paper? Second, if you read closely only 19 papers of the 3000 show “explicit endorsement with quantification”, meaning only 19 papers said human influence amounts to “x” amount. 460 had “implicit endorsement” (some human influence, we don’t know how much. Urban heat islands could of course be construed as human influence, but has nothing to do with the climate) and 2104 had “no position”.

  5. Jl says:

    The article won’t link (?) again, but it’s at wattsupwiththat.com. Lynas 2021-first article in the series

  6. Professor Hale says:

    North Carolinians Have Mixed Views

    Not seeing the point. Everyone has mixed views about everything. There are no states with unanimous views on anything. Not even the spherical shape of the Earth.

    Except for Jeff of course. He has total agreement with whatever Democratic activists tell him today.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Like ‘Mr’ Porter, the Pretend Perfesser doesn’t know what he/she is talking about.

      Repubicunts aren’t mixed, they are now 80% behind President Trump!

  7. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host mocked:

    Experts: “why won’t you people listen to us? We’re Experts!!!!!!”

    I’d say that March 2020 through now has pretty much ruined the reputations of the experts!

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    Climate experts…

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/failed-prediction-timeline/

    #Wrong
    Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

Pirate's Cove