• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Axios: American belief in global warming reaches 10-year high

Visbek said:
https://www.axios.com/united-states...igh-7f706e6f-6683-4011-b66b-db9b807ce6b8.html

Full PDF of the report: http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2018-spring-climate-belief.pdf

Axios presents a brief summary of a long-term poll conducted by the Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy / National Surveys on Energy and Environment. The percentage of Americans who believe there is solid evidence for global warming, as well as the percentage of people who attribute it to human activity, is at a 10-year high.

The number who believe in global warming has gone up and down since 2008, but is now at 73%. The lowest numbers were in 2010, at 52%.

34% believe global warming is primarily due to human activity; another 26% believe it is in part due to human activity, and part other causes. Only 12% say it is exclusively natural, and another 15% do not believe the climate is changing at all.

Unsurprisingly, there is a partisan divide over the issue, which is also larger than usual.

I guess that's what happens when you have years of record high temperatures, plus hurricanes whose impact is intensified by climate change, plus droughts and heat waves and massive glaciers calving off of Antarctica and...
Click to expand...

:doh:lol:
I graduated highschool in the early 90s we learned about it that in school as FACT (because its existence is) and the scientific community averages like what a 97% consensus on it? A person has to be a very unique type of "special" to think it doesnt exist at all in 2018
 
Visbek said:
Wow! What a devastating critique oh wait, it isn't. They're using standard weighting for the population, so there is no reason to assume they will be substantially off in terms of party identification.
Click to expand...

shrug...maybe. But without the numbers, we don't know, do we?

Maybe you trust them. I've seen enough bogus polls to never trust without the numbers.
 
AGENT J said:
:doh:lol:
I graduated highschool in the early 90s we learned about it that in school as FACT (because its existence is) and the scientific community averages like what a 97% consensus on it? A person has to be a very unique type of "special" to think it doesnt exist at all in 2018
Click to expand...

Since we do not know what the question they asked was, we have no way of knowing how they arrived at that conclusion.
the statement "15% do not believe the climate is changing at all"
could include people who think the climate is changing, but within the noise band and so statistically no change.
It could also include people who think that finding a global temperature that means anything is outside our technical capability.
Without seeing the question asked, we simply lack the resolution to properly evaluate the statement.
 
AGENT J said:
:doh:lol:
I graduated highschool in the early 90s we learned about it that in school as FACT (because its existence is) and the scientific community averages like what a 97% consensus on it? A person has to be a very unique type of "special" to think it doesnt exist at all in 2018
Click to expand...

Maybe they were answering in a none scientific style which takes the question and automatically puts a "changing to any significance to humanity" slant on it.

Them not being scientists and being asked and all.
 
longview said:
Since we do not know what the question they asked was, we have no way of knowing how they arrived at that conclusion.
the statement "15% do not believe the climate is changing at all"
could include people who think the climate is changing, but within the noise band and so statistically no change.
It could also include people who think that finding a global temperature that means anything is outside our technical capability.
Without seeing the question asked, we simply lack the resolution to properly evaluate the statement.
Click to expand...

15% is way to high is my point..... we already know these nutters exists in real life....stuff like this and flat earthers etc should be way down. I mean you are always going to have conspiracy theorists, nutters and dummies (theres one in this thread) but it should be around 3-5%
 
longview said:
Since we do not know what the question they asked was, we have no way of knowing how they arrived at that conclusion.
the statement "15% do not believe the climate is changing at all"
could include people who think the climate is changing, but within the noise band and so statistically no change...
Click to expand...
:roll:

Instead of bitching and moaning, you could actually look it up. Here's the survey.

http://closup.umich.edu/national-su...ment/questionnaires/NSEE-2017-Fall-Qnaire.pdf

(The numbers next to the questions, by the way, are codes for the survey.)

And raw data on the answers:
Spring 2017 National Surveys on Energy and Environment Data Tables| CLOSUP

And yes, the questions are fine. There is no need to waterboard survey respondents until they provide incredible degrees of nuance in their answers, that is completely superfluous. What matters is that this poll provides good evidence that the vast majority of Americans believe that the climate is warming, that over 1/3 of Americans believe it's due to human activity alone, and another 1/4 believe it's partly human causes.
 
Visbek said:
Unsurprisingly, there is a partisan divide over the issue, which is also larger than usual.
Click to expand...

In my view, it just shows how the left is willing to be told by others what to believe.

34% is a pretty small number though when most of that will be lefties. It tells me that not all lefties are so ignorant.
 
Manmade global warming and its negative effect have been known for a long time. For example, that American fossil fuel companies was provide evidence of climate change in 1968.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

Also, the fossil fuel companies own studies show the negative effects of climate change.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...h-climate-change-20-years-ago-documents-show/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

So that you still have a debate and doubt about climate change is much to do with the deceptive tactics used by the fossil fuel companies to influence public opinion and delay action on climate change.

“It is difficult to imagine that executives, lobbyists, and scientists at major fossil companies were by this time unaware of the robust scientific evidence of the risks associated with the continued burning of their products.

Indeed, one of the key documents highlighted in the deception dossiers is a 1995 internal memo written by a team headed by a Mobil Corporation scientist and distributed to many major fossil fuel companies. The internal report warned unequivocally that burning the companies' products was causing climate change and that the relevant science "is well established and cannot be denied."

How did fossil fuel companies respond? They embarked on a series of campaigns to deliberately deceive the public about the reality of climate change and block any actions that might curb carbon emissions.”

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W0hZKdUzaUk
 
AGENT J said:
15% is way to high is my point..... we already know these nutters exists in real life....stuff like this and flat earthers etc should be way down. I mean you are always going to have conspiracy theorists, nutters and dummies (theres one in this thread) but it should be around 3-5%
Click to expand...
As I said, without knowing which questions were asked, the statement lack sufficient resolution to know much of anything.
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

Instead of bitching and moaning, you could actually look it up. Here's the survey.

http://closup.umich.edu/national-su...ment/questionnaires/NSEE-2017-Fall-Qnaire.pdf

(The numbers next to the questions, by the way, are codes for the survey.)

And raw data on the answers:
Spring 2017 National Surveys on Energy and Environment Data Tables| CLOSUP

And yes, the questions are fine. There is no need to waterboard survey respondents until they provide incredible degrees of nuance in their answers, that is completely superfluous. What matters is that this poll provides good evidence that the vast majority of Americans believe that the climate is warming, that over 1/3 of Americans believe it's due to human activity alone, and another 1/4 believe it's partly human causes.
Click to expand...
Do you understand why, knowing the questions are important to the statement issued?
The questions look good, but I am not sure the responses tell us much about how people will vote on the issue of AGW.
Question 31
If it required you to pay extra money each year in order for more renewable energy to be produced,
how much would you be willing to pay?
Click to expand...
is likely a better indicator, only 7% would be willing to pay more than $250 a year.
 
longview said:
Do you understand why, knowing the questions are important to the statement issued?
Click to expand...
Because you incorrectly believe that nit-picking the survey will give you an opportunity to ignore its findings.
 

WHY “CLIMATE CHANGE” SEEMS TO HAVE FADED FROM THE NEWS

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian The failure of the atmosphere to warm in accordance with alarmist predictions is making it harder and harder to come up with a bona fide story that can scare you. In a post a few days ago, I noted that “the whole climate issue seems to have mostly disappeared from the news…
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT=&][/FONT]
WHY “CLIMATE CHANGE” SEEMS TO HAVE FADED FROM THE NEWS

[FONT=&]By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian The failure of the atmosphere to warm in accordance with alarmist predictions is making it harder and harder to come up with a bona fide story that can scare you. In a post a few days ago, I noted that “the whole climate issue seems to have mostly disappeared from the news…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

More Jack Hayes spam from the propagandists at his favourite spoof science site.
 
Surface Detail said:
More Jack Hayes spam from the propagandists at his favourite spoof science site.
Click to expand...
Jack is reposting WUWT? Must be Friday.

Yeah, that's why I ignore 99% of his posts. I should go back to 100%...
 
Visbek said:
Because you incorrectly believe that nit-picking the survey will give you an opportunity to ignore its findings.
Click to expand...
Not at all, but the results without the questions asked. are much more subjective.
do you think an issue in which people are unwilling to spend more than $21 a month on
is going to inspire them to vote for people who promote catastrophic AGW?
 
longview said:
Not at all, but the results without the questions asked. are much more subjective.
do you think an issue in which people are unwilling to spend more than $21 a month on
is going to inspire them to vote for people who promote catastrophic AGW?
Click to expand...
lol

I point out that you wanted the questions to nit-pick at them. You deny this, then in the very next sentence, you nit-pick at the questions. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

Anyway... When you ask someone if they are willing to pay more for renewable energy, that means you're trying to find out if they are willing to pay more for renewable energy. It does not necessarily reflect their belief about whether global warming is happening, or if humans are causing it. That's why... wait for it... they asked those specific questions.

I suggest you stop cherry-picking, and start accepting the results.
 
longview said:
As I said, without knowing which questions were asked, the statement lack sufficient resolution to know much of anything.
Click to expand...

and as i said regardless we know these loons exist and it sad :shrug:
 
Visbek said:
lol

I point out that you wanted the questions to nit-pick at them. You deny this, then in the very next sentence, you nit-pick at the questions. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

Anyway... When you ask someone if they are willing to pay more for renewable energy, that means you're trying to find out if they are willing to pay more for renewable energy. It does not necessarily reflect their belief about whether global warming is happening, or if humans are causing it. That's why... wait for it... they asked those specific questions.

I suggest you stop cherry-picking, and start accepting the results.
Click to expand...

The results are the people vote with their wallets in there not voting for this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
longview said:
The results are the people vote with their wallets and they are not voting for this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jack Hays said:
It must be difficult to live in fear.
Click to expand...

But it is the otherwise lack of anything to panic about that attracts the alarmists to CO2.

They seem to need some sort of panic in their lives. No amount of pointing out that there is no threat stops them.
 
Tim the plumber said:
But it is the otherwise lack of anything to panic about that attracts the alarmists to CO2.

They seem to need some sort of panic in their lives. No amount of pointing out that there is no threat stops them.
Click to expand...

Eschatology

es·cha·tol·o·gy
ˌeskəˈtäləjē/
noun

  • the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind.




 
[h=1]More surveys – look at my face[/h]Posted on 16 Jul 18 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 2 Comments
Following on from the previous post, showing that most people in the UK seem to adopt the Catherine Tate approach to climate change, here are three more new surveys. University of Michigan A report from the University of Michigan announces that a record 73% of Americans now think that there is solid evidence of global … Continue reading →
 
Visbek said:
https://www.axios.com/united-states...igh-7f706e6f-6683-4011-b66b-db9b807ce6b8.html

Full PDF of the report: http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2018-spring-climate-belief.pdf

Axios presents a brief summary of a long-term poll conducted by the Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy / National Surveys on Energy and Environment. The percentage of Americans who believe there is solid evidence for global warming, as well as the percentage of people who attribute it to human activity, is at a 10-year high.

The number who believe in global warming has gone up and down since 2008, but is now at 73%. The lowest numbers were in 2010, at 52%.

34% believe global warming is primarily due to human activity; another 26% believe it is in part due to human activity, and part other causes. Only 12% say it is exclusively natural, and another 15% do not believe the climate is changing at all.

Unsurprisingly, there is a partisan divide over the issue, which is also larger than usual.

I guess that's what happens when you have years of record high temperatures, plus hurricanes whose impact is intensified by climate change, plus droughts and heat waves and massive glaciers calving off of Antarctica and...
Click to expand...

Nope. Random numbers generated by polls only show off the idiots that believe them.
 
chuckiechan said:
Few argue that the climate is changing, the argument is using it as a political tool without proof of cause.
Click to expand...

It's worse than that.

Climate is typically defined as something similar to 'weather over a long time'. The 'long time' is unspecified.

To describe any kind of 'change', you have to describe a difference...a delta if you will.

How do you describe a difference between unspecified times?

Nah. Climate doesn't 'change', although there are different climates. There is no such thing as global weather, so there is no such thing as a global climate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom