Americans’ climate change concerns surge to record levels, poll shows

[Bergslagstroll]

Americans concern about climate change and its devastating effects have increased to record levels, according to the The Yale polling.

"A total of 72% of polled Americans now say global warming is personally important to them, according to the Yale program on climate change communication. This is the highest level of concern since Yale starting polling the question in 2008.

Overall, 73% of Americans accept that global warming is happening, outnumbering those who don’t by five to one. This acceptance has strengthened in recent years, rising by 10% since March 2015. The proportion that grasps that humans are the primary cause of warming is smaller, with 62% understanding this to be the case.

About two-thirds of Americans believe that global warming is influencing the weather, in the wake of a string of deadly extreme events in the US. About half say the disastrous wildfires in California and Hurricanes Florence and Michael, which flattened parts of North Carolina and Florida, were worsened because of rising global temperatures."

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...QCwv4ClLLZIoWu2R0_3STTfN5Dr3JlXgMqK7KbkXOzbaQ

Previous studies have also showed that two thirds of American give priority to developing alternative energy sources, like solar and wind power.

Most in US say alternative energy takes priority over fossil fuels

Two thirds of Americans also wanted US to stay in the Paris accord.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...upport-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

 

[ttwtt78640]

Americans concern about climate change and its devastating effects have increased to record levels, according to the The Yale polling.

"A total of 72% of polled Americans now say global warming is personally important to them, according to the Yale program on climate change communication. This is the highest level of concern since Yale starting polling the question in 2008.

Overall, 73% of Americans accept that global warming is happening, outnumbering those who don’t by five to one. This acceptance has strengthened in recent years, rising by 10% since March 2015. The proportion that grasps that humans are the primary cause of warming is smaller, with 62% understanding this to be the case.

About two-thirds of Americans believe that global warming is influencing the weather, in the wake of a string of deadly extreme events in the US. About half say the disastrous wildfires in California and Hurricanes Florence and Michael, which flattened parts of North Carolina and Florida, were worsened because of rising global temperatures."

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...QCwv4ClLLZIoWu2R0_3STTfN5Dr3JlXgMqK7KbkXOzbaQ

Previous studies have also showed that two thirds of American give priority to developing alternative energy sources, like solar and wind power.

Most in US say alternative energy takes priority over fossil fuels

Two thirds of Americans also wanted US to stay in the Paris accord.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...upport-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

That's nice but polling depends largely on the question(s) asked...

Public?s policy priorities for 2018 | Pew Research Center

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17485162/pew-research-center-poll-immigration-issue-2018-midterms

 

[Threegoofs]

Americans concern about climate change and its devastating effects have increased to record levels, according to the The Yale polling.

"A total of 72% of polled Americans now say global warming is personally important to them, according to the Yale program on climate change communication. This is the highest level of concern since Yale starting polling the question in 2008.

Overall, 73% of Americans accept that global warming is happening, outnumbering those who don’t by five to one. This acceptance has strengthened in recent years, rising by 10% since March 2015. The proportion that grasps that humans are the primary cause of warming is smaller, with 62% understanding this to be the case.

About two-thirds of Americans believe that global warming is influencing the weather, in the wake of a string of deadly extreme events in the US. About half say the disastrous wildfires in California and Hurricanes Florence and Michael, which flattened parts of North Carolina and Florida, were worsened because of rising global temperatures."

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...QCwv4ClLLZIoWu2R0_3STTfN5Dr3JlXgMqK7KbkXOzbaQ

Previous studies have also showed that two thirds of American give priority to developing alternative energy sources, like solar and wind power.

Most in US say alternative energy takes priority over fossil fuels

Two thirds of Americans also wanted US to stay in the Paris accord.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...upport-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

Based on Trump approval polls, 35% of Americans are also blithering idiots.

 

[Media_Truth]

That's nice but polling depends largely on the question(s) asked...

Public?s policy priorities for 2018 | Pew Research Center

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17485162/pew-research-center-poll-immigration-issue-2018-midterms

Your poll is not apples to apples, based on the thread featured articles.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Your poll is not apples to apples, based on the thread featured articles.

Quite true. Those polls, for which I provided links, asked folks to prioritize multiple issues (aka government action in real life). Every issue, or even subcomponent of that issue, is "important" when that is the only topic of discussion in the poll. But when the OP adds things like "two thirds of American [sic] give priority to..." then that opens them up to some serious introduction to facts and the actual issue priorities which Americans selected when polled more widely (openly?).

Polls on whether folks believe that homelessness is an important issue and then asked to rank proposed solutions to only that problem could (and likely would) also support making such bold, yet highly misleading, assertions - everything cannot honestly be said to a 2/3 majority (or top) priority.

 

[Media_Truth]

Quite true. Those polls, for which I provided links, asked folks to prioritize multiple issues (aka government action in real life). Every issue, or even subcomponent of that issue, is "important" when that is the only topic of discussion in the poll. But when the OP adds things like "two thirds of American [sic] give priority to..." then that opens them up to some serious introduction to facts and the actual issue priorities which Americans selected when polled more widely (openly?).

Polls on whether folks believe that homelessness is an important issue and then asked to rank proposed solutions to only that problem could (and likely would) also support making such bold, yet highly misleading, assertions - everything cannot honestly be said to a 2/3 majority (or top) priority.

Fair enough. It's no surprise that most people are more concerned about the here-and-now. I remember listening to a speech by Dean Ornish, a noted Cardiologist, who wrote a book about preventing heart disease with lifestyle changes. He spoke about a client who came into his office and laid a pack of cigarettes on the table. He said, "Well first thing you have to do is quit smoking". She replied, "These are my 20 best friends". The here-and-now. We all tend to address that first, but it doesn't make the big picture any less of an issue.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Quite true. Those polls, for which I provided links, asked folks to prioritize multiple issues (aka government action in real life). Every issue, or even subcomponent of that issue, is "important" when that is the only topic of discussion in the poll. But when the OP adds things like "two thirds of American [sic] give priority to..." then that opens them up to some serious introduction to facts and the actual issue priorities which Americans selected when polled more widely (openly?).

Polls on whether folks believe that homelessness is an important issue and then asked to rank proposed solutions to only that problem could (and likely would) also support making such bold, yet highly misleading, assertions - everything cannot honestly be said to a 2/3 majority (or top) priority.

One of the poll gave a choice between renewables and fossil fuels and a large mayority choosed renewables.

"President Donald Trump is promising major changes on climate and energy policy, including efforts to increase production from fossil fuel energy sources such as coal. But a new Pew Research Center survey finds that 65% of Americans give priority to developing alternative energy sources, compared with 27% who would emphasize expanded production of fossil fuel sources."

Most in US say alternative energy takes priority over fossil fuels

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Fair enough. It's no surprise that most people are more concerned about the here-and-now. I remember listening to a speech by Dean Ornish, a noted Cardiologist, who wrote a book about preventing heart disease with lifestyle changes. He spoke about a client who came into his office and laid a pack of cigarettes on the table. He said, "Well first thing you have to do is quit smoking". She replied, "These are my 20 best friends". The here-and-now. We all tend to address that first, but it doesn't make the big picture any less of an issue.

Climate change is more abstract than other issues. While you are now starting to see increasing cost of climate related disasters making climate change a more and more concrete subject.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...in-the-21st-century-infographic/#333cf9a27976

While both media and politcians have failed to inform about climate change. There ecpecially Republican politcians have failed to listen to scientists, thereby making climate change into a partisan issue in the US. While this can also change because for example Republican on a local level are starting to see the benefits of renewable energy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#32282a663da7

While you also have had massive disinformation campaigns from the fossil fuel companies for many decades.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.XErRHVxKjIV

While you have now have more and more people organzing and making their voices heard to counter the destructive influence of the fossil fuel companies. For example tens of thousands of school children are going on school strikes to demand action to combat climate change all over the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ikes-over-climate-change-continue-to-snowball

 

[KLATTU]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/natu...her-forecast-sub-zero-temperatures-frozen-dog

Dog and hare freeze to death while WALKING as temperatures drop to -56C
PICTURES of a dog and hare that froze to death in exceptionally cold weather in Kazakhstan have caused a storm from animal rights activists.


when is that global warming going to hit the Kaz!

#BRRRRRRRRRR

 

[Jack Hays]

Claim: Climate Change Concern is Surging – But Nobody wants to Pay More Taxes

Guest essay by Eric Worrall Why do people say they are concerned about climate change, but refuse to pay more taxes to fix the problem? The Unprecedented Surge in Fear About Climate Change More Americans than ever are worried about climate change, but they’re not willing to pay much to stop it. ROBINSON MEYER JAN…
Continue reading →

[FONT=&quot]. . . Assuming there is nothing wrong with the surveys or methodology, why aren’t people willing to pay to fix a problem they say they are concerned about?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Part of the problem might be that people don’t trust politicians. Spending the money on renovation of forests and wetlands attracts more support, presumably on the assumption that the expenditure would be transparent, that the money would actually be used for a good cause. But The Atlantic article goes on to discuss the surprise loss of a carbon tax vote in Washington State, a plebiscite which promised a lot of the carbon tax money raised would be distributed to community organisations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The real problem might be deceptive marketing, all the years that greens have been telling us that renewable energy is the cheapest option.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why would anyone want to pay more for something which is supposed to be cheaper?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Demands for more money to fund “cheaper” renewable energy programmes simply looks dishonest. It looks like green politicians are trying to cash in on public sympathy.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Greens neglected to explain that when they say renewables are “cheaper”, they are usually not talking about electricity bills; their cost claims are mostly based on dubious assumptions about externalities and “fossil fuel subsidies“.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Voters who have bought into the political spin about climate change and cheap renewable electricity are waiting for their green electricity bills to fall. Poor people paying the energy bills of the rich is probably not what they had in mind.[/FONT]

 

[Threegoofs]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/natu...her-forecast-sub-zero-temperatures-frozen-dog

Dog and hare freeze to death while WALKING as temperatures drop to -56C
PICTURES of a dog and hare that froze to death in exceptionally cold weather in Kazakhstan have caused a storm from animal rights activists.


when is that global warming going to hit the Kaz!

#BRRRRRRRRRR

Smart people understand that Kazakhstan is under pressure from climate change.

Other people talk about how winter is cold.

Khazakstan and climate change impacts | Human Development Reports

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/kazakhstan_nhdr_2008.pdf

 

[Media_Truth]

[FONT=&] [/FONT]
Claim: Climate Change Concern is Surging – But Nobody wants to Pay More Taxes

[FONT=&]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Why do people say they are concerned about climate change, but refuse to pay more taxes to fix the problem? The Unprecedented Surge in Fear About Climate Change More Americans than ever are worried about climate change, but they’re not willing to pay much to stop it. ROBINSON MEYER JAN…
Continue reading →

[/FONT][FONT="]. . . Assuming there is nothing wrong with the surveys or methodology, why aren’t people willing to pay to fix a problem they say they are concerned about?[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]Part of the problem might be that people don’t trust politicians. Spending the money on renovation of forests and wetlands attracts more support, presumably on the assumption that the expenditure would be transparent, that the money would actually be used for a good cause. But The Atlantic article goes on to discuss the surprise loss of a carbon tax vote in Washington State, a plebiscite which promised a lot of the carbon tax money raised would be distributed to community organisations.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The real problem might be deceptive marketing, all the years that greens have been telling us that [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/23/sanjeev-gupta-coal-power-is-no-longer-cheaper-and-well-prove-it"]renewable energy is the cheapest option[/URL].[/FONT]
[FONT="]Why would anyone want to pay more for something which is supposed to be cheaper?[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]Demands for more money to fund “cheaper” renewable energy programmes simply looks dishonest. It looks like green politicians are trying to cash in on public sympathy.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Greens neglected to explain that when they say renewables are “cheaper”, they are usually not talking about electricity bills; their cost claims are mostly based on dubious assumptions about [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality"]externalities[/URL] and “fossil fuel subsidies“.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Voters who have bought into the political spin about climate change and cheap renewable electricity are waiting for their green electricity bills to fall. [URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/britain-pulls-the-plug-on-solar-subsidies/"]Poor people paying the energy bills of the rich[/URL] is probably not what they had in mind.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]

Well, since the alternatives now cost less than fossil fuel generated power, everybody should jump on the renewables bandwagon, so we can pay LESS taxes.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Well, since the alternatives now cost less than fossil fuel generated power, everybody should jump on the renewables bandwagon, so we can pay LESS taxes.

You for example have NIPSCO, a energy company in Republican Indiana, that plan to replace coal with cheaper renewables and reduce carbon emissions by more than 90 percent by 2028 by investing in renewable.

https://www.nipsco.com/your-energy

While sadly you also still have politcians like Donald Trump that want to prop up unprofitable coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well, since the alternatives now cost less than fossil fuel generated power, everybody should jump on the renewables bandwagon, so we can pay LESS taxes.

Too bad they are still more expensive and less reliable.

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, since the alternatives now cost less than fossil fuel generated power, everybody should jump on the renewables bandwagon, so we can pay LESS taxes.

You for example have NIPSCO, a energy company in Republican Indiana, that plan to replace coal with cheaper renewables and reduce carbon emissions by more than 90 percent by 2028 by investing in renewable.

https://www.nipsco.com/your-energy

While sadly you also still have politcians like Donald Trump that want to prop up unprofitable coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

From the link in #10:

[FONT=&quot]". . . Demands for more money to fund “cheaper” renewable energy programmes simply looks dishonest. It looks like green politicians are trying to cash in on public sympathy.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Greens neglected to explain that when they say renewables are “cheaper”, they are usually not talking about electricity bills; their cost claims are mostly based on dubious assumptions about externalities and “fossil fuel subsidies“. . . ."[/FONT]

 

[Lord of Planar]

From the link in #10:

". . . Demands for more money to fund “cheaper” renewable energy programmes simply looks dishonest. It looks like green politicians are trying to cash in on public sympathy.
Greens neglected to explain that when they say renewables are “cheaper”, they are usually not talking about electricity bills; their cost claims are mostly based on dubious assumptions about externalities and “fossil fuel subsidies“. . . ."

Oh please. You don't expect them to understand anything that complicated, do you?

 

[Quaestio]

Oh please. You don't expect them to understand anything that complicated, do you?

You really love reading Jack's copy and pasted blog posts written by amateurs on his favorite pseudoscience conspiracy blogs don't you?

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh please. You don't expect them to understand anything that complicated, do you?

They try to insult their way to debate success.

 

[Jack Hays]

Important new paper analyzing troposphere/stratosphere measurements and implications for understanding climate change [link]

Review Article | Published: 21 January 2019
[h=1]The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation[/h]

• James N. Druckman &
• Mary C. McGrath

Nature Climate Changevolume 9, pages111–119 (2019) | Download Citation


[FONT=&quot][h=2]Abstract[/h]Despite a scientific consensus, citizens are divided when it comes to climate change — often along political lines. Democrats or liberals tend to believe that human activity is a primary cause of climate change, whereas Republicans or conservatives are much less likely to hold this belief. A prominent explanation for this divide is that it stems from directional motivated reasoning: individuals reject new information that contradicts their standing beliefs. In this Review, we suggest that the empirical evidence is not so clear, and is equally consistent with a theory in which citizens strive to form accurate beliefs but vary in what they consider to be credible evidence. This suggests a new research agenda on climate change preference formation, and has implications for effective communication.


[/FONT]

 

[Media_Truth]

Too bad they are still more expensive and less reliable.

Linkypoo?

 

[Quaestio]

They try to insult their way to debate success.

You copy and paste blog posts. You don't 'debate'.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

From the link in #10:

[FONT="]". . . Demands for more money to fund “cheaper” renewable energy programmes simply looks dishonest. It looks like green politicians are trying to cash in on public sympathy.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]Greens neglected to explain that when they say renewables are “cheaper”, they are usually not talking about electricity bills; their cost claims are mostly based on dubious assumptions about externalities and “fossil fuel subsidies“. . . ."[/FONT]

Subsidies to fossil fuel are still hundreds of billions of dollar each year.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2...nsumption-subsidies-are-down-but-not-out.html

While you should of course have a carbon taxes to compensate for the social cost of fossil fuels. There for example Sweden implemented a carbon tax in 1995 and today rank second on Forbes best country for business list.

https://info.esg.adec-innovations.c...worlds-most-sustainable-country-top-5-reasons

https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/#tab:overall

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Too bad they are still more expensive and less reliable.

Renewables are starting to outcompete fossil fuels and great improvements in many areas like energy storage and microgrids.

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproje...0/6-renewable-energy-trends-to-watch-in-2019/

 

[Jack Hays]

Subsidies to fossil fuel are still hundreds of billions of dollar each year.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2...nsumption-subsidies-are-down-but-not-out.html

While you should of course have a carbon taxes to compensate for the social cost of fossil fuels. There for example Sweden implemented a carbon tax in 1995 and today rank second on Forbes best country for business list.

https://info.esg.adec-innovations.c...worlds-most-sustainable-country-top-5-reasons

https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/#tab:overall

Fossil fuel producers are net taxpayers. Any subsidies to consumers are more than offset by producers' taxes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Renewables are starting to outcompete fossil fuels and great improvements in many areas like energy storage and microgrids.

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproje...0/6-renewable-energy-trends-to-watch-in-2019/

You sure love propaganda that fits your confirmation bias.