NEW YORK, April 26, 2007
Poll: Global Warming Worries Grow
But CBS/NY Times Survey Suggests Environment Won't Be Major Issue In 2008 Campaign
-
(AP / CBS)
-
Interactive Global Warming The greenhouse effect, a look at the Kyoto Protocol and a history of the Earth's climate.
-
Interactive Eye On The Environment Find out how global warming, air pollution and alternative forms of energy impact our world.
-
Interactive Alternative Energy Learn about the types of renewable energy that are used in the U.S. and the regions of the country considered to be most suitable for each kind.
Half want it to be a high priority for government leaders and say the government can do a lot to improve the environment. Still, the poll suggests the environment is not likely to be a major issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Nearly half of Americans believe global warming is having a serious impact now — up 14 points since 2001. Another third think the impact of global warming will be felt some time in the future. Few think it won't have a serious impact.
Three-quarters think the weather in the past few years has been stranger than usual, with global warming cited as the biggest cause.
IS GLOBAL WARMING HAVING AN IMPACT?
Now
Yes, now
49%Will in the future
36% Won't have an impact
11%6/2001
Yes, now
35%Will in the future
41%Won't have an impact
17%Both Democrats and Republicans agree that global warming is a serious problem, but Democrats are far more inclined to say it should a high priority for government.
Those who do not think global warming is having a serious impact or don't think it needs to addressed are more likely to be Republicans.
In general, Democrats are given a big edge over Republicans on environmental issues. They're seen as the party best able to protect the environment (57-14 percent); make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil (50-24 percent); and provide the country with enough sources of energy (45-30 percent).Click here for complete results of this poll.
SHOULD GLOBAL WARMING BE A PRIORITY FOR GOVERNMENT LEADERS?
High priority
52%Serious problem but not high priority
37% Not serious
8%Just 33 percent approve of President Bush's handling of the environment, down from 43 percent in 2001. Only 27 percent approve of his handling of the energy situation, also down from 2001.
Still, for many Americans, the environment may not be a major issue in the 2008 campaign. Fifty-one percent they could still vote for a candidate who did not share their environmental views.
Respondents were asked about two policy measures aimed at reducing energy consumption and combat global warming. Requiring automakers to build more energy-efficient automobiles was extremely popular — favored by 92 percent of Americans. Increasing gasoline taxes was far less popular, favored by 38 percent and opposed by 58 percent.
Among other findings in the poll:
This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1052 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone April 20-24, 2007. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Michelle Obama tells how her role as the First Lady has changed her perspective.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 8
- next
See all 146 CommentsThe scientific debate about the reality of global warming has long been over. The overwhelming consensus amoung climate scientists worldwide is that:
1. Global warming is absolutely real.
2. Global warming is caused by man.
3. The consequences of global warming are catastrophic to all life on the planet.
The few reamaining dissenting voices are led by oil industry paid hacks and those that follow them in their denial of reality.
This is not and has never been a left versus right political issue. It's simply a servival issue.
For those of you who are legitamately skeptical about global warming, it's cause and it's effects the following link should prove inlightening:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
The Arctic is warming much more rapidly than previously known, at nearly twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and increasing greenhouse gases from human activities are projected to make it warmer still, according to an unprecedented four-year scientific study of the region conducted by an international team of 300 scientists.
Just think maybe by the time the sun burns out, the earth will be hot enough to sustain itself and life. LOL Probably Not! But I will not be around to know.
Global warming has been natural as a given trend for 10,000-12,000 years, if not longer. Human influence on that trend may be comparatively meager but is present just the same. It is probably comparable to the light but relentless push of a single finger on a heavy door. The door resists this slight added force, but eventually yields to it and movement however slight overcomes other forces that tend to prevent its movement.
It will not be easy to overcome and correct the influence of civilization on planetary processes. Until it is proved without doubt that climate change serious endangers our future, we should not be convinced to sell the farm in order to assure a meager savings.
It has to be admitted that humans do play some role to some degree in influencing climatic behavior. On the surface, in view of the amounts of carbon dioxide we produce, it seems almost obvious that we are adding to the planetary greenhouse which should therefore result in increasing temperatures. This is climate science seen at the surface. Deeper investigation is needed to be sure we understand it all and act correctly in response.
At the same time, some of our "polluting" activity counteracts that greenhouse pumping with added aerosols that provide a subtle cooling effect. Clean-air legislation has reduced the output of many of these aerosols which is probably why this warming-supressant influence has eased in recent years to allow the overall warming to resume its progress.
We would have water if our left winged state government under Mr. Rudd, Mr. Goss and Mr. Beatie, hadnt told the greenies and the likes that they would get rid of the land that the right winged coalition had brought for a dam 12 years ago...
This dam was in a high rainfall area, and the one proposed by our left wing Labor is very wide, which will evaporate at the rate of at least one and a half meters a year, and that will not include obsorption, and it can only go to 5 meters deep, now how is that for common sense for a gobvernment and Mr Rudd wants to be our Prime Minister, ekkkekkk...The dam is about 2 to 3 hrs north of Brisbane and there are some very easy other ways of getting water that is already there in lake Baroon in Maleny and so much cheaper...
Welcome to the world of Rupert Murdoch.
With reference to my statement of the rain not penetrating further than 20 miles inland, this has been the common situation throughout New South Wales for some time now, the recent falls from the victorian border if not further south, through to the cental coast, were as such, as I have stated, this has been the situation for at least the last 12 months, an example, coastal suburb of Sydney, Rose bay, 100+ ml this past week, Parramatta, a western suburb 12-15 mls, Warragamba catchment further west 5-10 mls.
I have aquaintances, and family in areas, from Adelaide and Melbourne, through to Townsville in the north, and they say exactly the same.
I realise fully, that Sth East QLD is on level 5 restrictions, and that Brisbane, like Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney all have a common problem, their major water storageand catchment area's are inland of where the rain is falling. so in each case their storage levels continue to fall.
However, we here in the Central Tablelands NSW, have had about 25 mls this past 24 hours, and the band stretches right down through Victoria, so a little good news,at least for us, unfortunately you have again missed out as far as I can seAm off out tonight for dinner, may not catch up until tomorrow.
Enjoy your evening.
and gidday rheola, I live in Queensland, and you said... "with respect to Australia, the recent and heavy rain along the East Coast...", I really dont know what you mean as you should see our lawn, or lack of lawn.. at least we can at the moment bucket water to plants but we are going onto level 5 water restrictions soon..
you said they have rarely encroached more than 20 miles inland,.... what were you meaning by this sentence... you also said ...I also use my own evaluation of the situation existing, as much as I can.
rheola, with all the lies and manipulations out there, this is all we can all do, and use our own intellect... old timers here in Queensland have said that they have seen it far worse than this in their childhood..
I have often said that if you want to control the world dont become the president, just own all the media and you control the thinking of the world...
Frank they might all have agreed, the same as may scientists believe that we came from nothing, (and I am not opening a can of worms here so please dont reply to that one)just as there are also just as many scientists who done believe that we came from nothing...
There are many scientists who do not believe that man is the only cause of the earth heating up. we have to realise that it is only in the 1970's that the very same scientists who say we have global warming were saying that we were going into an ice age... now they cant have it both ways especially as some say that we could calculate things back 160 years ago...
But I feel that we have to reforest trees faster than is presently being planted to make up for 160 years of cutting down trees for land to cultivate or for live stock for our use... Having said that, I realise that these cultivated lands are important to our survival so that is why I suggested planting in areas which are of no use like deserts...
And by the way, I am thrilled at the level of discussion here... no nastiness, not that I have had the time to read back a few pages, but thanks guys, it all helps one to learn... nastiness only makes the other person stick adamantly to their views...
The National Academy of Sciences studied every peer reviewed, published, scientific study done on global warming in the last ten years. Every single one of them agreed on three fundamental facts:
1. Global warming is real.
2. Global warming is caused by man.
3. The Consequences of global warming will be catastrophic to all life on the planet.
The scientific debate was over a long time ago. It's all over but the denying. There are only a hand full of loud-mouthed pundit idiots and Exxon funded hacks left spreading disinformation.
This is not a political issue. It's a survival issue.
It's time to come together to work toward curbing the effects of global warming.
While local aberations are not a good indicator, I could too use them. I live in the South West portion of the US and just this year have experienced very low temperatures and it actually snowed three times this month alone. This is not normal and does not follow Global Warming prediction.
I do try as far as is possible to evaluate both sides of the debate, I must admit I rely heavily on suggested sites posted here and alsewhere, which means generally, I see more dissenting sites to those agreeing, a straw poll of the suggested sites on this board will confirm what I mean.
I also use my own evaluation of the situation existing, as much as I can.
By this I mean physically in my own [admittedly narrow] locale, visually as portrayed in news items and of course those documentaries etc. published by various organisations. however I attempt to dismiss and completely ignore, those that appear to be presented to push one particular view, eg Al Gores, "an inconvenient truth", however I do not suggest they have no right to publish their view.
In all of this,it is impossible to escape from the bias of my own view, and I must accept, that like all others, my view could be flawed.
However I feel strongly, that is not so.
Gaye5.
with respect to Australia, the recent and heavy rain along the East Coast, together with in a large degree past rain events, they have rarely encroached more than 20 miles inland, exactly as the climate Scientists said would be the case, consistent with their projectionI again will have to go for a while, shall look in upon return.
Onlyfacts
If off for the night, have a good one.
It is funny, but when people actually STUDY both sides then they find out that the political rhetoric is both false and true. While I believe the Earth is warming, I am still not convinced it is because of CO2.
If CO2 has always lagged temperatures, why are we adamant that CO2 is now causing temperature increases? We can't predict ENSO, PDO, NDO, etc. but we can definitely state that a single molecule will increase the planet's temperature by 2.5 to 4.5 degrees C?
More research please.
Hansen's biggest problem till very recently was that he was walking a tightrope between what he was allowed to say as a government official and what he said in public as a knowledgeable citizen. He put his position as director of NASA's GISS on the line by speaking openly about what he believed on the matter when OMB was feeding him lines for Congressional testimony.
In the late 1980's James Hansen even conducted studies trying to disprove some of his newfound understandings about the earth's climate and they only solidified in his mind what he had learned through the original analysis. It's very convincing.
I have laughed at global warming warnings for 20 years and have spent a lot of time studying the matter and reading all sides of the issue. It is becoming clear to me that there are some things to consider, but I am certainly not about to sound the planetary alarm. As far as I can see it, a little warming could be a good thing. Sure, it will inconvenience a portion of the world's population, but adaptation has been the rule of survival since the beginning.
IT was BIG news when Hansen released pre-publication of the %u201CSmoking Gun%u201D study in 2005.
Heard MUCH about said SMOKING GUN since then???
Why?
Well the KEY to this article was the supposed rise in the ocean heat content.
This is not expressed as degrees Centigrade but instead it is reported in Watts per m^2 PER YEAR spread over a layer of ocean 750 meters deep!
The report claims the that the oceans are storing 0.6 W per m^2 per year.
But some will remember THIS report that came out more recently:
Researchers found the average temperature of the upper ocean rose by 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit from 1993 to 2003, and then fell 0.055 degrees Fahrenheit from 2003 to 2005. The recent decrease is a dip equal to about one-fifth of the heat gained by the ocean between 1955 and 2003. They analyzed data from a broad array of ocean moorings, floats and shipboard sensors, and supported their results with data from NASA's Jason and Topex/Poseidon satellites.
Which BLEW Hansen's "Smoking Gun" out of the water.
P.S. Anyone interested should note WHO the references are to in the Hansen article and how SELF REFERENTIAL he tends to be. Many of them are his own and one of the Co-Authors of this study was responsible of the ONE study that the Ocean Temps were based upon.
In fact, I am finding that the credible scientists are finally speaking up about this aspect of the "debate" and wanting to make it clear that the sun, earth orbit parameters, and such things really do matter and even factor into the possible run-away feedbacks that periodize the cycles.
Just as we are increasing CO2 content in the atmosphere, so too we are worldwide finally reforesting the land about as fast as clearing it of trees. And the trees that are standing love carbon dioxide, so they scrub the air just a bit faster than they did a century ago. (It's not much faster, but it's happening nonetheless.)
It is not difficult to measure the level of carbon dioxide that was present in the atmosphere in 1850. Likewise, it is easy to measure what the CO2 concentration is today. CO2 has risen from 290ppm 160 years ago to about 375-380 recently. Lately, CO2 content has increased by 1.3 ppm per year. This is a measure increase which can also be derived through modelling output carbon dioxide emission extrapolated from hydrocarbons (coal, oil, gas) that have been combusted and also accounting for ionization of CO2 in the upper atmosphere, absorbtion by the oceans through chemical weather of the rock and photosynthesis.
It is becoming clear to me that human presence on this rock is tipping the balance of atmospheric content toward a more "carbonic" nature. There is still a fair amount of unclarity about just how much warming is provided by this greenhouse gas content, but it really does deserve some attention. It's not worthy of panic by any means, but ignoring the situation would be nuts.
We also have people like Dr. Erik Pianka, who is of the extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, and who advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and state sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the disease of humanity.
We have been able to measure by direct means recent atmospheric conditions (past 160 years) and more historic activities in the planet's past using proxies (ice cores, deepsea sediments, tree rings, etc.) that give us a good idea of how much greenhouse effect was in action over the past many thousands of years and as well retrace orbital parameters and solar activity in accordance.
The end result of all these factors makes it hard to ignore the possibility that humans are not completely benign inhabitants. This is especially true as we become present in ever increasing numbers. One example of comparison: Volcanoes.
The average year output of CO2 from volcanoes is just less than 1 billion tons. Human activity of all kinds emits now about 25-30 billion tons and is growing. If we accept the idea that at about 1/3 of all that output remains aloft in the atmosphere, the mathematics tells us that our actions are equal to about 10 times all the volcanoes, at the very least.
I do not subscribe to the idea that we CAUSING climate change, but I have at least begun to admit that we are a factor.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 8
- next
See all 146 Comments