American Voters are Cooling on Global Warming
Finally a little bit of good news on the global warming fiasco front as it appears Americans may be waking up and realizing that this is nothing but a scam.
Only 41 percent said it was human activity, while 44 percent said it was long-term planetary trends. Seven percent said it was “some other reason,” and nine percent said they were not sure.
This is a significant shift from a poll conducted last April in which 47 percent said human activity caused global warming and only 34 percent said long term planetary trends caused it.
It seems that the science backs up the skepticism:
Americans’ changing views on the causes of global warming are backed up by science, according to Donald J. Easterbrook, a geology professor at Western Washington University.
An examination of almost 400 years of climate fluctuations shows “an almost exact correlation” between climate changes and solar radiation, not human activity, Easterbrook told CNSNews.com’s Kevin Mooney in September 2008.
The sun causes global warming. And as far as Al Gore and his carbon dioxide theory goes:
Only one in 30 climate events is linked to carbon dioxide emissions, a pretty shaky record according to Dr. Easterbrook.
“Only one in 30 shows any correlation with CO2,” he said. “So if you’re a baseball player with 30 at bats, that’s not a very good average.”
It appears that Americans may finally be starting to question the science of man-made global warming, the tide may be turning.
I fear it is too late however with tomorrow’s inauguration of the most left leaning president in history. As Americans begin to question global warming, Barack Obama becomes poised to implement radical global warming initiatives that will cost the taxpayers billions of dollars.
And he will have the support of his party and the leftist voters, as they are the last holdouts, ready to give away their money and their freedom to save the planet in the name of a hoax.
Fifty-nine percent of Democrats said human activity causes global warming, but only 21 percent of Republicans. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans, meanwhile, attributed global warming to long-term planetary trends, while only 23 percent of Democrats did.
America's Watchtower 
The sun causes global warming.
Another way to say it….
When you burn your toast….don’t blame the bread.
LikeLike
In other news Americans are still getting dumber
LikeLike
And yet 97% of scientists disagree.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
LikeLike
Study your facts and evaluate long term trends to gain better understanding of the real situation. There are more immediate world issues to address besides this one. The media publishes shocking news that is often lopsided and fragmented because people would rather read a dramatic sentence vice analyze statistical results. They are a business too.
LikeLike
How come none of those aforementioned scientists can ever actually say they’re 100% certain of human-caused global warming or any “global warming”?
That’s right; because global warming is a hypothesis about a phenomenon that hasn’t even been substantiated. If you’re willing to believe in global warming, you should be willing to believe in creationism,
LikeLike
“That’s right; because global warming is a hypothesis about a phenomenon that hasn’t even been substantiated. If you’re willing to believe in global warming, you should be willing to believe in creationism,”
Look up “spurious logic.”
LikeLike
Global warming has always been real, but it depends on who is in office of the US for it to be taken seriously. If a republican fool like GW JR is in office, we are lucky if he can figure out how to open a cereal box in the morning to feed himself and one can be assured he was not willing to slow global warming.
It is hoped that someone smart such as Obama will reduce global warming through installment of regulations not owned by contributions such as the past.
LikeLike
Reduce global warming by regulations? How would that be measured?
LikeLike
Here is a little information that might be interesting for the people that think that the Sun’s normal cycle is responsible for global warming. The Earth travels around the Sun on a slighly elliptical orbit. At it’s closest point, the energy that the Earth receives from the Sun is 7% greater than at it’s furthest point. The Earth’s axis is also tilted, and although the variation between winter and summer depends on your latitude, at an angle of 30 degrees (yes, the tilt of the axis is 23.5 degrees, but the Earth is round so the real angle can be greater depending on where you are), the same energy that is spread over 1 square meter in the summer is spread of 2 square meters in the winter. That’s 50% more energy from winter to summer. When you factor in weather patterns, oceans, etc.. the 7% difference in heat output due to the Earth’s orbit is not even a factor. Now, over the 11 year cycle of the sun, it’s brightness changes by about 0.07%. There may be some larger cycle at play, but nothing even approaching the 7% difference due to our orbit. If you don’t believe global warming is caused by people, you need to find a better explanation than the Sun, because that hypothesis is measurably false.
LikeLike
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
Seems the more you know about climate change, the more you believe people and their CO2 from fossil fuel burning and deforestation and rape of the land by corporations is the cause of the warming. Our retired scientist Easterbrook and his no big deal to CO2 increase friends are indeed a blessing for the defenders of the corporations like the GOP – and this blog – and indeed oil company scientists are only 47% believers in Gore’s conclusions – but the vast majority of rest of the scientific world is in agreement that man made Global Warming is real . Read the article at the above link and give the “controversy among scientists” assertion a rest.
As for the corporate control media – right wing radio – being able to make Americans appear stupid by doubting Global warming – well – I think your facts have proven that once again.
LikeLike
Let’s see. 97% of scientist believe in global warming, while only 41% of the public does. So if a majority of the scientifically ignorant don’t believe, the author thinks I should be influenced. I am. I think we have an awful lot of dumb people in this country! Fortunately, scientists ignore public opinion.
LikeLike
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Article_HTML/Review_Article_HTML.html
The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 1. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1° Centigrade below the 3,000-year average.
ABSTRACT
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.
Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.
LikeLike
Eight Reasons to End the Scam
Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to http://www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012–the target set by the Kyoto Protocol–would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
LikeLike
The Petition Project claims to have the signatures of 31,000 scientists. That may sound like a lot, but even if those numbers are accurate, that accounts for far less than 3% of all scientists. There are millions of scientists in the US alone. Honestly, do you really think that 97% of scientists are unaware of various climate cycles that have happened throughout history? They have taken that data into account, and not only are we experiencing an unprecedented speed of warming, there is a clear correlation between temperature and the levels of greenhouse gases. Also, nobody says that people are the only cause of global warming, but they are a significant contributor. There are many contributing sources to temperature changes including vulcanism, impacts, “wooble” in the Earth’s tilt, etc… all of which have been studied through direct and indirect methods. We know what effects these events have and the numbers don’t add up. We are not just talking about a temperature change, we are talking about a RATE of temperature change that cannot be explained by natural cycles. The problem with global warming deniers is that they are similar to people who believe in psychic powers and supernatural phenomenon in the respect that no amount of evidence will ever convince them. The current rate of temperature increase cannot be explained by natural cycles, so if the cause is not greenhouse gas emissions, what is it and why does CO2 increase in lockstep with temperature changes? Maybe there is some magical “other mechanism” that accounts for the rise in temperatures and CO2 levels, but the best data we have right now says we are the cause. Unless someone comes along with real evidence to the contrary, there is enough evidence and consensus in scientific opinion (97%) to consider man made global warming a fact.
LikeLike
Just because only 31,000 scientist have signed a particular petition does not allow one to conclude that every other scientist that has not signed that particular petition believes in man made global warming. Infact, there is no concensus among scientists supporting man made global climate change.
Read the article. Real science trumps liberal hype.
You and the minimally educated Obamatards and other climate change finatics are just so wrong. People like Al Gore and his supporters use, or rather missuse, high school science to “Prove” something that just doesn’t stand up to true scientific analysis.
The RATE of change is not any greater than the average norm.
We have only been using fosil fuel for a very short time. If you pull you head out of your ass and LOOK at the data, it clearly shows that the current temp increase began well before the increase in fosil fuel use.
The teperature change you are refering to is about 1 degree C and is in lockstep, as you say, with solar activity.
The ocean releases more CO2 in one year than mankind has since he discovered fire.
Global Warming/Climate Change is the new Religion of the “We need a cause” New World zombie Obamatards. And will cause more damage than all the evils it claims to oppose.
LikeLike
Brian, the words consensus and opinion are contrary to the meaning of the word science. One the consensus and opinion are proven facts then and only then will you have science.
LikeLike
Is it me, or did the temperature immediately frop once Gore stopped his speeches? Coincedence?
LikeLike
Sunday Express in UK reporting on frontpage that BBC Pension Fund is invested heavily in carbon trading companies leading to bias in news coverage in world’s biggest news organisation promoting belief in global warming
http://www.express.co.uk/ourpaper/view/2010-02-07
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/156703
LikeLike