I am not one who thinks that the global warming issue is a hoax. Rather, I think it has been promoted in an unreasonable manner that sought to create hysteria in order to panic us into supporting unwise policies, and when people resisted, a certain snobbery kicked in that viewed those who didn’t swallow the theory whole as somehow dumb or ignorant. (Looking down one’s nose at those whose support you need is not a good persuasion tool.)
That approach has not worked well. A new Pew Poll shows that attitudes about the issue have little changed in the last year. But the difference between now and just four years ago is striking. From the story:
In 2006, far more Americans said there was solid evidence that the average temperature has been rising over the past few decades. In July of that year, 79% believed there was evidence of global warming, and half (50%) said it was mostly caused by human activity. Much of the change in attitudes about global warming occurred between April 2008 and last fall, with the decline coming mostly, though not entirely, among Republicans and independents. (See “Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming,” Oct. 22, 2009).
Two other indicators of opinion on the issue were not included in the October 2009 survey, and both show significant changes from earlier polls. Currently, 46% of the public says global warming is a problem that requires immediate government action. In July 2006, 61% said the issue needed immediate action. This decline is mostly a consequence of the fact that fewer now say global warming is a problem.
And note that more people (50%) either think that global warming is not a problem or that it does not require government action. In 2006, those categories made up only 36%, a huge shift in opinion in a relatively short time.
What I find remarkable is that this collapse in public support took place despite the fact that the pro global warming side utterly dominated the institutions that generally control the discourse: The international community; the United Nations (which has really stepped in a PR bucket); President Obama; The Democratic Party. The Mainstream Media; The Science Establishment; A-List Hollywood; Big Time Rock and Roll; and last but not least, Prince Charles (ha!). And yet, the cause is deflating like a tire with a nail.
Why the slide over the last 4 years? I believe it was a combination of factors: First, and foremost, we saw hysterical study after hysterical story, telling us that global warming meant we have to give up meat, pets, children, flying, driving, and virtually everything else that makes life worth living. After awhile, each new study/story didn’t alarm, but rather, caused eyes to roll. The imperiousness of many prominent AGW advocates added to the distrust. So did the attempt to change the lexicon to “climate change.” It didn’t help the cause when warming advocates unilaterally declared the debate over. THEY don’t get to decide that, WE do. Advocates also overstated the scientific consensus, acting as if heterodox thinkers were just a bunch of nuts when, in actuality, many notable scientists are among the skeptics. The issue became partisan. Then, there were a couple of cold winters. Finally, the remedies seem far worse than the disease, particularly in a bad economy that people do not want to make even worse. I think this is why Climategate cut so deeply–regardless of its ultimate merits: The distrust had already been sown.
Someday, someone will write a book about how a seemingly unstoppable movement tripped over its own feet and lost the attention of the American people.
October 30th, 2010 | 4:16 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and Zara, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Global Warming Hysteria: How to Lose Public Support in Just Four Short Years » Secondhand Smoke | .. http://bit.ly/cPwKTq [...]
October 30th, 2010 | 4:30 pm
Did you miss any other possibilities?
Economic meltdown between 2006 and 2010. Global warming now looks a bit less serious.
Democratic takeover of gov’t, shifting every Republican to an anti-AGW position. Republicans were supporters before 2008 (Bush, McCain etc).
2006 Survey in July, 2010 Survey in October
The battle over the cap-and-trade bill, where people heard false claims about energy taxes (see messaging below)
Effective messaging by deniers including Climategate, and the messaging on consensus. It’s a fact that most scientists DO agree that humans are primary contributors to global warming (97 to 98% of climate scientists, e.g.), so 44% of those polled gave the wrong answer in 2010 while only 29% gave the wrong answer in 2006.
Wes, you’re a man of letters, an educated man, how would you answer the unclear question, Do scientists agree the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 30th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Jeffrey: I think the economic meltdown is part of it, implied by me but not stated. Should have. I think both sides made it partisan, the Dems using it to beat the Reps over the head when they thought it was a winning issue. I don’t think the months of the survey matter. Cap and trade would have increased energy taxes. Recall, President Obama shafted Graham by leaking that the Adm. opposed Graham’s gas tax. In fact, raising taxes and the cost of energy is the main goal of cap and trade (generically understood as part of an overarching energy policy, and as passed by the House), the idea being to force prices higher by capping carbon output less and less each year, and taxiing it, to induce people to reduce carbon output and make more expensive green technology more attractive to consumers and investors. The clear majority of scientists, I believe, accept AGW.
October 30th, 2010 | 5:08 pm
[...] Global Warming Hysteria: How to Lose Public Support in Just Four Short YearsFirst Things (blog)I am not one who thinks that the global warming issue is a hoax. Rather, I think it has been promoted in an unreasonable manner that sought to create … [...]
October 30th, 2010 | 5:24 pm
[...] Global Warming Hysteria: How to Lose Public Support in Just Four Short YearsFirst Things (blog)I am not one who thinks that the global warming issue is a hoax. Rather, I think it has been promoted in an unreasonable manner that sought to create … [...]
October 30th, 2010 | 5:36 pm
Thanks for answering. I also don’t think the month of the survey was important (Jan 07 survey was similar to July 06).
Republicans not only accepted AGW, but even supported cap-and-trade until Jan 2009.
In 2008: “McCain’s major solution is to implement a cap-and-trade program on carbon-fuel emissions…
Industries would be given emission targets, and those coming in under their limit could sell their surplus polluting capacity to companies unable to meet their target.
McCain wants the country to return to 2005 emission levels by 2012; 1990 levels by 2020; and to a level sixty percent below that by 2050.
“As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy,” he said. “More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt — and that is good economic policy.”
Republicans sacrificed the good of the nation to further their political fortunes.
October 30th, 2010 | 5:44 pm
You didn’t mention the “outing” of doctored results and the conspiracy to shut out skeptics from publication. For me, the East Anglia email scandal was the final nail in the coffin of my attitude.
October 30th, 2010 | 5:56 pm
These predictions remind me of Rush Limbaugh’s Algore doomsday clock up at his website. It’s counting down the ten years from 2006 when Algore, the smartest man in the world with lower grades than GWB, besides perhaps JF Kerry, said we only had 10 years left before we are all scorched. I just checked and as of today we only have 5 years 2 months and 27 days left.
October 30th, 2010 | 9:54 pm
“The claims that the earth has been warming, and that man’s activities have contributed to warming, are trivially true and essentially meaningless in terms of alarm.”–Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT
For a truthful analysis of the issue see his paper here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_2010.pdf
And if you want to see a true and cordial debate with Lindzen and a scieintist on the other side of the issue, this is well worth watching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY
The drum beat of “global warming” has distracted most people from any sense of “how much?”
Most people probably don’t have a clue that over the past 150 years, the consensus seems to be on the order of 0.7 C. [that is 'ZERO point seven']. That is nothing outside of natural variability on a planet moving away from the last little ice age.
Most disturbing in all this has been the fulfillment of Francis Schaefer’s words,’Tell me what the world is saying today and I will tell you what the church will be saying in seven years.’ Many evangelical leaders jumped on the bandwagaon while ignoring the traditional concern for the poor.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/03/climate-confusion-at-the-national-association-of-evangelicals/
October 30th, 2010 | 10:31 pm
Donnelson,
As much as I trust Rushlimbaugh, can you supply the citation where former VP Al Gore stated we would be “scorched” by 2016?
Thanks
October 30th, 2010 | 10:34 pm
[...] http://www.firstthings.com/ [...]
October 30th, 2010 | 11:00 pm
Cap and Tax is a suicidal solution to a non-problem.
From 2001 through August 2010 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 21% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased significantly and the trend of the average of the five reporting agencies from 2001 through 2009 is down. The 21% CO2 increase is the significant measurement.
As this wide and rapidly growing separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising temperature continues, more and more people should begin to realize that maybe they missed something.
A simple equation, with inputs of only sunspot number and carbon dioxide level, calculates the average global temperature trends since 1895 with 88% accuracy. See the equation, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10 and 6/27/10). The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down.
October 30th, 2010 | 11:30 pm
[...] more here: Global Warming Hysteria: How to Lose Public Support in Just Four … This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged attempt, before-2008, climate-change, debate, [...]
October 31st, 2010 | 3:31 am
When I was young, I heard many sermons based upon the application of certain dates and events to what I know realize is the tabula rasa of Daniel and the Revelation, stating that we are living in the “Time of the End” and “The Lord is coming. Are you ready?’ The tenor of the “Global Warming” debate reminds me of those sermons. It was uncanny.
People have always sought to predict the future. The ancient Romans used augers to interpret the flight of birds to predict the future. They also used haruspices to interpret the livers of sacrificial animals for the same purpose. But we who live in the 21st C. are have put all of the hocus pocus behind us. We are scientific. We use “computer programs” to predict the future of Global Warming. But why did not these same computers predict the economic collapse? I think we have far more information about the economy that we do about Global Warming. Perhaps we should hire some harsupices and augers to assist us.
October 31st, 2010 | 9:20 am
Danpangburn,
There is no such thing as cap-and-tax. Additionally, 97% of climate scientists disagree with you that sunspot activity is the cause of global warming. That does not mean that 97% of climate scientists are right and you are wrong, but that would be the prudent wager. Climate scientists estimate that no more than 25% of the current global warming episode can be accounted for by variations in solar activity.
I’m no physicist but how does the Earth retain the cyclical heating up from sunspots? The Earth is warming – not warming and then cooling. Why didn’t the Earth cool to “normal” during the very low sunspot years 2007-2010?
Time will tell if your computer model is predictive. In the meantime the Earth warms steadily. In your opinion, what are the downsides to reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
October 31st, 2010 | 11:18 am
Jeffrey, even the WA PO says he said it. It must be true.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502230.html
But then again, maybe he really meant his MARRIAGE only had ten years left.
October 31st, 2010 | 4:14 pm
Donnelson,
from the article: “But he is also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”
Do you have a quote from Vice President Gore himself? Most climate scientists agree that we need to start curbing CO2 soon – that putting off the inevitable makes the situation worse. Do you think Vice President Gore actually thinks the Earth will be scorched or a total frying pan by 2016?
October 31st, 2010 | 5:53 pm
Jeffery,
Cap and tax or cap and trade. Either name, same result. The cost of everything that we buy will increase. For those on the edge, that could be a major problem.
Climate Scientists apparently have not yet found the strong connection between sunspots and climate because they have mistakenly assumed that sunspots are completely represented by TSI (Total Solar Irradiation). I made no such assumption. I have yet to find anyone besides myself who has looked at the time-integral of sunspot numbers. That, properly combined with other factors in the derived equation, explains 88% of the average global temperatures since 1895. The pdf made public on 4/10/10 describes the methodology in detail. The pdf made public 6/26/10 refines the analysis, includes consideration of the influence of carbon dioxide and gives predictions for three different assumptions.
Climate Scientists usually use a 30 year period to define climate. It was warming during the first 20 of the last 30 years and it has been flat the last 10 or so. If you fit a line to the 30 years (like Climate Scientists are prone to do) it shows warming but is misleading since it ignores the fact that something changed a decade ago. The equation which calculates temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy is a much better indicator of the trend of what is going on. The calculation indicates that we are in a cooling trend. The NOAA assessment of the heat content of the oceans is shown on page 7 of the 4/10/10 pdf. It shows that the heat content has been on a declining trend since about 2005.
The oceans (71% of the planet is covered by oceans) have huge thermal ‘inertia’ (In thermodynamics talk it is called thermal capacitance) so response is very slow. Even if there were no sunspots (like the Maunder Minimum) it would take about 27 years for the average global temperature to decline to ‘normal’.
Plants use carbon dioxide to make food. It is the gas of life. Without it there would be no life on earth. More of it increases food production. Suppressing it suppresses food production. The downside of reduced carbon dioxide emission is higher cost of everything – especially food. Expect famine for some and a reduced life style for all. Effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is wasted effort (no benefit) that could otherwise be useful.
October 31st, 2010 | 7:16 pm
Dan,
Best wishes on your uphill battle and thank you for your comments concerning the oceans. Thank you for being thoughtful and earnest.
Scientists that advocate cutting GHG emissions don’t mean to reduce the atmospheric level to zero, but to stabilize it around 350 ppm. It is around 390 ppm now, with the long-term past level around 290 ppm. Without intervention, the level could reach over 800 ppm. Do you not think that the greenhouse phenomenon exists?
October 31st, 2010 | 10:35 pm
jeff are you saying you think algore doesn’t mean what he says? O my. But you have good company-Tipper doesn’t either. Algore also thinks he practically invented the internet, thought love story was about him and he said GWB was his president. Yikes. O yes, he fought for NAFTA and said Saddam had WMDs. So maybe he never tells the truth. Your call. Ask Tipper. I just thank God that a buffoon like him was never president. What would we ever do with a man who had worse grades than GWB and who flunked God (divinity school)?
I hope the global warmers are right. I’m rooting for more global warming (as long as I can still ski at Tahoe of course) so Greenland will be green again and they can grow vineyards in the north of the UK and so we can have longer and longer growing seasons to produce better crop yields. I hope we get the kind of global warming that will cause more rain and heat to grow the kind of vegetation that sustained the dinosaurs. I’m hoping for so much heat that there will be yearly el ninos or la ninas so that ancient lake Lahoton will fill the Nevada basin again from half way across Nevada up into Oregon again. I’m hoping for the discovery of more and more fossil fuels and that we build more and more nuclear plants and clean coal powered plants so the third world can develop faster and faster so they can have the same kind of lifestyle I have, or did. A warm earth with longer growing seasons would help. I can only hope.
Nevertheless, even if Algore really believes we’ll be scorched in another 5 years 2 months and 27 days, I’m betting that in 5 years I’ll still be wearing my winter gear in Reno, Nevada to keep me from being cold, shovelling snow off our properties and that I’ll still be driving my monster 10 mile a gallon 4 wheel drive Ford F-250 to extract well meaning global warmers when they drive their two seats on a lawn mower Obama mobiles into a snow bank. I’ll still be driving for a warmer planet.
November 1st, 2010 | 7:40 am
On a geologic time scale the current CO2 level is quite low as shown on the chart at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html which plots data from experts. Note that in the past, CO2 level has been over 10 times what it is now.
The ‘greenhouse phenomenon’ is caused primarily by water vapor and makes most of the planet habitable. The effect of CO2 is essentially saturated. Doubling it would have no significant effect.
November 1st, 2010 | 2:09 pm
“There is no such thing as cap-and-tax.”
That’s correct; it is actually called Control&Tax. And no worries, C&T is effectively dead now anyway. The UN has abandoned climate change as the way to global government; they are now pushing biodiversity loss as the most promising and profitable leftist scare tactic. Climate change is soo last year. Cheers!
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 1st, 2010 at 2:16 pm
klem: As you read here at SHS! But I wouldn’t think they have given up on warming as the key that opens that door. They are quite committed to the project.
November 1st, 2010 | 2:12 pm
Donnelson,
Good luck with that.
Dan,
CO2 is higher now than at any time humans have inhabited the Earth.
And as you well know, much work has been performed on CO2 absorption of energy since the days of Angstrom. Increasing CO2 will continue to cause the Earth to warm. Try: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
Seriously, Dan, these sorts of arguments have been dealt with ad nauseum.
November 1st, 2010 | 2:27 pm
Donnelson,
I suspect Mr. Gore believes what he says, but you have yet to tell me what he said. You have told me what others said he said, but your comments about Love Story and the internet illustrate just how uninformed you are.
Greenland hasn’t been completely green for at least 2.5 million years and were your fantasy to come true the ocean would rise several meters. Your “Green”-land would be the end of Florida, Louisiana, Bangladesh, Hawaii etc. Now of course, it would take centuries to melt all that ice, even under your scenario, so only your descendants will have to suffer or delight in your fantasy world.
November 3rd, 2010 | 9:05 pm
Jeffery,
CO2 IS higher than it has been for the existence of humans. But the period of human existence is but an eye blink on the scale of geologic time. Nearly all of the rest of time CO2 has been much higher than now.
You make the point. CO2 keeps going up but average global temperature (agt) does not. It is because added atmospheric CO2 has little effect on agt. I challenge you to identify even one case, other than from me, where the time-integral of sunspot numbers is addressed.
What part of “explains 88% of average global temperatures since 1895” do you not grasp?
November 10th, 2010 | 10:08 am
[...] support for the global warming issue continues to shrink, a trend that will accelerate with the solidly skeptical GOP now in charge of the House of [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact