Gallup: Global warming ranks at bottom of environmental issues for Americans

posted at 12:41 pm on April 4, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Harry Reid and his Senate Democrats held an all-night session last month to draw attention to the fierce urgency of now on anthropogenic global warming — without, of course, bothering to offer any legislation on the issue. After this infomercial, Gallup noted that global warming/climate change fell to almost dead last among 15 issues polled; only race relations polled lower. “Even among Democrats,” I wrote at the time, “climate change only gets 36% mention in a non-exclusive list of concerns — ranking far below the economy (54%), health care (57%), hunger and homelessness (53%), and unemployment (52%).” Environmental issues in general fell as an issue of significant concern to its lowest point since 2001.

Gallup revisited the issue in today’s poll, and finds that climate change comes in dead last even within the broader environmental category:

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a new report this week warning of the existing and potentially severe adverse future impact of climate change, yet most Americans continue to express low levels of concern about the phenomenon. A little more than a third say they worry “a great deal” about climate change or about global warming, putting these concerns at the bottom of a list of eight environmental issues.

Americans’ concerns about global warming and climate change have held steady over the past year, while concerns about other environmental threats tested by Gallup have increased. The percentage expressing a great deal of worry about pollution of drinking water, as well as contamination of soil and water by toxic waste, increased by seven percentage points. Worry about climate change and global warming, on the other hand, went up by no more than two points versus last year.

Americans’ generally low level of concern about global warming compared with other environmental issues is not new; warming has generally ranked last among Americans’ environmental worries each time Gallup has measured them with this question over the years. Concern about pollution of drinking water has generally been at the top of the list.

Gallup notes that politics rather than any other demographics tend to predict concern on global warming, but … only to a limited extent. That limit, by the way, is the Democratic Party, 56% of whose voters worry “a great deal” about AGW. That is the only demo with a majority who does. Majorities of Republicans, independents, and voters 50 years old and up worry “only a little/not at all.” The only other demos where “a great deal” hits a plurality are 18-29YOs (38/30) and 30-49YOs (barely at 41/40).

Gallup frets that the IPCC reports seem to have little effect on American opinion, but that’s not exactly news. Part of the reason is that Americans are suspicious when the UN demands authority to run American policy, which is what the IPCC’s aim is with energy, and the other part is that the hyperbolic claims of the IPCC and its supporters generally have turned out to be entirely wrong. The Wall Street Journal noted this last month by publishing this chart of IPCC predictions about global climate, and the reality of it:

Scientific hypotheses that fail to meet predicted outcomes are usually disregarded. The only reason that the AGW hypothesis survives is that it allows the usual suspects to justify the seizure of energy production as a means to impose their preferred idea of distributive “justice” on industrial nations.

That’s not the case for all environmental concerns, of course. The list of priorities in today’s Gallup poll shows that Americans generally take a rational and practical view of environmental protection. They’re just not ready to commit economic suicide just because Turtle Bay finds itself filled with Chicken Littles.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

…Demorats…do not care…they need squirrels and are counting on the MSM to help!

KOOLAID2 on April 4, 2014 at 12:44 PM

What if you told a lie and no one believed you?

BobMbx on April 4, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Well, it’s a good thing we haven’t wasted any money on this global hoax…

… Oh, wait!

Billions spent in Obama climate plan may be virtually useless, study suggests

Seven Percent Solution on April 4, 2014 at 12:52 PM

So, are there enough cattle cars in North America to load up all us “man made climate change deniers” and take us to prison camp like leftists have been openly calling for of late?

ConstantineXI on April 4, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Well, perhaps they should make global warming gay. Then everyone will be forced to agree with it … or have their lives destroyed and their jobs lost.

darwin on April 4, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Record brutal winter will do that to you.

rbj on April 4, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Further proof that the great unwashed need to be governed by their betters …

/Elitist Leftard

ShainS on April 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM

The list of priorities in today’s Gallup poll shows that Americans generally take a rational and practical view of environmental protection. They’re just not ready to commit economic suicide just because Turtle Bay finds itself filled with Chicken Littles wannabee Schickelgrubers.

Fixed for accuracy. They’re after power, and the ability to create their Utopia- on everyone else’s backs.

Chicken Little was a panicky, uncoordinated hatchling. This bunch is about as panicky and uncoordinated as Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry.

And they’ve been at this going back to the “New Ice Age” scare of the Seventies, just changing their story when it became obvious to everybody else that they were bullshitting on the “Ice Age” side.

They demanded “de-industrialization” that time, too. And opposed nuclear and hydroelectric power, “because Gaia”(!).

Considering that their direct action arm is apparently rehearsing strikes against the U.S. power grid, I suspect we’re on the verge of some “media event” to justify their demands for “Action Now!!”

clear ether

eon

eon on April 4, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Perhaps because it is a hoax perpetrated upon the weak minded in order to make them feel guilty and control them.

dentalque on April 4, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Keep it simple: Use facts.

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/

Data
Truth
Facts
Open debate

The climate change/global warming/ CO2 kills operation is a crime of lies and fraud. They now know we know it and are running a rear guard cover up operation now.

They hide the data, the computer code is a fraud, and the fact is the whole of it is a world wide tax and spend commie operation.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 4, 2014 at 1:03 PM

The in house investigation clearing Michael Mann’s work was declared valid and conclusive before being ended by Penn State’s president, Graham Spanier, now on trial for perjury in the Sandusky crimes. Just sayin’….

butch on April 4, 2014 at 1:05 PM

Scientific hypotheses that fail to meet predicted outcomes are usually disregarded.

Except this hasn’t failed. If you look at when the first predictions were made (1920′s) and the temperature trends we have had (rise of 0.15 C per decade), global warming is pretty close. The plot you show is very deceptive, since even model predictions have error bars and the global warming temperatures are at the lower end of the error bars. You can contrast that against the hypothesis that there is no warming or that the sun is causing it which are *massively* at variance with the temperature record. AGW theory is not perfect, but it is far closer than the other alternatives.

I’ll give you an example of bad scientific hypothesis. Your link is to McNider and Christy. McNider and Cristy criticizing other people’s models is the height of gall. These guys spent years insisting that the satellite data showed no warming. When they *finally* shared their data — all ground data is public — it was found that they had a sign error in their orbit corrections and that warming was happening after all. Talk about your Climategates.

Hal_10000 on April 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM

All that having been said, I also would place AGW low on the list of priorities right now, mostly because we don’t have a solid way of addressing it yet.

Hal_10000 on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

CO2 the plant food, commies fear it.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 4, 2014 at 1:09 PM

The in house investigation clearing Michael Mann’s work was declared valid and conclusive before being ended by Penn State’s president, Graham Spanier, now on trial for perjury in the Sandusky crimes. Just sayin’….

Except that there were six other investigations by other institutions, including both the UK and US governments, including one called for by the GOP, which came to the same conclusion.

Hal_10000 on April 4, 2014 at 1:09 PM

And truth be told it’s bs what they say about CO2.

There’s no evidence that CO2 causes temperature change. None. In 2003 the ipcc admitted this, and Al Gore knew it, yet in 2005 Al Gore went ahead in his movie and falsely claimed a causal correlation between CO2 and temperature. See the warmists’ claims on CO2 debunked, and Al Gore’s willful deceptions exposed in this must see 3 minute video:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag

anotherJoe on April 4, 2014 at 1:12 PM

So, are there enough cattle cars in North America to load up all us “man made climate change deniers” and take us to prison camp like leftists have been openly calling for of late?

ConstantineXI on April 4, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Let ‘em try, and we’ll see what happens.

gryphon202 on April 4, 2014 at 1:12 PM

One way to put another nail in this lie base fraud is to help

Mark Steyn with his legal bills with Michael Mann.

http://www.steynonline.com/

Buy a gift cert. from his on line store and never use it.

Easy way to help.

Steyn seems will not back down. Help him stand our ground.

Lies kill.

Truth is life.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 4, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Hal_10000 on April 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM

All of my models are perfect too when retoractively applied back to 1920. That’s extraordinary, isn’t it?

Models are only valid if they can accurately predict future events, not past events. And the Gorebal Warming models have all failed consistently to do so.

NotCoach on April 4, 2014 at 1:16 PM

Sounds like Obama is going to have to cook up some environmental disaster to get us to pay attention to this non-existent problem. A multi-billion dollar new program perhaps, called ObamaEnvironment or ObamaPlanet maybe

clippermiami on April 4, 2014 at 1:17 PM

I wonder how many environmentalist sympathizers are headed to North Dakota…

Food on the table.

workingclass artist on April 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Hal_1000,

It being the case public funds were used by Mann etal to cook the books why is it he/they refuse to let others look at the code, the data, the whole of the data base?

Whats to hide?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 4, 2014 at 1:19 PM

The environment in general ranks pretty low on the list of concerns for “environmentalists”.

Flange on April 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Control freaks are out of hand.

Email press@mozilla.org and tell the fascist thugs to back down.

John the Libertarian on April 4, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Except that there were six other investigations by other institutions, including both the UK and US governments, including one called for by the GOP, which came to the same conclusion.

Hal_10000 on April 4, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Lots of money to be made. Forgive me if I don’t accept either the UK or US governments as objective sources of information one can believe. And, we all saw those East Anglian emails regarding the manipulation of peer review for scientific publications.

butch on April 4, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Global Warming does exist. In the 4.5+ billion years of the Earth’s existance, there have been thousands, if not millions, of periods of Global Warming, and Global Cooling. And, in every instance, just like now, humans had no impact on causing the period the Global Warming or Global Cooling. Heck, we weren’t even around for 99.9999% of them.

To think that we can cause or stop a period of Global Warming or Global Cooling is to give ourselves much more credit than we deserve. There are too many variables of which we have ZERO control: solar activity, cloud formations and patterns, ocean currents and capture and release of CO2 from the oceans, etc.

The “deniers” are correct in that the Global Warming scare is a hoax aimed at economic control and to line the pockets of those perpetuating the hoax (AlGore, et al). It is not “settled science” if the facts (no warming in the past 17 years) are contrary to the “predictions.” And “predictions” are not science. They are simply predictions. When the predictions are wrong, you throw out your theory and start over. But too many liberal Global Warming adherants are vested in the hoax to admit they were wrong.

GAlpha10 on April 4, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Global warming is nothing more than a vehicle for world socialism … guess Americans aren’t buying it. Nice.

Whitey Ford on April 4, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Green Guru James Lovelock On Climate Change: I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess.”

James Lovelock: ”IPCC is too politicized & too internalized’ — On Green religion: ‘I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air’

Lovelock was once one of the leading voices of climate alarm. See: 2006 Climate Shocker: Lovelock Predicted Global Warming Doom: ‘Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic’

Fast Forward to April 2012: ‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock reverses himself: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change & so was Gore! ‘The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago’

thatsafactjack on April 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM

James Lovelock: Environmentalism has become a religion.

Scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis says environment movement does not pay enough attention to facts and he was too certain in the past about rising temperatures

thatsafactjack on April 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Love that picture at the top of the thread. Did she see some global warming and bust a strap?

butch on April 4, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Except that there were six other investigations by other institutions, including both the UK and US governments, including one called for by the GOP, which came to the same conclusion.

Hal_10000 on April 4, 2014 at 1:09 PM

The GOP? Who cares, what’s your point?

bernzright777 on April 4, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Get back to us know when the warmists finally decide to comply with FOIA law and find/share their data.

blink on April 4, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Unredacted data. :)

butch on April 4, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Gallup notes that politics rather than any other demographics tend to predict concern on global warming, but … only to a limited extent. That limit, by the way, is the Democratic Party, 56% of whose voters worry “a great deal” about AGW. That is the only demo with a majority who does. Majorities of Republicans, independents, and voters 50 years old and up worry “only a little/not at all.” The only other demos where “a great deal” hits a plurality are 18-29YOs (38/30) and 30-49YOs (barely at 41/40).

There’s probably a reason for this disparity among age groups. A person now 18-29 years old (born in 1985 or later) has heard global-warming scaremongering for his/her entire life. People now under 40 years old (born 1974 or later) never experienced global cooling, which ended about the year 1975.

But people over 50 (born 1964 or earlier) were able to read the scare headlines of the early 1970′s warning of declining crop yields, food shortages, and a “coming ice age” due to the cooling trend observed up through 1975, and are probably relieved that the Ice Age never came. But since they do remember a cooling trend, they also know that a warming trend could end, and another cooling trend could happen.

Steve Z on April 4, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Oh please. Look at the facts. Do you really want to be the idiot that’s pointing to white washed investigations and claim that no wrong-doing occurred?

Oh, please, look at the facts. Berkeley Earth — run by climate skeptics — got all the temperature data, did their own analysis and came to the same conclusions. The proof is in the pudding.Other groups, especially skeptical ones, analyze the data and come to the same conclusions.

It’s becoming clear that no investigation will ever convince the critics. Seven independent investigations, one overseen by climate skeptic Jim Inhofe, and people still say, “Whitewash”. What investigation will convince you? Apparently, only one that concludes it’s all a fraud.

Hal_10000, do you know anything about the hockey stick? Do you know how it was developed? Are you going to claim that it’s a product of a real science?

Yes, I do. And McIntyre’s analysis eventually showed that, given the correct methods, you still get a hockey stick. Moreover, you get it from multiple groups using multiple independent indicators. The hockey stick criticism was valid a decade ago.

Get back to us know when the warmists finally decide to comply with FOIA law and find/share their data.

The data *are* publicly available. You can go to BEST’s website and find all of it.

Hal_10000 on April 4, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Thing is, there are legit criticisms of climate science, especially when you’re talking about the second IPCC report on the impact. The future amount of warming is very uncertain, even in the best models. The impact of global warming is, at best, speculative. As the science has advanced, the doomsday scenarios have become less likely (though not impossible). The technology to stop it isn’t there and we continue to see money and policy chase chimeras like wind and abandon good policies like nuclear power. That’s what we should be debating, not ten-year old rehashes of the hockey stick debate.

Hal_10000 on April 4, 2014 at 1:59 PM

“This article offers a rationale for the phenomenon of climate change accentuation or exaggeration on the part of the international mainstream media or other pro-environmental organizations.” — ‘We show that the aforementioned exaggeration of climate damage may alleviate the problem of insufficient IEA participation.”
“In fact, our key result—that overpessimism alleviates the underparticipation problem—implies that the propaganda of climate skepticism may be detrimental to the society,” the authors conclude on page two, footnote #5.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/04/shock-peer-reviewed-paper-advocates-information-manipulation-exaggeration-in-global-warming-debate-to-enhance-global-welfare-published-in-american-journal-of-agricultural-economics/

At least you have license to lie about it.

Murphy9 on April 4, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Dang. This will likely impact the market for my new “Flatus Fire” rectal methane neutralizer I’ve been developing.

otlset on April 4, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Lomborg: ‘Climate policies have a cost, and these predominantly hurt the poor’ — ‘Climate policies take an even larger toll on people in the developing world. Almost three billion people rely on burning twigs and dung to cook and keep warm. This causes indoor air pollution, at the cost of 4.3 million lives a year, and creates the world’s biggest environmental problem. Access to cheap and plentiful electricity is one of the most effective ways out of poverty — curtailing indoor air pollution and allowing refrigeration to keep food from spoiling (and people from starving). Cheap electricity charges computers that connect the poor to the world. It powers agriculture and businesses that provide jobs and economic growth.’
‘So in choosing to spend that $10 billion on renewables, we deliberately end up choosing to leave more than 70 million people in darkness and poverty.’

Murphy9 on April 4, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Once you take the time to notice that virtually every Gorebal Warming alarmist has a carbon footprint larger that that of BigFoot, it’s not hard to just not care.

J_Crater on April 4, 2014 at 2:32 PM

AGW theory is not perfect, but it is far closer than the other alternatives.

Hal_10000 on April 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM

To paraphrase… AGW theory is a lie, but it is closer to the truth than other lies.

But it’s still a lie. And we already know that. Your continued emission of greenhouse gasses will not convert us who understand the truth.

I also would place AGW low on the list of priorities right now, mostly because we don’t have a solid way of addressing it yet.

Hal_10000 on April 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Sure… shut your mouth and stop emitting further greenhouse gasses. Other self-righteous, environmentally conscious liberals should do the same.

Unless it’s really not about greenhouse gasses…

dominigan on April 4, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Tom Steyer has gotten the most gentle press possible for a “rent seeking leech on the American taxpayer.” His $100 million for Climate Change is merely the cost of lobbying Congress for his personal wealth building as he recycles government “green energy” money to his enablers, yet it is treated like some sort of magnanimous gift by the minion press.

J_Crater on April 4, 2014 at 2:34 PM

The future amount of warming is very uncertain, even in the best models. The impact of global warming is, at best, speculative. As the science has advanced, the doomsday scenarios have become less likely
Hal_10000 on April 4, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Then I’m not really sure what your point is. You can say that doomsday as the fear mongering Chicken Littles keep squawking about is not going to happen, and everything is going to be fine, but lets nevertheless try to keep the public in hysterics about the (non) warming anyway. (?)

Instead, why not go whole hog and say it’s flat out baloney… all of it, the models have ALL failed dramatically, their doomsday predictions have ALL failed to come true, every one. And, as mentioned above, about CO2, check out this video showing that the very core of the warmist theory is rotten: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag

“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989

Didn’t happen. The sea is just the same as it was in 1989, and as it was in 1969. Those that are older that have been to beaches then and now know what I’m talking about. If the data says one thing, our own eyes say something else: there has been no change in the sea level. Oh, maybe it’s 3mm higher. Wow, the tip of your finger higher. And that’s the greatest scare tactic of the fear mongers, saying the sea level is going to rise. It’s not going to happen. Period. End of story.

anotherJoe on April 4, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Obamacare will be THE issue in 2014 and 2016. Count on it. Too many people have been lied to, screwed, and forced to pay a lot more money for a lot less coverage. If the Republicans are smart, they should beat the Democrats with this issue just like a hunter beats a seal with a bat. Only difference is, I feel sorry for the seal, not for Obamacare.

Libertyship46 on April 4, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

Abstract

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

J_Crater on April 4, 2014 at 2:55 PM

I’m a big tree hugger, and I see the climate alarmism as something that diverts money and attention away from actual problems with real solutions. Sometimes the obsession with Satan’s Molecule actually prevents doing ecological restoration and saving species. It makes me tear my hair out.

juliesa on April 4, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Gallup: Global warming ranks at bottom of environmental issues for Americans

That is because it is not an environmental issue, it is an economic and political issue.

Politicians and grant-funded scientists found that they can generate funding based on the whether. Weather constantly changes, so it is truly one issue that can never be resolved.

Funding always increases to prevent the next major disaster after the last major disaster.

airupthere on April 4, 2014 at 3:01 PM

airupthere on April 4, 2014 at 3:01 PM

err. weather not whether.

airupthere on April 4, 2014 at 3:02 PM

err. weather not whether.

airupthere on April 4, 2014 at 3:02 PM

No, you had it right the first time.
…based on the whether they can con enough suckers….

dentarthurdent on April 4, 2014 at 3:06 PM

I guess we’ll all have to go to jail.

RobertMN on April 4, 2014 at 3:58 PM

This poll may explain why the official AGW fraud folks have publicly altered their predictions–like weather men who look out the window and predict anew based upon there embarrassing prediction failures.
Gotta maintain some credibility for the next scientific-political complex fraud they’ve planned.

Don L on April 4, 2014 at 4:45 PM

OK, Ed, you produced a graph, which you say fails to support a theory of anthropogenic global warming. Congratulations for showing a graph, and attempting (or at least appearing to) inject some actual data into your thesis.
So, I looked at the source from which you indicate that the graph was derived. This source is supposedly the report of the American Meterological Society’s “State of the Climate in 2012”, published in August of 2013. This report is available online at no charge. Here is the link, Ed, in case you actually want to look at the report from which you think you quote: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2013BAMSStateoftheClimate.1
Now, I scanned through the entire report, which is an extensive compilation of data from many, many sources, and is the work of hundreds of folks who are involved in meterological data collection and analysis (in other words, Ed, they are experts in the subject).
Nowhere did I see the graph that you display in your article. Nowhere did I see any graphical comparison of satellite and/or balloon data versus model outputs. Maybe I just missed it, and if I did, you would be so kind as to indicate where the graph resides in the report.
I did notice some very relevant information, with regard to global warming. And if you look at page S8, you will notice pictorial representations of surface anomalies and lower troposphere anomalies as well. On S11, you will also find an extensive collection of graphs that display temperature trends over a considerable period of time (within the instrumental record). And these graphs show a very obvious trend in terms of temperature averages, in terms of anomalies.
This report is not about modeling, but rather a perspective of the year 2012, in terms of meterological events and summaries of the year and how the year fits into trends that have been tracked for many decades (in some cases).
Responsible journalism involves citing sources of information. If you display a graph (as you did) or give any factual information, you state its location so that others may look at it in the original source and read it for themselves. You didn’t provide that information, which is a minimum expected for responsible journalism. In fact, unless you can show me that graph within the publication quoted, I must assume that you are being deceitful either intentionally or by gross journalistic negligence.
Also, I might add that the most important information for us residents of the surface of planet earth is the surface temperature, as well as the lower tropospheric temperature (your graph only concerns mid-troposphere temperatures – why are you so fixated on just that?). Upper and middle tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures can be revealing as well, in terms of testing theories – particularly those concerning global warming. You may note that stratospheric temperatures have trended downward of late, which may very well support the notion and theory of anthropogenic global warming because as vertical heat transfer from the lower atmosphere slows, then stratospheric temperatures should decrease – at least until conditions more approximating heat transfer equilibrium are established. For the stratosphere trends, please refer to the report pages that I cite.
So, Ed, I know you must read these comments. I am awaiting your reply concerning your graph. Show me where you engaged in responsible journalism. Until then, I don’t buy it. As for the theme of your article, you may be right concerning public perception of the AGW issue. But perception in the public venue doesn’t equate to seriousness of the issue. Nothing is more fickle than public perception. The next blistering hot summer will change public perception on a dime.

oakland on April 5, 2014 at 7:46 AM

As a post-script, Ed, if you didn’t attempt to abide by journalistic integrity by tracking down the graph in the indicated source, at least please show where (in the WSJ) this graph appears. I would love to see what commentary issued forth from the WSJ editor regarding the graph.

oakland on April 5, 2014 at 8:21 AM

oakland on April 5, 2014 at 8:21 AM

When do you start stuffing the trains with the recalcitrants comrade?

fking stalinist.

Murphy9 on April 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM