the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

USA Leads the world again

Posted by Jeff Id on April 27, 2011

Free press with access to non-liberal sources is completely to blame for this.  Does your country get conservative talk radio?  Do you even get Fox news?

This was posted at WUWT.  The poll is telling.  From too much experience, Euro’s see the US public as ignorant, often the feeling is mutual.   We’re all people but the news sources in the US are more balanced in my opinion.  Look at the effect it has:

The United States of America leads the world in the belief that global warming is of natural causes.  Yes, every climatologist sees our public as stupid idiots, I feel the same contempt for many of the climatologists although I no longer wonder if idiocy causes the incorrect conclusions. Advocacy is the obvious culprit.  The difference between countries though is that nobody has ever proven the observed warming is anything other than natural variance — and look where the USA comes out!

47% natural causes.

I suppose natural causes could include the propensity to believe authority but?  …………………

Well, as our almost certainly doomed economy dwindles to nothing,  what does that percentage reveal.  I’ll explain it in one simple sentence which far too much of humanity hasn’t ever put into appropriate context.

You can’t trust one single thing told to you by any government, even if they say what you want to hear.  The official incentives are separate from society needs and needs are too easy to manipulate with compliant media.

As Michael Savage likes to say — Beware the government media complex.

It looks to me like the stupid Americans may have it right this time, although the more likely accurate response is bad observation followed by  I don’t really know.  The one hundred percent inaccurate response by most of the world is without question ‘a result of human activities’.  Nobody has proven that.

I can say that I believe in Anthropogenic warming.  It is a real effect to which there is no question.  My questions are more difficult (as always in this life), how much warming, did we truly detect it accurately, and is it really a problem?  All very difficult questions to which the leftists all seem to have both perfect understanding and solutions.  It is no coincidence that near all the leftist IPCC, US govt, UN, UK, etc.  solutions are also extraordinarily destructive to business.

I am a lot of things but I am not fooled.

38 Responses to “USA Leads the world again”

  1. Steve S said

    Firstly from the UK:

    Steinhilber et al. (2010) recently deduced the near-Earth IMF at the end of the Maunder Minimum was 1.80 ± 0.59 nT – considerably lower than the revised floor of 4nT proposed by Svalgaard and Cliver. We combine cosmogenic and geomagnetic reconstructions and modern observations (with allowance for the effect of solar wind speed and structure on near-Earth data) to derive an estimate for the open solar flux of (0.48 ± 0.29) × 10^14 Wb at the end of the Maunder Minimum. By comparison, the largest and smallest annual means recorded by instruments in space between 1965 and 2010 are 5.75 × 10^14 Wb and 1.37 × 10^14 Wb, respectively, set in 1982 and 2009. The maximum of the 11 year running means was 4.38 × 10^14 Wb in 1986. The average open solar flux during the Maunder Minimum is found to have been 11% of its peak value during the recent grand solar maximum.

    Secondly from Switzerland:

    The 9300-year long composite of solar activity (Steinhilber et al., 2008) shows that during the past six decades the Sun has been in a state of high solar activity compared to the entire period of 9300 years. The statistics suggest that the current period of high activity will come to an end in the next decades (Abreu et al., 2008). The distribution of grand solar minima in the past 9300 years shows it is likely that a Maunder Minimum-like period would occur around 2100 AD (Abreu et al., 2010). Such a period would probably lead to a temporary reduction in Earth’s temperature rise due to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

    Click to access Steinhilber%20and%20Beer_2011-1%285-6%29.pdf

    In all fairness, I note the above paper also makes the following obligatory AGW salute:

    “However, the 9300-year long record shows that in the past a grand maximum has always been followed by a period of high activity, with the very likely assumption that the Sun’s future behavior will be similar to that of the past, it is clear that the Sun will not permanently compensate for human-made global warming.”

    But just consider for a moment that this study only considered the last <10,000 years i.e. roughly the post-glacial Holocene period.

    This puts aside the undeniable fact that this ~10,000 year period is an interglacial!

    On longer timescales than 10,000 years, we have had 17 or 18 ~100,000 year glacial/interglacial cycles over the last 1.5 million years, during which most interglacials (peak warm periods) lasted only of the order of 10,000 years.

    This is an equally well known and totally inexorable longer cycle in the longstanding relationship between the Sun and the Earth (based on precessional and orbital variations).

    This interglacial we live in has already lasted, in strict terms, about 12,000 years – i.e. already more bountiful timewise than the many of the last 10 interglacials.

    Thus it could be argued that we might already be living on borrowed time, waiting around blindly for the start of the slow slide into the next ice age.

    On top of this backdrop we now hear that another finer scale of Sun-Earth variation will probably give a us a Maunder-style minimum around the year 2100. The Thames will freeze over again. In fact, I was looking at it only about 4 months ago and I can tell the Thames got pretty damn cold this winter!

    So, how and why are we meant to get alarmed about AGW now? I'm lost in a fog of denialism.

    Doesn't AGW simply offer mankind and its civilization a degree of moderation of the (possibly overdue) slow cold slide out of this current interglacial and into the coming ice age?

    Or is even poor Milankovitch now just another one of those nasty minority denialists?

  2. apl said

    Surely ‘Both’ is a more reasonable answer. I would not be proud that almost half the population of the US believe that mankind have no involvement at all in global warming.

  3. Kan said

    34% of the US respondents must have been from Texas – they take credit for everything. 🙂

  4. kim said

    We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.

  5. steveta_uk said

    What about the proportion of people who think humans are a “natural cause”?

  6. kim said

    Naw, clearly an alien invasive species. Like rabbits in Australia.

    Oops, aliens are natural, too.

  7. Plus, we have people with enough time on their hands to put things into perspective. We.are.puny.

    We thump on the thermometers, graph our results, re-sift the data, move our gauges by ten miles across or two miles higher and we think we’re really onto something!

  8. GT said

    Trust no one.
    – The X-files

  9. Gary said

    The real question is:

    Do you think concern about rising temperatures is
    a) a result of human activities
    b) a result of observations of nature

  10. RB said

    Well, polls are just like those California voters who think that vehicle registration fees are the leading source of state revenues. . No need to blame the government media complex, the finger can point inwards.

  11. Derek said

    Jeff wrote,
    ” I can say that I believe in Anthropogenic warming. ”
    ” I am a lot of things but I am not fooled. ”

    I originally left UK sites alone because they are mostly not worth reading or beyond saving…
    In America / American sites I have found far more willingness and scope of inquiry into ALL possibilities.

    But belief and egos, wow, they can cause troubles..

  12. Jeff Id said


    It takes little ego to understand the basic physics.

  13. Tom said

    It scares me that such a small percentage of people in the U.S. say they don’t know. I’m not sure the arguments on either side are either convincing enough or clear enough to justify that. It just seems evidence that belief on climate change has reverted to political affiliation.

  14. Eric Steig said

    Hmm.. the only reasonable response is actually ‘both’, so the lead actually goes to Eastern and Southern Europe, followed by Western Europe and then Canada. If there is just one thing that everyone in the climate blogosphere can agree on, it is surely that. After all, the poll didn’t ask (apparently) which ‘predominates’.

  15. Jeff Id said


    Eastern and Southern Europe blew their responses by going 46% with human activity with a high percentage playing the middle ground. Every informed person knows AGW it isn’t really that clean, yet they also know what the IPCC would prefer. The US has rebuffed the ‘consensus’ correctly in this case. Perhaps too strongly by expressing nature only, but like the IPCC they cannot yet be proven incorrect. Measured atmospheric warming to date may very well be mostly from natural causes. I don’t know, and I did try to figure it out. Lately there has been so little time for AGW, I’ve dropped my studies but if there is an article which I should read, I will.

  16. Alcheson said

    Eric, I’m sure your disappointed with the survey but I must say I agree with Jeff. If I would have taken the survey I would have selected “Natural Causes” as opposed to “Both” even thou I think some (perhaps a few tenths of a degree) are due to human activities. My reasoning would be – I can easily see the media(and people like Eric) spinning it as “the vast majority of people think global warming is due almost exclusively to, or at least substantially to, human activities”. Also, “Both” was a volunteered answer, so it wasn’t even an official option I would presume?

  17. Alcheson said

    Also Eric, by not including “Both” as an official option, it would necessarily imply that it is “Primarily a result of…” since you could only officially choose one or the other.

  18. Derek said

    Post 12
    ” It takes little ego to understand the basic physics. ”

    I prefer no ego, no belief, and as much as possible real world observation.
    Not belief in unrealistic flasks, none existent “physical effects”, and taking some pleasure from mildly questioning patently doctored data sets.
    But, each to their own.

  19. Beth Cooper said

    I don’t have Australian polling as such on AGW but in a recent poll the Federal Labor Govt is well behind its Liberal Party opposition, 44%-56% because of its proposed widely unpopular carbon tax,(59% do not want it.) The tax is opposed by The Liberals. ‘Liberal’ in Australian politics means ‘classic Liberal,’ not ‘Left progressive’. 🙂 This year the Liberal party also won a landslide victory in the State of Victoria where Labor previously held a large majority of seats.

  20. Old Hoya said

    Clearly, we need to increase the “not aware” figures and decrease the “natural causes” responses so we can be more like the global average and not try to be special.

    We must learn to lead from behind and make sure we Americans don’t have any undue impact on the views of other nations. Besides, people who attribute so much to natural causes can’t possibly have any respect for nature.

  21. mrmethane said

    You’re being sarcastic, aren’t you? Aren’t you?

  22. Derek said

    ” We must learn to lead from behind and make sure we Americans don’t have any undue impact on the views of other nations. ”

    Look, in no small measure, this is one time that the USA, and it seems Australia, could actually save the western world from self inflicted implosion.
    Yes, the US public is painted in the UK as being, well, sorry about this, there ain’t no subtle way, thick,
    but they did vote in Obama. Which has not helped things really has it..

    Those of us that actually look for ourselves know different. I have often said in conversations recently, how do you think the UK would of dealt with the Healthcare debate that has been ongoing in the US. In short, the UK public are not well enough informed (by themselves, let alone the media) to have even attempted what the US public did.

    In the end the US has a democracy, the UK does not, not in the same sense at all. The sad thing is that most in the UK do not even see this, even if you tell them. They are simply too brainwashed / thick to see what is infront of their eyes, everyday, everywhere you care to look.

    Just the other day i noted that a one euro piece fits the supermarket trolley made for £1 coins…
    But we are not going into the euro, no, no, of course not. Don’t be silly.
    Not until Blighty is bankrupt, and when will that be….

    As I said, this could be the one time the US actually does save the western world, from what has been massively funded by the EU. ie, AGW politics.
    I have far more faith in the American public than the UK public in this matter.

  23. I just re-read the famous BBC interview of Phil Jones , from 13 February 2010.

    Jones lists the warming per CRU, 1860 to 2009: 0.64 deg C, +/-?? — or a big, big 0.046 deg C per decade. Woo-hoo! Stop the world economy!

    Good grief.

    Jones has backpeddled since, but it’s a very revealing interview, when he was actually (maybe) rethinking his position.

    Best, Pete Tillman

    “I will tell you, nowhere in there, nowhere, not in one page, not in one phrase uttered and reported by the Lord Jesus Christ, can you find anything that suggests that there is a virtue in cutting children from Medicaid and taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich!” — John Kerry, speech in NYC, 4-7-06

  24. Matthew W. said

    Amazing as to how many are NOT AWARE !!!!!!!!
    Half the world is just trying to get enough to eat every day and aren’t aware of this silliness !!

  25. Geoff Sherrington said

    Much Australian resistance arises from an overbearing and sometimes dishonest style of Government at all 3 levels, Federal, State and Local.

    In a typical example of style – and this can be applied to several aspects of anthropogenic climate change – a department or authority will ask for a huge increase in funding in the coming year(s). Part of the justification might be that there has already been a purchase of some expensive equipment, but it will be useless unless an unapparent complication is rectified by the large injection of new funds. The Victoria Police command has just pulled this one, asking for an out-of-budget $100 million. They put themselves on a tiger’s back by previously buying a $30 million program that does not interface unless another $100 million is spent.

    Typically, the discussion is dominantly about costs and hardly about benefits. Are there better ways to spend $100 million to catch crooks? Nobody seems to have worked it out, or if they have, it’s secret.

    It’s annoying to see this type of tactic time and again, but the really annoying feature is that the public is often uninformed until after the event. A decision to build a desalination plant was not debated in public to any sensible degree. It just appeared, then it was slowly dribbled that it might not be needed for a decade if normal rainfall returns after the last drought. However, the contract between Government and desalinator requires a huge annual fee to be paid even if no water is needed in future years, additional to the construction capital.

    The climate change debate put millions of voters offside when it was realised that substantial funds had been committed without the knowledge or debate of the people. This is especially true of taxation plans. Last week or so, the two world-sized mining companies that are presently propping up the economy (often mining resources that my generation found) objected to a carbon tax. They are both multinational and it would worry them little to change the emphasis of their operations to other countries. The voting public does not like the “Robin Hood Tax” concept whereby the Government takes money from the rich and then keeps it. It is especially upset to discover that 10% might go to the United Nations, a minor point that has not been shouted from the roof-tops.

    So how much does CO2 warm the country? Nobody knows. Daily, fewer people care.

  26. stan said

    Never discount the extraordinary level of incompetence that permeates climate science. Yes, corruption, fraud and rampant dishonesty are in evidence. But basic, garden variety stupid is also well-represented.

  27. Derek said

    CO2 in perspective…

    Thermal mass.
    ” Joe Olsen: what humans have done is put twenty-eight giga-tons…
    that’s tons with nine-zeroes behind it…of carbon dioxide in the air.
    Carbon dioxide is a three-atom molecule…it’s like nano-dust. ”

    ” Joe Olsen: The twenty-eight giga-tons means less than three cubic miles on a planet with
    two-hundred-and-fifty-nine trillion cubic miles of molten rock…or three-hundred-and-ten million cubic miles of ocean.
    So basically, the carbon dioxide is the ball bearing and the planet is the swimming pool. ”

    ” Joe Olsen: You can take a red-hot ball bearing and drop it in a swimming pool and
    they’re both going to reach the same temperature rather quickly as a function of specific heat, mass and difference in temperature.
    But I guarantee you, the ball bearing will not warm the pool up much…

    In a private communication Joe Olsen continues,
    ” in this case the ball bearing is CO2 and it is NOT red hot “

  28. Eric Anderson said

    Look, the survey is a rough instrument, as most surveys are, because there are only large dichotomous breakdowns and not enough nuanced responses are available. Sure, we could argue “both” is the best answer, because, hey people have to have *some* effect, right? But taking this technical approach, while academically perhaps more satisfying, is, unfortunately, also misleading, because it can be interpreted as some kind of similar weighting. If one thinks that human activities are a non-zero but relatively minor aspect, then one might well answer “natural causes” as being the answer that best represents one’s viewpoint. If you think it is 50-50 or even 60-40, of course you should answer “both.” But if you think it is 10-90 or 1-99, your viewpoint is probably better represented by saying “natural causes,” even though, yes, human activities play a non-zero role.

    In my conversations, I would say there are a lot of folks who agree that, yes, human activities have some role, but who think that this role is probably relatively minor. So far, I don’t think anyone has effectively demonstrated otherwise.

  29. Eric Anderson said

    Alcheson, I apologize I didn’t notice the asterisk at first. I see now that “both” wasn’t even an option. Therefore, contra Eric Steig, the “only reasonable response” among the official survey options, per my above explanation, would be “natural causes.” Glad to see that number as high as it is in the U.S.

    And it is also good to see that so many people noticed the question was too dichotomous and actually offered up “both.”

  30. Eric Steig said

    I hadn’t noticed the asterisk either.

    It is indeed good to see that so many people noticed the question was too dichotomous and actually offered up “both.”

    But evidently the number of people with sufficient knowledge and / or chutzpah to write in the right answer was lower in the U.S. than most of the rest of the industrialized world. This might say even more about social norms in industrialized Asia than anything else though. Only 7% of them did this. The U.S. number is still embarrassingly low.

  31. TerryMN said

    The U.S. number is still embarrassingly low.

    Maybe they should take your Matlab class.

  32. Eric Anderson said

    “The U.S. number is still embarrassingly low.”

    Agreed. The 47% number should be up around 75-80% Ah, well. We’ll get there . . . 🙂

  33. Jeff Id said

    The US matches the best of the world in awareness of the issue yet also is dramatically higher in attribution to natural causes. The conclusion is — our public is aware of the manipulation of data, stats and exaggerated certainty so evident in the science. Until those who have credibility speak out strongly against what is obviously false in climate science, there will be no letup from the thinking people.

    What is also evident is that the global propaganda that the US is somehow intellectually retarded yet accidentally successful is again demonstrably wrong.

  34. Jeff Id said

    The funny thing is that I would have fallen in the 1% group. Don’t know.

  35. RB said

    Then again half of that 47% are probably birthers. Considering that climategate was primarily a European affair, the polls probably say less about intellect and more about what is considered right of center in Europe compared to the U.S.

  36. @RB

    An odd comment. Why would CC science be ideological?

    Except that it is, of course….

    From internal discussions of French GCM model LMD/ISPL: “Olivier has mentionned the problem of snow accumulation reaching several km must be resolved.”

  37. RB said

    Further, contrary to Jeff, it is my opinion that people mostly seek information (or news items) that confirm their political views rather than to learn something new – and this is not something that is unique to climate science.

  38. Re #23, mine, Phil Jones

    Please disregard, as I misread Phil’s confusing little table (as presented by the BBC), and added up the numbers, which actually purport to be decadal averages, with one given twice. Actually, they don’t seem to make sense that way, either. But then, arithmetic, organization, and common sense don’t seem to be part of Dr. Phil’s toolkit, do they?

    “It’s not what we don’t know that’s the problem, it’s what we know that ain’t so.” — Mark Twain (probably)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: