USSR Today Global Warming Poll

USSR USA Today presents the official party line on global warming. Some highlights below.

heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor.

Water vapour is far and away the dominant greenhouse gas on Earth. Not the end of the list.

75% have read or heard nothing about either coral bleaching, linked to warmer ocean water temperatures, and 77% are similarly uninformed about ocean acidification, driven by the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide

No one has shown any link between ENSO or AMO and CO2. Recent ocean acidification is purely hypothetical, and correlation with CO2 is non-existent.

39% say that most scientists think global warming is happening, while 38% say there is a lot of disagreement among scientists. (In reality, a 2010 analysis of expert climate scientists’ studies found at least 97% of them think global warming is happening.)

Not surprising that people who are paid to produce reports on global warming believe in it. Here is a more realistic view from the American Physical Society, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.

Dissenting physicists urged members to contact APS biggies, who reviewed input from members. According to APS, some “63 percent of respondents supported the existing statement with little or no change, while 37 percent said they opposed the current statement and wanted either no statement or the alternate statement adopted.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to USSR Today Global Warming Poll

  1. PJB says:

    Hi Steven:

    I am sad to see that your site has been invaded by trolls. In general, I just stop using such sites but since I like your take on things, I will continue here and just ignore those trolling posts.

    The “general” knowledge of CC is like any other. Shaped and warped by media concerns. Iraq and WMD. Afghanistan as the “source” of terrorism anyone? Iran as the next theater of “operations?


    • Sooner or later they will either get educated or go away. ;^) Nobody can keep that energy of delusion up for very long.

      • PJB says:

        Just a note, Steven. Back in 2005, I was concerned (alarmed AND depressed) over the CAGW issue. I was firmly in the alarmist camp and then I saw the Vostok data and started to dig around. It was easy once I got a clearer picture but when the Climategate e-mails came out, I was appalled AND outraged. While my interest and opinion is as fact-based as I can make it (I had thought that the religious zeal of the CAGW adherents was the same concern that I was feeling.) I do appreciate your calm, reasoned and uncensored approach to discussion, no matter how irascible, belligerent or obtuse the commentary.

      • ChrisD says:

        Please understand that I am not suggesting censorship of any on-topic commentary, regardless of tone. The comments I’m referring to are being made by one individual, and they contain absolutely nothing other than ugly and irrelevant personal insults aimed at pretty much everyone here who disagrees with Steve. They add nothing to the discussion, and there is no reason why they should be here. If they’re not removed, a timely “Calm down” from the blog owner would do. This is pretty common practice on good blogs. There’s no excuse for infantile and uncivilized behavior, even among people who disagree strongly. And I would say this no matter who the person was attacking, even if it was one of you.

    • ChrisD says:

      I’ll say it again: “Troll” is a pretty specific term. It does not mean “Anyone who disagrees with me.”

      Listening only to those who agree with you is not the path to knowledge in any endeavor.

      • ChrisD says:

        By the way, nice job of moderating comments that are nothing more than ugly personal insults and add zero to the conversation.

        There’s a big difference between censorship and reasonable moderation.

      • Sorry, don’t do censorship.

      • ChrisD says:

        I’m not talking about censoring because someone has a differing opinion. Some blogs do that (and you know who I mean), but you don’t, and good on you for that.

        What I’m talking about is maintaining a civilized atmosphere. There’s a difference.

      • I have a fundamental belief in human nature that once people air out they all become reasonable.

      • ChrisD says:

        So far it’s not working for “harry”.

      • My experiences with Romm, Schmidt and Tamino censorship largely fuel my efforts now.

        When people feel repressed, they recognize the veil of lies forcing the censorship, and revolt.

        If Romm was telling an honest narrative, he wouldn’t have to censor.

      • ChrisD says:

        I’m not sure you’re following me. I don’t like censorship either, and I don’t like it when anyone does it.

        What I’m talking about is not censorship, it’s moderation. It’s not the same thing. Unlike censorship, moderation is a responsibility of a good blog owner. Just listen to the root of the word. Any opinion should be tolerated. Bad behavior should not.

  2. James Sexton says:

    lol, expert climate scientists! Yes, I asked an expert climate scientist for his credentials in making his various sweeping assertions regarding astrophysics, chemistry, biology, statistics, archeology, history, etc….etc…. still waiting to hear back. To obtain any expertise in climatology, one would necessarily have to demonstrate considerable skill in the all of the above fields of study and much more. Show me one that has or can. Expert indeed.

  3. Information supplied has largely been derived from books and lectures. Little ,if any , has been researched by the individual. No one has been able to supply me with facts and figures to prove global warming or climate change . Most comments are from those who either have a personal agenda , or can derive pecuniary advantage by presenting their opinion ; usually from a political or teaching attachment . Get out and follow a vocation which will provide some benefit to the rest of society.

  4. Don Simpson says:

    Global warming is a test of the public. If you have a theory with absolutely no evidence and no way to prove it, will you believe in the legitimizing agents that always come in front of you and say “Believe in me?”

    In politics there is always the belief that you have to “educate the public” rather than listen to them. Will billions of dollars fool the public? Over time my Guess is unfortunately yes.

  5. R. de Haan says:

    I had the similar thoughts but when I watched public opinion turn on the ClimateGate data release and the continuing decline of the AGW believers I changed my mind.

    Just pick the next climate change article from the Guardian and read the comments.
    99% does not agree with the content of the article which makes it a waste of money.

    We have reached a point where every dollar invested in AGW propaganda is turned against them.

    The blogs, ClimateGate, Mother Nature, the rising costs for power and fuel will do the rest.

  6. R. de Haan says:

    Here is another argument that is even stronger than all above:
    Gaia or cheap gas

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