Fifty-four percent said that climate change is a cause of more frequent or severe natural disasters, while 22 percent said it has no impact on extreme weather. Respondents who said human activity was the primary cause of climate change were nearly unanimous in saying that climate change contributed to more frequent or severe natural disasters, and even 34 percent of those who thought climate change was primarily caused by natural environmental patterns agreed about more or worse natural disasters.
Climate Change Poll: Americans Think Government Can Affect The Climate
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Ulric Lyons on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- William on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- William on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- czechlist on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- arn on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- GeologyJim on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Peter Carroll on New BBC Climate Expert
- Peter Carroll on New BBC Climate Expert
- Greg in NZ on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Some people say that climate change is a cause of more frequent or severe droughts and hurricanes. Others say that climate change has no impact on weather. What do you think?
so
The climate makes the weather or the weather makes the climate?
Droughts and hurricanes are less frequent than they used to be.
This particular climate change reduces the impact of weather.
The energy drivers in the system are the temperature differences between the equator and polar regions. According to climatologists, the temperature anomaly at the poles is 6 degrees warmer, and at the equator the anomaly is close to zero. A reduced temperature gradient reduces the ability for the system to do work. The ability for a heat engine to do work is proportional to the difference in temperature between the hot and cold reservoirs.
If the equator were at 60 degrees C and the poles were at -60 degrees C, then the weather would be most extreme.
Our weather is getting less extreme
The counter claim is that more energy in the system means more water vapour and this must lead to more ‘violent’ weather. I don’t know what the basis of this claim is, however. (Whether it has empirical or modelling support.) I haven’t got around to following up the citations in the last IPCC report on this claim.
Our weather is NOT getting either more OR less extreme (and the ~ 1°C change in mean global temperature over the last century or so does not provide for an observable effect even in principle).
Doesn’t matter. If they can’t prove it now empirically, they just shift the argument to proclaim it will become more extreme, any time now…
Wow!
The words “Americans” and “think” – in the same sentence.
Like – wow!
Thats a bit below the lapbanding isn’t it?
This is insane. But it shows that we are losing the battle.
And soon the war. Yes, I hear all over the place (well, on skeptic blogs) how agw theory is on its last legs. Wrong. Far from it. We got a boost from the temperature lull, the demonstration that there is no evidence of a causal correlation between CO2 & temps, and ClimateGate. But that boost is fading. Now it is our turn… to take our lumps. We see our decline in most all of the polls. There’s no way we can hide that decline! Our numbers, since 2011, have been getting worse. Now, the warmists and lib media have recovered from those set backs, and have figured out how to promote
AGWACC to the public regardless of any evidence or demonstrated eco-deception. We are going to be in for it, despite our valiant efforts here and at other blogs.Unless..
Someone does something about it! The evidence is succinctly on our side. But we can’t expect the liberal media to go to bat for us, so we’ve got to step up to the plate ourselves. I’m not in a position, really, to do it myself, so I ask someone else to take the reins. Develop the conceptual framework for an PAC advertising campaign (as, in multiple-ads: 1] there’s nothing unusual about current temps {no hstick}, and 2] no causal CO2 correlation, + subsidiary points {warmist advocacy of deception & scare-mongering, political underpinnings, temperature record bs, sea-level bs, etc}), raise some funds, run the ads, and get a huge amount of automatic additional fund raising as conservatives would contribute en masse. I know this is a tall order. But it wouldn’t be all that hard, and it would change public opinion, and have a huge impact on elections also! It could save the world. Isn’t that our top goal?
Or at least start pushing, like I do, for someone else to do it. That’s the least you could do.
Yes – we are definitely losing the battle.
But this is not necessarily a bad thing. We have to recognise that we are living in the end days of the decline of the American empire. And that empires generally get swept into the dustbin of history fairly quickly – e.g. British empire (gone in less than 20 years) or the Russian empire (gone in less than 5).
The Roman empire was ground down over time under the weight of a new “cargo cult” belief system – an imported religion that was also perceived at the time as “irrational,” given the predisposition of many of its adherents towards martyrdom.
The only encouraging thing is that before the final collapse we can look forward to lots and lots of AGW adherents being fed to the lions or nailed to crosses, so keep plenty of beer in the fridge.
On a more positive note, when the exaggerated claims blow up in their faces, a new generation of sceptics will be born.
(I was taught a whole bunch of nonsense last century, none of it even remotely accurate. Such as the ‘fact’ that all known oil reserves will be exhausted by the year 2000 and so on.)
Not a chance.
The date will just keep moving further out into the future.
Peak Oil is a great example – it is always just around the corner – the “proof” of this being that oil production keeps increasing, so of course it must be exhausted sooner!
There will always be fools promoting causes. But the causes will change. My bets are on animal rights activism as the ‘next big thing’… Remember, socialism transmogrified into a kind of social capitalism. There are no more avowed communists… In the 60’s and 70’s there were many. Socialists no longer ‘attack’ capitalism as a system that is dysfunctional. They don’t even describe themselves as ‘socialists’. The reason why I mention this is only to point out that the current flavour of environmentalism will change and adapt as its current failings become transparent.
The views expressed in the poll have been molded by the corrupt corporate-controlled media, which insist on disseminating AGW propaganda. Scare stories sell newspapers and boost ratings.
The mainstream has become a joke. Instead of investigating and researching the facts, they have decided to become stenographers for those government agencies and grant-seeking scientists who are peddling the global warming agenda. Is it any wonder the blogosphere is giving the conventional media a run for their money. The dead-tree media can no longer be trusted.
Shock news.
People believe what the media tells them.
Repeat after me “Resistance is futile”