New Poll Confirms Mounting Climate Concern As Denier Candidates Twist in the Wind

January 31, 2015

Let’s get this party started.

Senator Jeff Sessions, apparently gunning to play Jesse Helms to Jim Inhofe’s Strom Thurmond, took to the Senate floor this week, as one right wing site boasted, to “..tell Warmists to Cool it”, – target rich environment  there

Important that as the hard core climate deniers blow up in their final super nova flare in the coming years, that every one of their political supporters be held to account for the lies, distortions, bad faith and nonsense that they’ll be spewing.

Meanwhile, Robby  Kenner’s new movie ‘Merchants of Doubt”, based on Naomi Oreske’s work, is about to drop – trailer above.  Kenner directed “Food Inc”, which was hugely influential, and much discussed. MOD stands a good chance of becoming that kind of hit, or better, since it will be riding the renewed wave of discussion, and for a lot of folks, awakening, on the climate issue.

Add to the mix that once-firmly climate denying candidates are beginning to shift in response to clear polling data on the issue.  Big development in that Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney announced last week he was “ of the republicans” concerned about climate, and this week dropped out, or was pushed, from the clown car. Several other candidates, including Marco Rubio, and even Rick Perry, showed evidence of reviewing their climate denial rhetoric.
Of course, “ of the republicans” implies that Romney’s internal polling showed there are many more.
So now there’s further confirmation of that.


WASHINGTON — An overwhelming majority of the American public, including half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future.

In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They were less likely to vote for candidates who questioned or denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming.

Among Republicans, 48 percent say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called “the most powerful finding” in the poll. Many Republican candidates question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.

The results came as climate change was emerging as a source of debate in the coming presidential campaign.

In 2012, all the Republican presidential candidates but one — Jon M. Huntsman Jr. — questioned or denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming, and opposed policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But over the past year, President Obama has proposed a series of Environmental Protection Agency regulations intended to reduce carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants, which Republicans in Congress have attacked as a “war on coal.”

But those positions appear to be out of step with the majority of the electorate.

The poll found that 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of independents, say that if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a very or somewhat serious problem in the future.

Tragically, for all of us,  the once great Republican party has made itself the epicenter of climate denial, and will likely be harshly judged for that by historians.
Recommend reading the entire Times story at the link, – there is much there to cheer climate science advocates, and make Political strategists shiver or salivate.


22 Responses to “New Poll Confirms Mounting Climate Concern As Denier Candidates Twist in the Wind”

  1. Here’s the problem for Republicans. People can look outside their windows and see that something is clearly wrong with the weather, leading to the suspicion that the climate is changing drastically.

    Where I live we’re having once in a generation weather events almost once a year. Five years ago we had a 400 year flood, then hurricanes, now a record snow storm and cold weather. You can blather on about the climate “hoax” but events right in front of their noses suggest something different. Only the truly stupid go along with the “it’s a hoax” meme. Those will be less and less.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Well said.

      You are right that people will “…look outside their windows and see that something is clearly wrong with the weather, leading to the suspicion that the climate is changing drastically”.

      The events of last winter in the UK led to a big swing in attitudes about AGW there, and particularly among those who experienced the worst of it. I have said before that waves of tornadoes marching across Oklahoma on a daily basis will be the only thing that will change Inhofe’s opinion on the AGW “hoax”.

      Unfortunately, the reaction of too many folks is “Too bad for those that got hit, but it didn’t happen in my backyard so I won’t worry too much (yet)”. Only when there are widespread and frequent disruptions due to AGW will people really pay attention.

      • You might have a point that it’s “someone else’s problem”. Except that virtually every part of the country is having crazy weather events. Are you saying that you’re not where you are? Inhofe is being paid not to notice, but that might not include a lot of his constituents.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Yes, we are having some crazy weather where I am 30 miles west of Washington DC, but it hasn’t been severe enough or occurred often enough to really motivate people, just make them a bit uncomfortable. No huge floods, raging wildfires, tornado outbreaks, etc. Even in places where those things happen, people clean up and move on pretty rapidly—-that’s just human nature, unfortunately.

          Inhofe’s constituents are typical in that way. Oklahoma is suffering from swarms of earthquakes induced by deep injection of fracking waste water, but they keep saying “we get a lot of jobs and make a lot of $$$ from fracking and the earthquakes are small and…(insert other reasons not to worry)”. It will remain that way until a “big one” flattens half the state. They have elected and reelected Inhofe a number of times, remember, and that’s an indicator of their level of cluelessness.

        • blied7656 Says:

          Inhofe is despicable. I will allow for the likelihood that he genuinely believes his rhetoric, but that doesn’t seem to make it any easier. I’ve never felt this kind of sustained disapprobation for a public figure. He won his seat, however, and without an electorate he wouldn’t be in such a position to promote dangerous and costly lies. Does anyone know anyone from Oklahoma? There must be a community, even a small one, that grasps the extent of the problem. Tell me who they are and I’ll send a donation to their candidate of choice/recall petition effort.

  2. dumboldguy Says:

    Can’t wait for the Merchants of Doubt film to come out. It took a while to wade through the book, but it painted a clear picture of the history of the “doubt merchants” and did so with an overwhelming quantity of evidence. AGW denial is where it ends, but I liked being reminded of all those earlier “doubt-selling” ventures by the “usual suspects” that I lived through but had mostly forgotten—-acid rain, CFC’s, SDI, the Republican war on science, etc. All Crockers should read it.

    And it is incomprehensible to me how that idiot Russell Cook thinks his self-serving nitpicking will ever convince any but the already convinced that Oreskes has not spoken the truth. If I were to “bookmark” the truth in my copy of M of D with pieces of paper as Russell has with his “discrepancies”, I’d need a piece for every page and would break the book’s binding.

    • Man, I wish I had more time to check in with you guys.

      “…. Oreskes has not spoken the truth ….” Wait for it, one more monster discrepancy will be told on Monday. No need to trust me on the things Oreskes says, you have every opportunity in the world to verify what she says about those old leaked coal association memos that form the premise of all her anti-skeptic diatribes. Pretend you never heard of me, if that’s what it takes. All you have to do is check narrowly into what she says about those memos and see if it all adds up right compared to what your other heroes say about ’em. I assume you never have, and that’s why you literally can’t rebut what I say, or even attempt to do so.

      As ever, rather than wait anxiously for her movie, time would be better spent figuring out your exit strategy.

      Btw, I’ll be attending the movie. Probably it’ll have an attendance as bad as what I saw for the folks who shared the theater with me at “Greedy Lying Bast**ds”. 8 or 9 others in a theater that easily could have held 200.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        “…..and that’s why you literally can’t rebut what I say, or even attempt to do so”.

        Actually the problem is because what you say makes us

        Go away!

  3. skeptictmac57 Says:

    I wonder what the traffic numbers at sites such as WUWT look like these days.
    Are they losing eyeballs as the apparent shift in public opinions occurs, or are they and always have been visited by mainly hard core deniers that likely will never change their minds?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Googled a bit and found “101 Top Web Resources on Climate Change”

      desmogblog is #8, Crock is #9 (OOG-Rah!), Inside Climate News and Climate Central are #10 and #11. SKS, ClimateProgress, and RealClimate are a bit further down.

      Surprisingly, Steve McIntyre’s site and the Idso CO2 bullshit sites are listed along with a few other denier sites, but WUWT doesn’t seem to be on there at all. That says something.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        That’s OOH-Rah! (Someone is rearranging the keyboard on me again).

      • redskylite Says:

        I’m pleased to read your mini research results, I certainly find “crocks” the best there is, very focused and thought provoking.

        Taking the lead from Peter I contribute/edit a daily blog myself, devoting up to 5 hours a day researching University sites and news. At least I have the satisfaction of feeling I’m doing something.

        Watts site proudly proclaims to be

        “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”

        That boast always sticks in my throat, someone should sue them under the trades description act.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          It helps even more if one ignores Russell’s propaganda for his fellow paid propagandist-shill-whore Watts and stays with the list I linked, on which WUWT does not even appear (for good reason—it’s not one of the “best” sites, it’s among the worst.)

          It’s like saying Fox News is “THE BEST” because it’s the most-watched news network when it spreads lies and disinformation and its viewers have been found to be the least well-informed as a group, or that Rush Limbaugh is a genius because a lot of deluded morons listen to him. I myself have more confidence in an honest site with only a few discriminating viewers than in one with a large number of drooling morons sucking down the Kool-Aid and parroting it back.

          (And Alexa data tells you nothing about how dumb and delusional the viewers of a particular site may be—that’s why Russell likes it, lying POS that he is—-he can twist the data to his own purposes. Remember, Russell is all about “proof”. I myself suspect that WUWT has “robocallers” dedicated to pushing up his numbers).

  4. Jim Housman Says:

    Here’s my bit of anecdotal evidence:

    It’s 80 degrees outside and I’ve been gardening. It’s January for goodness sakes!! Normally this is the wettest month of the year, here 60 miles north of San Francisco. And wet here is pretty wet usually, we normally get close to 40 inches of rain annually.

    How much rain did we get this January? None. Zip. Zero. That’s never happened as long as they have been keeping records.

    Just another straw for that poor camel.

  5. […] Coral Davenport, now of the New York Times, discusses new polling data with MSNBC’s Luke Russert. (find part 2 below)  Not impressed with Russert, who seems as […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: