Most Texans Believe Global Warming Is Real, Just Not that People Are Causing It

Categories: The Environment

Thumbnail image for DroughtLakeDeadFish.jpg
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Good news: The vast majority of Texans think global warming is real. Seventy percent, according to a just-released study from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. That's way more than one might expect from listening to the people they choose for statewide office and proof that Texas' massive, multi-year drought has been persuasive to all but the most stubborn climate-change deniers.

Now for the not-so-good news: Fewer than half of Texans, 44 percent, believe that climate change is caused "mostly" by people. A plurality of them, 47 percent, think there is "a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening."

See also: The Drought That's Ravaging Texas Has Produced Some Incredible Photos

Texas doesn't deviate much from the national norm. The state actually has a higher percentage of global-warming believers than the country as a whole, which came in at 63 percent when Yale last checked in April. And if you throw out California's 58 percent, Texas is only a few percentage points below other states when it comes to belief in humans as the root cause of climate change.

The takeaway then is not that Texas is some kooky, anti-science outlier when it comes to climate change; it's that a sizable portion of America is a kooky, anti-science outlier when it comes to climate change.

Perhaps that's changing. Yale's statistics show that solid majorities of Texans favor strong actions to curb global warming by businesses, individuals, and government. Some day, maybe they'll elect representatives who feel the same way.


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
37 comments
holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

There are now 7.1 BILLION people upright on the planet.  

Half of you need to get off.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

Funny, the planet hasn't warmed in the last 15 years.  CO2 has steadily increased, but temps, no.  The IPCC is trying to spin this.  But, they don't know shit.  Their models didn't predict no warming.  So, we don't know anything.   I think I'm one of the few fans of science, and it's fairest critic.  Climate is not easily modeled, with all the relevant variables, put in a lab and let to run.  No field of science has been accurate for it's first 150 years.  But, you gullible clowns run into a panic like Chicken Little's disciples.  Finally, I'm an organic gardener by trade, I'm not anti-environment, but I don't buy snake oil either.   Not all "green" solutions are green, good, or even effective--I have to discern what works, and what's hype.  You guys do nothing but, I suppose betray the environment all day, and out of guilt overcompensate, perhaps.  I don't know, but you're not following the evidence.  And I mean every damned one of you, not just Unfair Park.   Perhaps you missed this story here...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

ruddski
ruddski

... and then we elected someone to change the climate

Sotiredofitall
Sotiredofitall topcommenter

Is global warming the same as climate change?

Catbird
Catbird

http://www.climatedepot.com/

I used to be a "believer" but the logic behind the thing started to break down when the only action ever proposed by the IPCC is a carbon tax and a global government to collect it.

When people refuse to debate the specific solution to something as large as a global life or death situation then it seems to me to be just another NWO hustle.

The link above is to a site which breaks it down pretty well...good luck collecting your carbon tax!     

hall16243
hall16243

<!-- ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦  my classmate's mother makes $68 hourly on the internet. She has been fired from work for 5 months but last month her pay check was $13311 just working on the internet for a few hours. you can find out more,,……..Blue48.ℂℴm…. ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦

-->

radicalbender
radicalbender

@scottindallas A WILD TROLL APPEARS.

Sure, I have a few minutes this morning. This, by the way, isn't for you. You're too far gone. This is for anyone who reads this and thinks this is persuasive evidence.

First off, the 15-year Glenn Beck/Rupert Murdoch factsheet point is technically correct, but horribly misguided. Measuring arbitrary data point to arbitrary data point, the global temperature was higher 15 years ago. Not 14 years ago mind you, or 16 years ago, but comparing exactly 1998 to 2013 (so far), the global temperature is lower between those two arbitrary data points.

But, if we compare any longer-term data on global temperature, this year's temperature is higher than 20 years ago, than 30 years ago, than 40 years ago, than 50 years ago, than 100 years ago, than 150 years ago, all the way back to when we began observing temperatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg

It's called a trend line. Might want to try a statistics class next time.

"But," I hear you seething, "past experience is not an indicator of future performance." How you're able to talk with a head buried so deeply in sand is beyond me, but I'll bite.

Yes, climate isn't easily modeled. That's one of the few truths in your entire post. But your implied argument makes no sense. We don't know what the future holds, so let's do nothing.

We only have 150 years of temperature reading data, thousands of years of tree ring/ice core temperature data, and millions of years of geological CO2 level data to compare the present to. To say that an arbitrary 15-year "leveling out" is somehow indicative that change has somehow stopped happening is disingenuous and ignorant.

And even if the worst-case scenarios aren't true, that the oceans won't rise and inundate coastal cities, that changing weather patterns won't wreak havoc on the planet, that ocean ecosystems won't completely collapse, rapidly disrupting the global fishing industry, that famine won't spread across developing nations due to a reduction in staple grain production, even if ALL of that isn't true, then the worst thing that happens by combating climate change through a reduction in fossil fuel emissions is cleaner air to breathe, a decrease in chronic diseases, and longer lives from a reduction in air pollution.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

I don't suffer fools, but this thread is insufferable.

kduble
kduble

Climate change is the effect; global warming the cause.

kduble
kduble

@Catbird In other words, the facts are convincing, but you don't like proposed solutions you've heard, so you decide we can live with this after all; maybe it's not so bad.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @radicalbender So?  It's just the first step of the chain.  Do humans contribute to some change in the climate?  Sure. We create lakes, planes make clouds with contrails (you should look into how much temps rose when planes stopped flying the week after 9/11), etc etc.  NO one disagrees about that.  However, the whole chain is:

1) Humans can change the climate
2) Human change is significant to the climate
3) This significant change is going to actually be bad for us
4) This significant change is something that we can correct

Virtually everyone agrees on 1.  Support with climatologists drops off sharply at 2.  They lose more support at 3.  By the time you get to 4, it's pretty much just the loud media hounds left, not the real scientists.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@radicalbender actually, there is no such thing as climate science.  They're working on it.  But, they don't know crap.  IN FACT, there HAS BEEN NO WARMING IN THE LAST 15 YEARS!   None of the models predicted this, none of the models are based in science, fact or reality, since the models don't accurately predict the temps.  You don't know what science is!  This is an article of faith for you, don't you EVER look down on  creationists, conspiracy theorists, or anyone else, you're in equally speculative terrain.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@radicalbender 

Well! 100% of people that don't know what they are talking about think that you and your 97%-ers are full of hot air.

Gotcha' by 3%!

observist
observist topcommenter

@radicalbender  Well of course they do, because it's a vast left-wing science conspiracy to... um... gain publicity or uh, sell solar panels or something.  I'm not sure exactly what it is, I just know that it's vast and left-wing and that all 97% are just bad scientists and left-wing agenda pushers.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

Further, I never said to do nothing.   You can't impute what I never ran your clown ass.   Conservation, efficiency, preservation of habitats are all good in their own right.  We don't need chicken little screaming non-sense.  If you take the wind power we've invested in, which only works at 8% capacity during peak demand; we've been forced to KEEP dirty coal plants on line.  For what we've spent, we could have all new natural gas plants, and none of the more polluting coal.   We gave T. Boone Pickens $8 billion in powerlines, all for naught. 

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@radicalbender temps haven't risen in 15 years, though CO2 has.  So, CO2 doesn't raise temps.  That is shown, but you call me the troll.  You've admitted the theory you have so much faith in is flawed, but double down on your ignorance.   I'm sorry you don't know the difference between science and PR and spin

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @radicalbender And Mann's Climategate scandal shows that the "all the way back" temps are all adjusted to the point of lies.  When you look at the raw data, we are well within the norm.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@scottindallas 

I've hummed and I've concentrated real hard.  I have hugged the crystal.  I've lolled my head towards the sky, and lulu'd.  My eyes cross and roll up in a trance and I revert to the most primal religion.  I worship the Sun.  I have heard the Taos humm.

But I can't exert the whammy on that pulsing red dwarf and God knows I've tried.

Every planet in the solar system is warming at the same rate and if that bitch burps, we're fried in moments.


everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @kduble Global warming is the thing that didn't happen according to the SCIENCE! so now the SCIENCE! crowd had to muddy it down to "climate change" so that they can point to weather and act like it is climate.

Catbird
Catbird

@kduble @Catbird if the claimed "warming" is caused by the "greenhouse effect" and not increased solar activity, and if the excess CO2 is put into the atmosphere by western industrialized society and not driven off the surface of the oceans by a highly active solar cycle and if it is so serous that it will melt the polar icecaps and destroy the world with another great flood or whatever other catastrophic climate event is claimed then do you think a carbon tax and a world government which excludes Russia and China is really going to do anything to stop it?

Climate Depot says warming stopped in 2002:  http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/15/forget-the-temperature-plateau-earth-undergoing-global-cooling-since-2002-climate-scientist-dr-judith-curry-attention-in-the-public-debate-seems-to-be-moving-away-from/

Forbs says this claim is a dangerous "blatant disregard to truth":http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

Like most things of this sort, it boils down to a matter of faith...who you gonna believe?

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@observist @radicalbender I support solar panels, particularly for TX.  But, I've also described how our use of wind has made us keep our dirty coal plants active.  Again, the scientists are chagrined to explain, and in fact they've resolved to cover up the fact that the planet isn't warming.  The Max Planck Institute has also said as much, and that the 97% have a 2% chance of being right. 

Daniel
Daniel

@observist @radicalbender They will be ostracized by their peers and live out their years as pariahs if they don't parrot the Communist speaking points that stand to make Al Gore rich. Is the narrative I've been unfortunate enough to hear.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mattman59 @everlastingphelps @radicalbenderAs they said in Dr. Strangelove, "Our source was The New York Times."

www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html?_r=0

" In an essay published online then at MIT Technology Review, I worried that the famous “hockey stick” graph plotted by three American climatologists in the late 1990s portrayed the global warming curve with too much certainty and inappropriate simplicity. The graph shows a long, relatively unwavering line of temperatures across the last millennium (the stick), followed by a sharp, upward turn of warming over the last century (the blade). The upward turn implied that greenhouse gases had become so dominant that future temperatures would rise well above their variability and closely track carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. 

I knew that wasn’t the case."

mattman59
mattman59

@everlastingphelps @radicalbender Turn off Glenn Beck, "climategate" was a made up controversy and both men were cleared of any wrongdoing.  It's a simple case of the public being too stupid to understand post-doctorate level researchers candid emails back and forth.  They were never intended for public consumption which is why you see so much "shop talk" as opposed to stuff drawn out in crayon so the average American can grasp it.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@kduble @Catbird no one knows the cause.  There's no modeling that works.  If you can't model it, you don't know shit.  Now, go learn what science is, you're out of your element.

Catbird
Catbird

@everlastingphelps @kduble @Catbird there you go!

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @kduble @Catbird I work for a living too, so I think I am qualified to answer you:

* non sequitur

* China is cutting back on coal plants because it is getting expensive and they don't have a ready supply

*Solar activity correlates DIRECTLY with the measured "warming cycles"

*The "past graphs" are lies (see Michael Mann and Climategate -- with Mann's "adjustments" even random data produces a hockey stick graph)

* By this logic, rising temperatures do not constitute global warming

kduble
kduble

@Catbird  As I work for a living and have to get out of the house this morning, I'll simply point out:

* Russia signed the Kyoto Protol, the U.S. didn't.

* Without fanfare, China recently announced they're cutting back on coal plants. China currently spends more on renewable sources than we do.

* Solar activity has always ebbed and flowed. It can mess with electronic transmissions, but it isn't the cause of our current warming cycle.

* If you'll look at past graphs, it's not uncommon for the warming curve to level off for a few years before continuing its ascent. The trend is not our friend.

* International agreements signed by nations and ratified by our Senate don't constitute world government. Our Constitution provided a framework for this more than two centuries ago.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...