Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Environment (AP-GfK 11/17-29)


AP-GfK / Stanford University
11/17-29/09; 1,005 adults, 3.1% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(AP release)

National

If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how much do you think it will hurt future generations--a great deal, a lot, a moderate amount, a little or not at all?
42% A great deal, 21% A lot, 13% A moderate amount, 8% A little, 15% Not at all

Do you think most scientists agree with one another about whether or not global warming is happening, or do you think there is a lot of disagreement among scientists on this issue?
31% Most scientists agree
66% Most scientists disagree

How much do you think the U.S. government should do about global warming? A great deal, quite a bit, some, a little, or nothing?
31% A great deal. 21% A little bit, 23% Some, 10% A little, 15% Nothing

Do you think that the United States doing things to reduce global warming in the future would cause there to be more jobs for people around the country, would cause there to be fewer jobs, or wouldn't affect the number of jobs for people around the country?
40% More, 23% Fewer, 33% No effect

Do you think that the United States doing things to reduce global warming in the future would hurt the U.S. economy, would help the economy, or would have no effect on the U.S. economy?
46% Help, 27% Hurt, 24% No effect

Half sample: There's a proposed system called ―cap and trade. The government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. Companies that need more permits can buy them, or these companies can pay money to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that other people or organizations put out. This will cause companies to figure out the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Would you favor or oppose this system?
58% Favor, 37% Oppose

Half sample: There's a proposed system called ―cap and trade. The government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. The idea is that many companies would find ways to put out less greenhouse gases, because that would be cheaper than buying permits. Would you favor or oppose this system?
50% Favor, 47% Oppose

Party ID
28% Democrat, 23% Republican, 24% independent

 

Comments
CUWriter:

Results for cap and trade half-samples are very interesting. Quite a disparity in the results based on how it is explained.

____________________

Alan Abramowitz:

Party id numbers don't add up.

____________________

Alan Abramowitz:

The help vs. hurt percentages are switched here. The actual results were 46% help, 27% hurt. Also the party id numbers here don't add up to close to 100%.

____________________

Emily Swanson:

Alan -- Sorry for the transposition -- I have corrected. The Party ID #s don't add up because they explicitly offer a "Don't Know" option that garners 24%.

____________________

Xenobion:

Party ID 24% I don't know? lol wow...

____________________

Porchnik:

There is almost universal agreement amongst scientists that global warming is happening and that human activity is a major contributing factor. The problem is that the handful of flat earth types that disagree are carried around in sedan chairs by Fox News and Drudge. It's scary how uninformed the public is on this and other issues.

____________________

Field Marshal:

The party ID thing with I dont know pretty much tosses this poll into the trash. You can automatically say that 24% shouldn't be allowed to vote based on their response to that question.

Porchnik,

More than half of the people of this country do not believe GW is man-made. Are you a atmospheric scientist? If not, you are trusting someone else's analysis. Given the email hacking scandal and what was in those, i wouldn't put too much trust in other people's data, especially when they have a financial motivation behind it.

____________________

Xenobion:

Porchnik I agree with you. Even intelligent people on the wrong side of this subject can't show any studies counter to the global warming evidence. Sure several studies are out there that are inconclusive but noone can disproove it. What studies do exist have quickly been disproven.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Given the email hacking scandal and what was in those, i wouldn't put too much trust in other people's data, especially when they have a financial motivation behind it."

For someone who seems reasonably intelligent, you sure have a penchant for conspiracy theories. The people using the emails as evidence of global warming being a hoax would hold more weight if they already didn't think it was a hoax before the emails came out. I've only seen snippets of the emails mostly taken out of context, and that is what people are using to proclaim the whole thing a hoax. I never knew the University of East Anglia and its 30 scientists had the monopoly on climate change research. Last I checked there are plenty of U.S. universities with their own environmental science departments.

In my opinion, whether or not global warming is man made is irrelevant. I don't understand the science nor am I a statistician so I won't pretend to argue about subjects I know little to nothing about. What's important is being a careful steward of the environment. Carbon emissions are not good for the environment regardless of their effect on the average global temperature. Go to a country where they don't regulate emissions and take a deep breath. I've been to several in the former eastern bloc, it's not pleasant.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron,

Apparently the CRU is one of only 4 organizations that compiles near surface temperature readings. And apparently, the emails hacked into had information that they were collaborating with another, the Hadley Centre on those readings. And apparently, they are the only 2 of the 4 that show any increase in temps in this decade.

In regards to your second paragraph, i agree 100%. Even if CO2 was the cause of most of global warming, what can we do about it? Are we going to force people to give up their quality of life and go back to living the way we did in the 18th century? Are we going to force developing nations to cut back on CO2 discharge (china already has surpassed us in this regard).

But to think the man can affect the global temperatures the way that GW alarmists say they do is both arrogant is dumb in my opinion.

____________________

Xenobion:

18th Century? You mean Industrial Revolution? Yes air quality was so much nicer then... Everyone enjoyed their black lung.

____________________

al of arabia:

Really, do you people know what CO2 is?

____________________

Field Marshal:

X,

I fail to see your point. I stated if Aaron wanted us to live the way we did in the 18th century which is pre-industrial revolution (or the beginning of it). In the US, the industrial revolution started in the 1820s. Britain in the 1760's.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

I'm not a global warming alarmist; I never was. I thought Al Gore's arguments about more and deadlier hurricanes being caused by global warming, etc... were far-fetched. I think the rationale behind his sensationalism was to get some movement out of the government. The U.S. is notorious for not addressing impending crises until they're full-blown crises (see health care, social security, etc..., for an older example see slavery). I think global warming is happening and we have something to do with it. It is just too much of a coincidence for temperature to rise at the same time we greatly increased emissions but we still don't fully understand this phenonomenon, and it will probably take decades to come up with conslusive data. But even if humans are only responsible for 10% of the increase that is 10% too much.

I do consider myself a conservationist, so I support environmental protection and regulations. Ie: I'm against drilling oil in ANWR because it is the "Alaska National Wildlife Refuge." Meaning it's a refuge and it's not to be messed with. If we violate that then there would be precedent to open any national refuge for development based on economic considerations. I'm also against oil shale because it is massively destructive of the land surface. Go to Estonia to see what oil shale development does to a landscape. But offshore drilling goes on quite a bit and seems to have a minimal impact on the ocean ecosystem, so that I'm okay with.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron. You and I are very similar in our beliefs in this subject.

In terms of conservancy, there is no better organization in my opinion that the Nature Conservancy. I donate to them at every year end a certain percentage of my income for the year.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR