Cheers! Trump May Be Boosting ‘Climate Change Doubt’ – Poll: GOP Voters Climate Skepticism Doubles in Past Year


By: - Climate DepotAugust 4, 2016 2:27 PM with 33 comments

Via: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/08/04/3805075/donald-trump-inspires-climate-change-doubt/

Donald Trump May Be Boosting Climate Change Doubt

 

CREDIT: AP PHOTO/EVAN VUCCI

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign town hall at Ocean Center in Daytona Beach, Fla.

Twice as many Republicans are unsure about the evidence of global warming as they were a year ago, and Donald Trump could be playing a role, finds a new survey led by University of Michigan researchers.

Some 26 percent of Republicans told researchers this spring they were unsure about global warming, up from 13 percent last year, according to the National Surveys on Energy and Environment (NSEE) report released Tuesday. Republicans are also more likely than Independent and Democrat voters to either doubt climate change or denying it altogether, according to the survey.

“Our survey indicates [Donald] Trump’s influence may have led to increased uncertainty among Republicans as opposed to a wholesale swing from believer to nonbeliever status,” said Sarah Mills, co-author and post-doctoral researcher at the Center for Local State and Urban Policy at the University of Michigan.

In an interview with ThinkProgress, Mills said that although the survey didn’t ask about the Republican presidential candidate, Trump’s stand on climate change — and his rise as a party leader and appeal among voters — seems to be “one of the key things that has happened” over the past year.

For complete article see here.

#

Related Links: 

Bravo! Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Trump echoes Climate Depot’s call to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda! – Flashback January 2016 – Marc Morano wrote: “The GOP nominee for president in 2016 must present a basic plan to roll back Obama’s climate regulations. Here is a simple breakdown of what is needed:

Cheers! AP laments: ‘Trump would be only head of state in world to contend climate change is a hoax’

Clinton, Trump show stark contrast on ‘climate change’

Hollywood stars target Trump’s ‘climate change denial’ 

Climate Talking Points For Trump’

James Cameron calls Trump a ‘madman’ over climate denial


  • Donald Kasper

    Nah. Most natural populations and systems follow a normal distribution. There is an initiation, ramp up, huge acceleration, peak, and then sharp decline. Climate Doomism has rolled over that peak in terms of public interest. People are trying to explain it away. Koch funding. Did not work. Okay, Trump promotion. However, it is a natural progression that is going to accelerate. This downward trend is what is causing so much Dem alarm and rage as key Dem party funding comes from the Doomster movement.

    • Caroljritter2

      <<xk. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ir41m:….,….

    • Caroljritter4

      <<xk. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ir41m:….,….

    • Cheryltlarson4

      <<qw. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ir106m:….,….

  • jumper297

    I really don’t think this has anything to do with the moron the Republicans have decided to nominate for President. This has been the natural progression of things as the alarmists’ predictions have failed to come true and people are becoming fatigued over being blamed for killing the planet.

    • Dano2

      the alarmists’ predictions have failed to come true

      Utterly false.

      Here’s the very latest on how the models are doing.

      Here’s how the models are doing.

      A different look at latest run.

      An interesting depiction of latest run.

      Here’s how some older models are doing.

      And some older ones.

      And some older ones.

      And some older ones.

      And some older ones all together.

      And what several scientist said in the 1980s that was surprisingly accurate about Arab Spring.

      Here is the the very first climate projection from 1981, constructed from this paper. Pretty dang good, no? Not what the disinfo sites tell you, is it?

      Here is something from the 1970s that is surprisingly accurate as well.

      Here is an early prediction from an early pioneer of climate science, from 1975, 50 years ago. Pretty darn good. (source, and original paper)

      Heck, even Exxon scientists were pretty durn close in the early 1980s!

      This is where we are now.

      ============================================

      For those not chart-driven:

      Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

      That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

      That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

      That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

      Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

      That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

      The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

      They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

      They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

      The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.

      The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.

      The expansion of the Hadley cells.

      The poleward movement of storm tracks.

      The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

      The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

      The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

      That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

      References**

      o Troposphere warms, stratosphere cools

      Manabe and Wetherald 1967

      Manabe and Stouffer 1980

      Ramaswamy et al. 1996, 2006

      De F. Forster et al. 1999

      Langematz et al. 2003

      Vinnikov and Grody 2003

      Fu et al. 2004

      Thompson and Solomon 2005

      o Nights warm more than days

      Arrhenius 1896

      Dai et al. 1999

      Sherwood et al. 2005

      o Winter warms more than summer

      Arrhenius 1896

      Manabe and Stouffer 1980

      Rind et al. 1989

      Balling et al. 1999

      Volodin and Galin 1999

      Crozier 2003

      o Polar amplification

      Arrhenius 1896

      Manabe and Stouffer 1980

      Polyakov et al. 2001

      Holland and Bitz 2003

      o Arctic warms more than Antarctic

      Arrhenius 1896

      Manabe and Stouffer 1980

      Doran et al. 2002

      Comisa 2003

      Turner et al. 2007

      o Pinatubo effects

      Hansen et al. 1992

      Hansen et al. 1996

      Soden et al. 2002

      o Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures

      Rind and Peteet 1985

      Farreral et al. 1999

      Melanda et al. 2005

      o Temperature trend versus UAH results

      Christy et al. 2003

      Santer et al. 2003

      Mears and Wentz 2005

      Santer et al. 2005

      Sherwood et al. 2005

      o Water vapor feedback from ENSO

      Lau et al. 1996

      Soden 2000

      Dessler and Wong 2009

      o Ozone hole effect on southern ocean winds

      Fyfe et al. 1999

      Kushner et al. 2001

      Sexton 2001

      Thompson and Solomon 2002

      o Hadley Cells expand

      Quan et al. 2002

      Fu et al. 2006

      Hu and Fu 2007

      o Storm tracks move poleward

      Trenberth and Stepaniak 2003

      Yin 2005

      o Tropopause and radiating altitude rise

      Thuburn and Craig 1997

      Kushner et al. 2001

      Santer et al. 2003

      Seidel and Randel 2006

      o Tropical “super greenhouse effect”

      Vonder Haar 1986

      Lubin 1994

      o Constant average relative humidity

      Manabe and Wetherall 1967

      Minschwaner and Dessler 2004

      Soden et al. 2005

      Gettelman and Fu 2008

      ** Full citation list found here (plus much, much more).

      ============================================

      Other successful predictions:

      For example, the basics:

      1900: Frank Very worked out the radiation balance, and hence the temperature, of the moon. His results were confirmed by Pettit and Nicholson in 1930.

      1902-14: Arthur Schuster and Karl Schwarzschild used a 2-layer radiative-convective model to explain the structure of the sun.
      1907: Robert Emden realized that a similar radiative-convective model could be applied to planets, and Gerard Kuiper and others applied this to astronomical observations of planetary atmospheres.
      This work established the standard radiative-convective model of atmospheric heat transfer.
      1938: Guy Callendar is the first to link observed rises in CO2 concentrations with observed rises in surface temperatures.
      1956: Gilbert Plass correctly predicts a depletion of outgoing radiation in the 15 micron band, due to CO2 absorption.
      1961-2: Carl Sagan correctly predicts very thick greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of Venus, as the only way to explain the very high observed temperatures. His calculations showed that greenhouse gasses must absorb around 99.5% of the outgoing surface radiation. The composition of Venus’s atmosphere was confirmed by NASA’s Venus probes in 1967-70.
      1959: Burt Bolin and Erik Eriksson correctly predict the exponential increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of rising fossil fuel use.
      1967: Suki Manabe and Dick Wetherald correctly predict that warming in the lower atmosphere would be accompanied by stratospheric cooling. They had built the first completely correct radiative-convective implementation of the standard model applied to Earth, and used it to calculate a +2C equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, including the water vapour feedback, assuming constant relative humidity. The stratospheric cooling was confirmed in 2011 by Gillett et al.
      1975: Suki Manabe and Dick Wetherald correctly predict that the surface warming would be much greater in the polar regions, and that there would be some upper troposphere amplification in the tropics. This was the first coupled general circulation model (GCM), with an idealized geography.
      1989: Ron Stouffer et. al. correctly predict that the land surface will warm more than the ocean surface, and that the southern ocean warming would be temporarily suppressed due to the slower ocean heat uptake.

      Of course, scientists often get it wrong:

      1900: Knut Angström incorrectly predicts that increasing levels of CO2 would have no effect on climate, because he thought the effect was already saturated. His laboratory experiments weren’t accurate enough to detect the actual absorption properties, and even if they were, the vertical structure of the atmosphere would still allow the greenhouse effect to grow as CO2 is added.
      1971: Rasool and Schneider incorrectly predict that atmospheric cooling due to aerosols would outweigh the warming from CO2. However, their model had some important weaknesses, and was shown to be wrong by 1975. Rasool and Schneider fixed their model and moved on. Good scientists acknowledge their mistakes.
      1993: Richard Lindzen incorrectly predicts that warming will dry the troposphere, according to his theory that a negative water vapour feedback keeps climate sensitivity to CO2 really low.
      1995: John Christy and Roy Spencer incorrectly calculate that the lower troposphere is cooling, rather than warming.
      2007: Courtillot et. al. predicted a connection between cosmic rays and climate change. But they couldn’t even get the sign of the effect consistent across the paper. You can’t falsify a theory that’s incoherent! Scientists label this kind of thing as “Not even wrong”.

      Adapted from source.

      ============================================

      Just say derp!

      Best,

      D

      • Blue State Republican

        If it’s true, why did scientists have to lie?

        • Dano2

          They didn’t, you were duped.

          Best,

          D

          • Blue State Republican

            No. I read the press release. Scientists at East Anglia confessed.

          • Dano2

            You were, in fact, duped.

            Best,

            D

          • Blue State Republican

            No explanation? Not even an attempt at rebuttal? Just, “I’m right. You’re wrong.”

          • Dano2

            You should have shown evidence to back your claim by now.

            Best.

            D

          • Blue State Republican

            You do have a device in your hand capable of accessing the entirety of human knowledge. It can be used for things other than insulting strangers.

          • Dano2

            …right. You made it up and cannot back your claim. Everyone can tell.

            Best,

            D

  • Dano2

    He loves the uneducated!

    Best,

    D

  • Duke Silver

    Educated (and more importantly discriminating) Americans have been walking away from the warmunist diatribe for a decade. The Donald hasn’t added a damn thing to that trend. He’s just the first politician to be honest rather than political on the subject. BTW, before the vultures descend – no, I’m not voting for Trump.

    • Dano2

      Educated (and more importantly discriminating) Americans have been walking away from the warmunist (sic) diatribe (sic) for a decade (sic)

      Actually, the opposite is true: only conservative Anglo-Saxons deny scientific evidence in any number, but are still a tiny minority of the population.

      Globally, science denialism is minuscule.

      Majorities in all 40 nations polled say climate change is a serious problem, and a global median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem.

      Best,

      D
      http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/k6kymad9gkuj-gj9o3jlaq.png
      http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/11/Climate-Change-Report-27.png
      http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/11/FT_15.11.04_climate_Immediacy.png

      • Duke Silver

        Once again Drano – much ado over nothing.
        I said “discriminating americans have been walking away for a decade”
        In reply to which you have attached multiple graphs representing “average” americans.
        The devil’s in the details, eh, Drano? Or, if you’re a progressive – the devil’s in the falsified data.

        • Dano2

          Science deniers are not discriminating. But they choose to be duped by phrases like falsified data, which is why denialists are a minority in all populations.

          Best,

          D

          • Sam Pyeatte

            Dream on.

          • klem

            By science deniers, do you mean the people who deny the 18 year pause in global warming, you mean those science deniers?

          • Dano2
          • Duke Silver

            Ah, the nature deniers calling names again….
            My mental image of Drano is that little chimp that covers his ears and covers his eyes. See no evil, hear no evil….
            Must be nice to be so naïve to believe that a conflict of interest doesn’t actually affect climate scientists. Pristine little world you invent in that head.
            Or, are you pissed that I didn’t make the statement you responded to. Oh, silly deniers again, eh? Just won’t cooperate.

          • Dano2

            So you can’t show falsified data either.

            Shocker.

            Best,

            D

          • Duke Silver

            Why waste time on a piss ant like you.
            You know darned well the USGS has admitted to data falsification, but won’t release the data. You also know the most recent archived NOAA data doesn’t match the previously archived data from pre 1980. If you’d like a hint – go pick up a copy of the book entitled US Climate Records by NOAA dated 1975. Then compare with newer versions.
            Keep tilting at windmills, dumbass. aka Lying ass dog.

          • Dano2

            So the con bubble still is thick and impenetrable. Not surprising.

            Best,

            D

          • Duke Silver

            … and the lib fib still as popular as ever.

  • Mike435

    When known conman and serial lair supports your cause it is not a good sign, unless of course your cause is a lie.