Stanford University-Resources for the Future poll asked that question. The results, released today, show that two-thirds of Americans support making corporations pay a price for carbon pollution, provided the revenues are redistributed, i.e., made revenue-neutral. - The poll was supervised by RFF university fellow Jon Krosnick, who has been polling Americans on climate change for two decades as head of Stanford’s Political Psychology Research Group.
American Thinker analyzes new NYT/Stanford poll: If the "statistics" didn't convince you, the New York Times followed up with a personal anecdote from a "Republican" voter. Aliza Strauss, a Republican homemaker in Teaneck, N.J., said in a follow-up interview that climate change had affected her personally and she was concerned about the effect of climate change in coming years. “A tree fell on my house during Hurricane Sandy, and in the future, it might be worse,” she said. Aliza Strauss felt that global warming caused a tree to fall on her home. What is the connection there? And before this supposed period of global warming, trees never fell on homes? How many people do you think the Times had to interview to find this one ignorant supposed Republican?
Jason Becker, a self-identified independent and stay-at-home father in Ocoee, Fla., said that although climate change was not his top concern, a candidate who questioned global warming would seem out of touch. I thought this was an article about Republicans? I guess they couldn't find a second Republican to agree with Aliza Strauss.
American Thinker analyzes new NYT/Stanford poll: 'The New York Times has a breathless announcement: Most Republicans Back Climate Action! Except, it's not most Republicans; by the Time's own numbers, it's only 48%, and even that number is very suspect...This is the classic way that the Left shifts public opinion; they cook up a poll, produce results they like, and then use it as a club to make whatever they want. They can get the results they like either by leading questions, asking unrepresentative samples, or just by plain making things up.
The poll was conducted by the New York Times (Left bias), Stanford University (Left bias), and "the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future". How many "nonpartisan" environmental groups do you know? The questions were of the nature of: "If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how serious of a problem do you think it will be for the United States?"
This question is biased because it presumes there is global warming. At best, it's disputed. But the person asked this question might automatically presume there is global warming simply by the wording of the question. NYT poll: "If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how much do you think it will hurt future generations? "
That's just like "If you don't stop beating your wife, how much do you think she will hurt in the future?" Again, the question presumes there is global warming and the phrase "nothing is done" is biased against inaction, as is "how much will it hurt".
Stanford psychologist & political scientist Jon Krosnick said, the skeptics have been rallied by people such as such as Marc Morano, who runs a blog called ClimateDepot and appears to have no background in science. According to a recent New York Times profile, he was a reporter for the Rush Limbaugh show and has worked as spokesman for Republican Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma'
Dr. Jacquelyn Gill: "The root causes of climate change are capitalism, white supremacy, and colonialism, all of which put profits over people and treat people and the environment as disposable commodities. Blaming folks like service workers, retail workers, and others is not a good look."
Dr. Happer and Dr. Lindzen summarize: “Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence marshalled in support of the theory of imminent catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.”