Global Warming Skepticism Rising in America
Judging by the size of this "carbon" footprint, it appears that a horrible, hideous monster: AlGore'asaurus was here recently.
PRINCETON, NJ — Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.
As recently as 2006, significantly more Americans thought the news underestimated the seriousness of global warming than said it exaggerated it, 38% vs. 30%. Now, according to Gallup’s 2009 Environment survey, more Americans say the problem is exaggerated rather than underestimated, 41% vs. 28%.
The trend in the “exaggerated” response has been somewhat volatile since 2001, and the previous high point, 38%, came in 2004. Over the next two years, “exaggerated” sentiment fell to 31% and 30%. Still, as noted, the current 41% is the highest since Gallup’s trend on this measure began in 1997. (Read more.)
B.S. Report–We’ll see how many more people think that global warming is exaggerated if President Obama is able to ram some crazy legislation through Congress that would tax everyone a bundle, just so we can decrease the phony problem of man-made, greenhouse-gas emissions.
Imagine how much more damage to the economy that a global warming bill would accomplish. That, together with the great tax and spending policies that Obama has already used to “stimulate” the economy, well; that can only lead to even greater disaster.
THE B.S. REPORT 
Why is a politically motivated blog trying to comment on the factual nature of a scientific theory?
zero132132,
There is no such thing as “factual nature of a scientific theory.” That’s why it’s called a theory. As for this site being politically motivated–we don’t hide our politics, but we’re not a slave to them either. You seem to believe that “man-made global warming” is proven simply because many scientists say so. We don’t believe that the evidence is nearly that clear–and more and more scientists are jumping off the global warming bandwagon. The science behind global warming has become politicized to the point where we believe that the so-called facts can no longer be trusted.
We understand that many others like yourself completely buy the “science” pointing to global warming. Fair enough. But we’ve seen quite a few of these scientific pronouncements over the years that have ended up to be nothing, and we fully expect this to be another one of those examples. Another thing, you accuse this site of being politically biased for not believing in global warming. Why should we accept that your opinion is perfectly balanced and based on nothing more than your evaluation of the evidence? Ah, yes of course, we must be biased and politically motivated because we don’t agree…with you. Thanks zero132132 for taking the time to comment.
You don’t seem to know what a scientific theory is, exactly. Theories can be true or false depending on their predictive value. In science, a theory isn’t some half-assed thing with no supporting evidence; that’s a hypothesis. A theory has already been tested and has demonstrable predictive value.
You pose no evaluation of the evidence here. You can make vague claims that the science is false, but multiple studies verify that outgoing infrared radiation has decreased along wavelengths associated with carbon dioxide, methane, and H2O, every analysis indicates that temperatures have increased, and the stratosphere has been cooling. All of these are empirically verifiable (and verified) predictions of anthropogenic global warming theory.
I didn’t say you were biased, I simply asked the question; why is a blog about politics commenting on a scientific theory? If your focus is on politics, then why are you even discussing science? What relation does it have to your blog?
zero132132,
Theories become accepted over time–but they are often disproved over time as well. And we’ll see where the “man-made” global warming evidence leads us, that’s my point. I’m skeptical of the science for a variety of reasons, one of which is the labeling of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.”
As for your assertion that I shouldn’t blog about scientific subjects because it is not my area of expertise (which I readily admit), I assume you have opinions on a variety of subjects and you probably comment on them on occasion, don’t you? I’m not claiming any special scientific expertise, I’m just offering my opinion based on a lot of reading and research.
You obviously have a strong opinion on this–are you a recognized expert in this field? And if you are, does that forbid you from commenting on politics since that isn’t your field? Very few people have expertise in one field, let alone more than one. But that doesn’t preclude a person from having an opinion. Others can judge whether that person’s opinion carries any weight. Thanks again for your comment, and the civil spirit of your dissent.