Forty-four percent of Murkins polled recently by Rasmussen do NOT believe human activity is responsible for the climactic chaos of the last decade and longer.We need to think now about policies that prepare for a hotter, drier world, especially in poorer countries. That may involve, for instance, developing new crops, constructing flood defences, setting different building regulations, or banning building close to sea level." - John Von Radowitz
No, really. (Interestingly, that's just about the same percentage of the electorate that voted 'for' McCain/Palin.)
From the Rasmussen survey report:
Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.There's plenty more, most of it depressing as hell.
Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats blame global warming on human activity, compared to 21% percent of Republicans. Two-thirds of GOP voters (67%) see long-term planetary trends as the cause versus 23% of Democrats. Voters not affiliated with either party by eight points put the blame on planetary trends.
In July 2006, 46% of voters said global warming is caused primarily by human activities, while 35% said it is due to long-term planetary trends.
In April of last year, 47% of Americans blamed human activity versus 34% who viewed long-term planetary trends as the culprit. But the numbers have been moving in the direction of planetary trends since then.
It never ceases to amaze me that around 75% of Murkins can proclaim their completely unjustified belief in some sort of "God," the existence of which is impossible to prove, but can reject piles upon piles of clear scientific evidence that the human act of releasing something like 50% of ALL the carbon dioxide EVER stored in the planet across ALL the aeons, over a mere 300 years, could result in catastrophic environmental change.
Many scientists now believe that the best way to try to ameliorate the consequences of global climate change is NOT to try to repair any certain or given symptom, but to try to imagine and develop ways to adapt to the inevitably, inexorably incipient changes. This may, indeed, be the best that humans can hope to accomplish. As for the rest of life--coral reefs to polar bears--well it's publish of perish, folks; tough shit.
I have remarked on many previous occasions: Humanity is best considered as a cosmic experiment testing whether "life" can survive (selfish) "intelligence;" the "Null Hypothesis" seems safe. But these results also demonstrate the effectiveness of the climate-change deniers' propaganda, coupled with the infantile rejection of responsibility for acts of intention and consequence.