Global Warming, Polls and Know-Nothingism

Poll numbers go up and down. During last year's presidential elections, poll numbers could vary by ten points in the last six weeks before the election. In addition to fluctuations due to sampling size, polls can vary because of what candidates do, events in the world, what methods and questions pollsters are using and sometimes simply because of the contrariness of respondents. But most polls showed that Barack Obama was going to win the presidency. It's not hard to argue that in politics, polls matter.

Admittedly, when it comes to polls about such things as whether or not one believes in global warming, the truth is that the physical world doesn't pay much attention. The ice keeps melting, the average temperatures keep climbing.

Fortunately, although most scientists believe humans are causing global warming, they also have good reason to believe that humans may be able to do something about it. Here, polls matter. A majority of Americans still believe global warming is real. That's a good thing if we are to head off disaster in coming years. If you believe there's a problem, and you discover you have the capacity to deal with the problem, you might be able to stop it or at least slow it down. Of course, the longer we go without doing much, the more difficult it will be to deal with global warming.

So we ought to be concerned that a recent poll suggests global warming naysayers may be having an effect. Here's the story from The Boston Globe:

The number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the earth is warming is at its lowest point in three years, and the number who see the situation as a serious problem has also declined, according to a survey released yesterday.

And the share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the United States and world forums gear up for possible action against climate change.

This is important news since it tells us Congress, President Obama, newspapers and various other news outlets need to find better ways to get the message across that global warming is a major threat and that it requires global cooperation and leadership. It is a fact, at least for a few more years, that the only leader out there that can provide world leadership is the United States.

But there's a segment of our population that wants to play ostrich on a wide range of issues, including global warming. Actually, one of the disappointing things about this era are the number of people who offer up trivial arguments or who clearly show they haven't done much homework before issuing an opinion. Here's an example that by the end borders on the silly:

If there is no arctic ice the Northwest Passage opens up for shipping, at least it will be open in the summer if professor Wadhams is to be believed. This will cut from one to two weeks off the travel time for shipments of material goods traveling between Europe and Asia. Rather than having to round the Cape of Good Hope or weather the Magellan Straits, vessels can sail a more direct and shorter route across the north pole.

The author has a point but the point ignores the larger picture. We'll get to that in a moment, but here's something the author said in an earlier article:

The news reports are full of it: arctic temperatures are the highest in the last 2,000 years – big hairy deal, and probably incorrect to boot.

I call this the Fox News style of argument: the news is not important and even if it is, it's probably not accurate. Technically, it's an example of two kinds of denial (with a little attitude thrown in) but mostly it's muddle. There are other kinds of denial and they are found frequently on the far right, and on Fox News.

Let's go back to the author's most recent article:

Oh but the alarmists say that sea levels will rise if the arctic ice disappears. Not really. The arctic sea ice floats on water. Any melting of this ice will have no effect on sea levels. You can check this out in your own kitchen. Put an ice cube in an empty glass and then fill the glass to the brim with water. Wait until the ice cube melts. Did any water spill out of the glass? No, so why should we expect different results from melting the floating sea ice in the arctic?

The problem with this argument is that it pretends to counter an argument that in fact does not exist. No reputable scientist and no one who has bothered to inform themselves on the arctic ice cap and its relationship to global warming say that the melting of the ice cap alone will raise ocean levels. But the melting ice in the ocean is direct evidence of warming, at least as it is measured over a number of years. Obviously, if the Arctic Ocean is warming, so is the atmosphere and the surrounding land.

When scientists speak of the risk for rising sea levels, the immediate focus is on places like Greenland. Three-fourths of Greenland is in the Arctic Circle. And it is generally growing warmer. The ice sheet on Greenland is enormous. If the glaciers melt and all that water ends up in the drink, it will raise the level of the ocean. That's a physical fact you can bank on.

Yes, the melting arctic ice appears to be giving the world a new ocean route, but the price will be extraordinarily disruptive if it also leads to Greenland losing much of its ice. Even if the ocean rises only two or three feet, tens of millions of people around the world will have to move. Trillions of dollars of damage will be done to economies around the world, including the United States.

One of the problem I have with global warming naysayers is that the evidence for global warming in the last three years has grown stronger, not weaker. If the models are correct, the last thing we need to do is throw even more carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But that's exactly what we're already doing. The world is turning increasingly toward heavily polluting heavy crude, tar sands and coal. We're at a crux and we need more people who can explain what's going on.

Here's an interview with Henry Pollack, a scientist who, along with others, shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore. I'll end today's post with just one question and answer:

You talk at one point about the argument some have made that CO2 will boost agriculture, make winters shorter, and generally make life better. You call that argument "parochial and simplistic." It seems to me that many of climate contrarians' talking points similarly seize on part of the story to appeal to a kind of know-nothingism. How can complicated data win out over these efforts?

You have to create analogies that help people understand better. In the "contra" mentality, they see science as a long chain of evidence and that if they can break one link in the chain, the whole thing is going to collapse.

But it's not a chain with links in it; it's like a web hammock: Even if you snap one strand, the hammock doesn't fall apart, it's still filled when many other strands of evidence.

Some people say, "This must be part of a natural cycle." Well, that's true, there certainly was climate change in before there were people. But that doesn't mean that all climate change today is due to natural causes.

The analogy that I use is to ask the question, Were there ever forest fires before there were people? We know that lightning can cause forest fires, but that does not imply that all forest fires today are caused by lightning. And, just because there are natural causes [for climate change], it does not mean that today those are the only factors that are operating. There are almost 7 billion of us now; collectively, humans are the largest agents of geological and climatological changes. We're moving earth, we're clearing forests, we're changing ocean chemistry, and, incidentally, we're also changing the climate.

Poll: While Bush Stays in Bubble, Americans Confronting Real World

Bush's numbers continue to fall as he ignores reality and pushes ahead with his corrupt behavior. Ironically, as Bush continues to defend Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales, he probably ensures more legal trouble for himself than if he simply fired those two and cleaned up his act. But Bush is a truly rigid authoritarian who can't see very well. It's going to take more work on the part of Congress and others to continue limiting the president's recklessness.

Here's an AP poll carried by The Huffington Post:

It's gloomy out there. Men and women, whites and minorities _ all are feeling a war-weary pessimism about the country seldom shared by so many people.

Only 25 percent of those surveyed say things in the U.S. are going in the right direction, according to an AP-Ipsos poll this month....

(snip)

The current glumness is widely blamed on public discontent with the war in Iraq and with President Bush. It is striking for how widespread the mood is among different groups of people.

(snip)

When voter optimism hits such low levels, "It's not being driven by any specific group. It's a general kind of malaise that's across the board," Republican pollster Neil Newhouse said.

Actually, I'm amazed that Bush's numbers, even at this late date, are still as good as they are. After twenty years of wins by conservatives that year by year pulled our country dangerously to the right, Bush came in. Since 9/11 (but even before), The Decider has had a free hand to pursue his radical right-wing agenda for the last six years—and the results are not pretty. But common sense has deserted much of the Republican Party. As an example, Southern California is experiencing a severe drought. In conservative Orange County, public officials in March asked residents to voluntarily reduce their water usage. Instead, water usage shot up! Now that's in-your-face conservativism!

There are signs that the rest of America is waking up but that 25-30% of Americans who think Bush's radical right-wing agenda is good for America need to look long and hard in the mirror. Reality is catching up and photo ops, spin, posturing and fantasies are no way to confront those realities. If a dam is beginning to crack, there are things you can do about it but first you have to admit that the dam is beginning to crack.

Our country was built by optimists but that optimism would have been worthless in the vast American wilderness if it had not been paired with the ability to look at things honestly. Among other things, Bush has been stuffing the government with loyalists who are incompetent. A majority of Americans know in their hearts that the government can't function without the professionals who know what their doing and we know we can find those professionals regardless of whether they're Democrats, Republicans or independents. But Bush blunders on. That is where we're at in the spring of 2007, in the seventh year of America's most failed presidency.

Majority of Americans Want Out of Iraq

On Iraq, most Americans do not agree with Commander Guy. Here's the latest poll from CNN:

A majority of the U.S. public disapproves of President Bush's decision to veto a war spending bill that called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq in 2008, according to a CNN poll released Tuesday.

The poll found that 54 percent of Americans opposed Bush's May 1 veto, while 44 percent backed the president's decision to kill the $124 billion bill.

Now that the veto has been cast, 57 percent of Americans said they want Congress to send another spending bill with a timetable for withdrawal back to the White House, the poll found -- but 61 percent would support a new bill that dropped the timetables in favor of benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet to maintain American support.

What I want to know is why 44% still support a president whose Iraq policy is simply to kick the can down the road for the next president to deal with? Other than that, President Bush has no Iraq policy worthy of the name. We have turned ourselves into an unpopular occupation army in the middle of a civil war without an identifiable goal beyond not being shot at when we patrol a very unhappy and dysfunctional country that we never much thought about before Bush launched an invasion we did not need.

A war should have a realistic and meaningful goal. Bush never explained why (at least not accurately or honestly) we're there beyond his fiction created long after the start of the war that we're there so that the magical they do not come here. Bush can't even define who this magical they happens to be. Leaving war to an incompetent like Bush is also not acceptable. The 44% who think Bush was right to veto the Iraq bill need to get more realistic about what's happening. With the world's most powerful military, wars should not take four or five years to fight. And we should not be in the business of acquiring colonies or behave like we own Iraq which is how much of the world sees our presence in Iraq.

We need to wind the war down and think long and hard about what our military is for and why it should ever be used when there is no imminent threat. I believe in a strong defense but it makes no sense to go to war without an understandable policy or an acceptable and worthwhile goal. Relying on Bush's 'gut instinct' was a poor way to go. Congress needs to get Bush to wind down the war and wind down his strange and very costly ambitions.

Commander Guy at 28% Approval

Sometimes Bush says he's the Commander Guy and sometimes he says he's The Decider. A majority of Americans have their own opinion and are increasingly saying that Bush is The Failure Guy. Petulant and arrogant, unwilling to consider the wisdom of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, stubbornly refusing to engage in diplomacy, pursuing political games with no real value to most Americans, Bush continues to stumble along unwilling to change and unwilling to compromise.

Here's the story from Marcus Mabry of Newsweek:

It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

Three months ago, David Broder of The Washington Post thought Bush was due for a comeback. The dean of what passes for 'conventional wisdom' in Washington, as has been the case so often in the last six years, has considerable explaining to do. We have a failed and floundering president and vice president and it's time for more members of the media to make themselves useful to the American people and hold these two right wing conservatives accountable instead of running cover for their ideologial delusions and serial incompetence. We have problems and we need a functioning government or, barring that, we need a government that will not do us any further harm.

Bush's Bubble Troubles Continue

For a growing majority of Americans, the painful disconnect between what Bush says and what the reality is continues. A growing number of his supporters and allies are joining the ranks of Bush's critics. Even the Republican rank and file no longer support him with their usual enthusiasm.

The conservative magazine US News has a column by John W. Mashek:

All two-term presidents seem to suffer from a fatigue factor, but none like what George W. Bush is going through.

The Bush second term has been battered by the never-ending war in Iraq, a failing policy on the environment, a mess on the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, and the self-destruction of Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank. There are other flaps as well but you get the picture.

Poll after poll show Bush's popularity and performance in office is in the mid-30s or so. Vice President Cheney has embittered friends as well as enemies with his rhetoric and behavior.

With the help of many Republicans, including rubber stamp Republicans in Congress, Bush is failing Americans on issue after issue. Back in December, Bush had the chance to regroup after the November elections and the timely recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that provided him the chance of political cover. But Bush chose to ignore the Iraq Study Group and the many experienced and successful foreign policy hands who said it was time to change course. Bush's arrogance and rigidity got the better of the president and his failed presidency continues with no relief in sight.

Here's just one issue, this one felt particularly hard in California, that's irritating everyone, including many Republicans; here's the story from the San Francisco Chronicle:

About 44 percent of Californians said they've had to cut back on such expenses as food and clothing to afford rising fuel prices, according to a Field Poll to be released today. But responses were sharply divided between higher- and lower-income groups.

The poll found lower-income workers -- those earning less than $40,000 a year -- were twice as likely as those earning more than $80,000 to feel the pinch, with 62 percent reporting reduced spending and 54 percent describing the price rise as "very serious."

(snip)

Californians pay an average of $3.33 per gallon at the pump compared with $2.86 per gallon for regular nationwide, the AAA auto club reported Monday. San Francisco and Oakland both set records, reaching per-gallon rates of $3.45 and $3.35, respectively.

According to the Field Poll, voters cited the oil companies and the Bush administration as those most responsible for the price increases.

The oil companies have donated far more money to Republicans in recent years than Democrats. Obviously the oil companies found their men in Cheney and Bush, both former oil executives. Neither have come to grip with America's growing energy problems and oil companies are only too happy to make record profits. It's hard to find a single issue where Bush has done something useful for the majority of Americans. Even Bush's tax cuts are meaningless for most Americans if most people end up paying more for credit, gasoline and health care while wages continue to stagnate.

Here are Bush's latest poll numbers from All Headline News:

President George Bush's quarterly approval rating, for his 25th quarter in office, has reached a new low. According to a USA Today / Gallop Poll, only 35 percent of Americans approve of the job President Bush is doing in the Oval Office.

Bush continues to live in his bubble surrounded by staffers who tell him exactly what he wants to hear. It's an unhealthy situation and most Americans now understand that we have a problem. The only suprising thing about Bush's poll numbers are the number of Republicans still supporting his failed presidency. But even that is beginning to change.

Bush's Failed Presidency

They lied their way into a war in Iraq and then lied about their lies. That's what the Scooter Libby trial was about in the end. As former ambassador Joe Wilson puts it, the Bush Administration lied its way into a war to pursue a theory [presumably he means a neoconservative theory] that wasn't very good. According to the latest Gallup/USA Today poll, a majority of Americans have had enough; The Raw Story has the numbers:

A record number of Americans now say that the Iraq war was a "mistake" and less than half say the U.S. can win the war, a record low number, according to a new Gallup/USA Today poll released today. Almost 6 out of 10 Americans (58%) want troops to be withdrawn within 12 months and only 13% support sending more.

(snip)

A partisan divide remains. Only 29% of Republicans say the war was a mistake, vs. 84% of Democrats.

If the Republicans are going to rebuild their party and be taken seriously again, a majority of the Republican rank and file is going to have to come to term with Bush's failed presidency. And thanks to the recklessness and incompetence of the current administration, the next president, Republican or Democrat, is going to be spending a lot of time repairing our foreign policy.

Polls: Bush Receives Good News and Bad News

The good news for Bush according to the latest New York Times/CBS poll is that 65% of Republicans still believe in the Decider-in-Chief, although admittedly that's a drop of 13 points from last fall, but, as we all know by now, Bush has a special way of looking at things.

According to the same poll, Bush's overall approval rating is back down in the twenties at 29%.

I'm not sure why so many Republicans still support Bush. The president has lied to 300 million Americans and made numerous blunders in Iraq and elsewhere, but 65% of Republicans still act as if Bush is an honest man on hard times. I watched Bill Moyers tonight talk about Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay and other crooks in Washington who seem to have had close ties to the president. But that 65% of Republicans is still holding. Billions of dollars have disappeared in Iraq and billions more are unaccounted for after Hurricane Katrina. Nevertheless, that 65% of Republicans is still holding. Go figure.

Bush Continues to Sink in Polls

Except for rubber stamp Republicans in Congress, fewer and fewer Americans are defending the performance of George W. Bush. Here's the story from Jeffrey M. Jones of The Gallup Poll:

A new Gallup Poll finds George W. Bush with a 32% approval rating. That is down slightly from his readings in January, and is within one point of the low rating of his entire administration. More Americans disapprove than approve of his handling of seven different issues tested in the poll; he is rated most positively on terrorism and the economy. Bush's approval ratings on foreign affairs, the situation in Iraq, and immigration are the lowest of his administration.

I'm amazed that there are still Republicans who believe Bush is doing well. Loyalty in the face of incompetence is an extraordinary thing. What do Bush's loyalists still see that the rest of us don't? Even his continuing call for tax cuts in the face of an expensive war and deficits as far as the eye can see make absolutely no sense. The Bush presidency has become a big, noisy, lumbering machine wandering in the desert belching smoke and fumes without direction or purpose.

There are questions I wish the pollsters would ask. For example, how many Americans think George W. Bush is trustworthy? How many Americans think the president is competent? How many Americans believe Bush understand the problems of average Americans? How many Americans believe Bush kept his promises about New Orleans? What percentage of Americans believe the Bush Administration will keep us out of a third war? The list is long and it is unlike any series of questions pollsters might have asked in the last sixty years. Most Americans know something is wrong but I suspect they still do not fully appreciate the disaster of this presidency; it's past time to do a regular quarterly poll on this question: Do you believe Bush's presidency is a success or a failure?

CBS Poll Says Bush's Approval at 30%

Four years ago, various Bush Administration figures said that Iraq would be a cakewalk. They assured us they had all the answers. We have since learned otherwise.

Bush still has no plan for Iraq. The recent elections are two months old and Bush is still dawdling and doing everything he can to ignore the report by the Iraq Study Group. In the meantime, Donald Rumsfeld is gone. John Bolton is gone. Now Harriet Meiers is gone. Two generals have been replaced. Negroponte is going over to work for Condi Rice.

Will playing musical chairs save George W. Bush? The only way Bush can save his presidency is to knock off the politcal games for which he is so famous and show a little humility and willingness not just to change but to do more than just talk or do the opposite of whatever sound advice he receives.

CBS reports that Bush's approval ratings now sit at 30% (hat tip to Talking Points Memo); here's more:

Americans are generally optimistic about the new Democratic-controlled Congress that convened on Thursday, according to a CBS News poll. ...

Sixty-eight percent of those polled said they had optimistic feelings about the 110th Congress, which will be led by Democrats for the first time in 12 years. Just 25 percent said they were pessimistic.

The poll goes on to say that only 20% of Americans think Bush has a plan for Iraq. I wish the question had been this, "Bush still talks about victory. Do you believe he has a plan for victory in Iraq?"

There will be no victory. Not in the sense of a viable, democratic Iraq as an ally of the US. That's gone. The only thing that can be accomplished is to minimize the damage to our country and our foreign policy as we begin to withdraw and force the Iraqis to come to terms with their future. It will take a year or so to draw down most of the troops but our troops will probably have to remain closeby for another two or three years. Some troops may have to remain in the Kurdish areas on standby; there may even be occassions when some troops have to come back and engage in military action in trouble spots for a week or more. We will probably have to continue to make the whole of Iraq a flyover zone to protect it from its neighbors. In fact, to end the flyover zone, will require serious negotiations on our part with Iraq and its neighbors.

Let me note one other thing about the CBS poll: only 23% of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling Iraq. So let's review:
Only 20% of Americans think Bush has a clear plan.
Only 23% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq.*
Only 30% of Americans approve of Bush's overall performance.

I think we're finally getting down to the hardcore right wing Republicans who support Bush; I suspect the number is around 23-25%. George W. Bush has no mandate in Iraq and clearly no mandate for a broader war in the Middle East. In January of 2007, that is where we are.


*I can only surmise that 3% of Americans don't think Bush has a plan in Iraq but believe he has the astonishing ability to—what?—wing it, muddle his way through, roll the dice double or nothing? I leave readers to conjecture.

In 2006, Young Voters Turned to Democrats

In many ways, the campaign strategy for Republicans over the last six years has been designed to suppress the vote but it's a strategy that in the long run can't work unless the Republicans reform themselves. In the meantime, young people seem to be turning to the Democrats. Sidney Blumenthal in Salon has the story and more:

... Exit polls [for the 2006 midterm elections] showed that the Democrats won the popular vote by 52 to 46 percent. Given that Bush won the popular vote by 3 points in 2004, this was a reversal of not 6 but 9 points. An analysis of the actual popular vote for the Senate, however, reveals an even greater Democratic margin of 55 to 42.4 percent. That number also coincidentally corresponds to the margin by which Democrats won women, the greatest margin since 1988. Yet Democrats won independents by an even bigger margin, 18 points, the greatest spread in House races in 25 years. The profile of independents on issue after issue now mostly resembles the profile of Democrats.

(snip)

While voters under 30 were the most favorable age group in 2004 for Kerry, casting 54 percent of their votes for him, Democratic House candidates in 2006 received 60 percent of their votes, compared with 38 percent for Republicans. Nationally, partisan identification breaks 38 percent Democratic to 35 percent Republican, but among those under age 30 the percentages are 43 to 31 in favor of Democrats. This pattern runs as strongly in the West as in the East, the Midwest and the Pacific states, a clear indication that the Western states are heading out of the Republican camp -- out of alliance with the deep South's Republican states and into coalition with the broad majority. In Wyoming and Arizona, where Republicans won elections for the House and Senate, the Democrats would have won by 16 and 15 points, respectively, if the elections had been conducted only among under-30s. In Montana, where Democrat Jon Tester won by 1 percentage point, fewer than 3,000 votes, his margin among under-30s, who were 17 percent of the electorate, was 12 points.

It's increasingly clear that Bush and his right wing allies represent the politics of the far past. It's going to be up to the Democrats to demonstrate that they are the party of the future. In the spirit of bipartisanship (and good politics, for that matter), the Democrats should hold out the olive branch to Bush from time to time, though he already shows signs that he will do nothing more than swat the branch aside (so far, Bush's talk of bipartisanship has been a charade). Otherwise, the real job of the Democrats is to lay out their agenda and to make that agenda part of the 2008 election whenever Bush decides to use his veto.

The Democrats should compromise when feasible but speak loudly and clearly about the failure of Bush to respect the bipartisan compromises of the last seventy-five years. Those compromises are law, not opinions that a president can dismiss. Iraq will require special handling. Technically, Congress can advise on foreign policy (and control the purse strings) but they cannot micromanage the president. The real key is oversight: we need hearings and accountability to investigate the biggest foreign policy fiasco in American history. Finally, the five issues Democrats need to keep working on and talking about are jobs, health care, general government accountability, an energy policy and the environment. These issues are the future, these are the issues people want to see progress on.