« | »

Did AP Delay Its Poll For Copenhagen?

From a triumphant Associated Press:

FILE - This Aug. 25, 2009 photo shows a shirts worn by a person ...

[AP caption:] This Aug. 25, 2009 photo shows a shirts worn by a person at a rally against federal legislation on climate change in Greeley, Colo., organized by the American Petroleum Institute.

Poll: Action on climate will heat up economy, jobs

By Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writer Tue Dec 15

WASHINGTON – More Americans believe steps taken to reduce global warming pollution will help the U.S. economy than say such measures will hurt it. It’s a sign the public is showing more faith in President Barack Obama’s economic arguments for limiting heat-trapping gases than in Republican claims that the actions would kill jobs.

In an Associated Press-Stanford University poll, 40 percent said U.S. action to slow global warming in the future would create jobs. Slightly more, 46 percent, said it would boost the economy.

By contrast, less than a third said curbing climate change would hurt the economy and result in fewer jobs, a message Republican members of Congress plan to take to an international global warming conference in Copenhagen this week.

"They’re wrong," Ron Classen of Seattle, who participated in the poll, said of the GOP stance. "People are going to be shifted from one job to another," said Classen, a self-described fan of environmentalist and former Vice President Al Gore.

The survey’s results seem to boost Democratic efforts to curb global warming pollution and sign on to an international agreement to reduce heat-trapping gases, despite the concerns many Americans have about the recession and the high unemployment rate.

For some, the recession has manifested itself in a nothing-left-to-lose attitude when it comes to tackling climate and to sparking a revolution in where and how the nation produces its energy.

"I don’t know if anybody has looked around lately, but the economy is dead," said Jake Berglund, a home-improvement contractor from Portland, Conn. "We are in a sinking ship, and Obama has bought us enough life rafts to keep on going. But we need to figure out how to build a new boat when we are still on the water."

The poll, however, also suggests that Americans have limits to how much they want to pay to address global warming. Obama and many Democrats in Congress envision shifting the country away from burning fossil fuels to cleaner forms of energy, in a part by passing a new law that would set up a cap-and-trade system that puts a price on pollution.

While three-quarters of respondents said they support action of some kind on climate change, just as many said they would oppose the cap-and-trade system if it raised their electricity bill by $25 a month. A majority — 59 percent — wouldn’t support cap-and-trade if it meant paying $10 extra a month for electricity.

Under cap-and-trade, companies that release greenhouse gases when they manufacture electricity would pass the cost of buying pollution permits or investing in cleaner technologies down to consumers.

This added cost allows alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar that tend to be more expensive to compete with cheaper but dirtier forms of energy such as coal…

The Obama administration has doled out billions in economic stimulus dollars to help fund clean energy technologies. It has also pursued mandates that would require cleaner-burning cars and require power plants and factories to install technologies to reduce heat-trapping pollution from their smokestacks.

By increasing the cost of doing business, the cap-and-trade bill and the regulations backed by the White House may mean there would be fewer jobs in coal mining, oil refining and other industries that emit greenhouse gases. But many jobs would probably be replaced by "green jobs" such as making wind turbines, installing solar panels and insulating homes.

Walter Hornbeak, a 67-year-old Republican from Tennessee who built equipment for coal- and nuclear-fired power plants in the 1980s, said, "We have too much imagination to sit there and be stagnant."

Reducing global warming "would give the private sector the incentive to go out and start investing and finding ways to help more," Hornbeak said…

There is a recognition, based on the AP poll, that eventually everyone would have to change their habits. Sixty-five percent said global warming could be slowed only if people make major changes in their lifestyle.

"It would hurt," said Joe Fletcher, a tax accountant from Woodbridge, N.J., who was among the third who said reducing global warming pollution would cost jobs and harm the economy. Fletcher, however, still supports cap and trade.

"But if you look at it in an overall planetary perspective, you might need to do something like this … to help your environment and grandchildren," Fletcher said.

Of course the first question that comes to mind, is where did the Associated Press find such obdurately stupid people?

How can they believe that ‘green jobs’ will suddenly appear out of thin (albeit cleaner) air, when there are no signs of any such jobs even after Mr. Obama has poured billions of taxpayer dollars into these new technologies?

Another is, why is there so little concern from the media and the rest of the usually handwringing left about how ‘cap and trade’ will hit the poor and minorities the hardest?

Mr. Obama has already promised us that energy prices will "skyrocket" in his brave and cleaner world.

But, besides just the costs, there will be the lack of work. For instance, aren’t there a lot of people in Appalachia and other supposedly impoverished areas who work in coal?

Don’t a lot of poor and minorities work for oil companies in some way or another?

Or are we only concerned about the poor in other countries when it comes to ‘climate change’?

Walter Hornbeak, a 67-year-old Republican from Tennessee who built equipment for coal- and nuclear-fired power plants in the 1980s, said, "We have too much imagination to sit there and be stagnant."

Reducing global warming "would give the private sector the incentive to go out and start investing and finding ways to help more," Hornbeak said.

Who says? We have millions of people stagnating after months – even years — on un-employment and welfare as we speak.

By the way, notice how the Associated Press quotes not just one but two people who are supposedly Republican and on the other side of this issue, who nevertheless cannot help but be swayed by the inevitable truth of man-made global warming.

First we had the supposed Republican, Mr. Hornbeak. And then the AP gives us Mr. Fletcher:

"It would hurt," said Joe Fletcher, a tax accountant from Woodbridge, N.J., who was among the third who said reducing global warming pollution would cost jobs and harm the economy. Fletcher, however, still supports cap and trade.

"But if you look at it in an overall planetary perspective, you might need to do something like this … to help your environment and grandchildren," Fletcher said.

This is a well known dramatic device, called peripeteia, where even the hero’s worst enemies are won over to his cause at the climax.

Such as when even the cops and bailiff donate money to George Bailey’s collection in the end of ‘It’s A Wonderful Life.’

And speaking of manipulation, there can be no doubt what the AP wanted from this poll:

The survey’s results seem to boost Democratic efforts to curb global warming pollution and sign on to an international agreement to reduce heat-trapping gases, despite the concerns many Americans have about the recession and the high unemployment rate.

But we also have to question the timing of its publication, since we are also told by the Associated Press that this poll was done more than 15 days ago:

How the poll on global warming was conducted

By The Associated Press Tue Dec 15

The Associated Press-Stanford University Environment Poll on global warming was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media from Nov. 17-29, 2009. It is based on landline telephone and cell phone interviews with a nationally representative random sample of 1,005 adults. Interviews were conducted with 705 respondents on landline telephones and 300 on cellular phones…

Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish.

As is done routinely in surveys, results were weighted, or adjusted, to ensure that responses accurately reflect the population’s makeup by factors such as age, sex, education and race. In addition, the weighting took into account patterns of phone use — landline only, cell only and both types — by region…

Isn’t it peculiar that this poll was taken back on Nov 17-29, and we are only hearing about it more than two weeks later?

In contrast, the New York Times/CBS News poll we posted earlier was conducted between from Dec. 4-8, 2009.

So why such a long delay in the turnaround for this poll? Did it take the AP a long time to massage the numbers? Or did they want to wait until the final decision on any agreement at Copenhagen was closer?

Of course we can hardly believe the AP would manipulate such important news for any such agenda.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, December 15th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

11 Responses to “Did AP Delay Its Poll For Copenhagen?”

  1. puhiawa says:

    The idea that a government mandate re CO2 will save or create jobs is delusional.

  2. artpa says:

    Yes, and free Obama money will grow on trees from his private “stash”

  3. bill says:

    There must be a reason you never hear costs and green in the same sentences … I just can’t figure it out right now, can anyone?

    Green is terribly expensive, just ask the remaining ethanol refineries.

  4. proreason says:

    There is only one way for the standard of living to increase, and it isn’t jobs, green or not.

    The only way is innovation that makes it possible to produce more with less effort.

    If that doesn’t happen, all of the jobs in the world will only shuffle misery around. Without innovation, standards of living remain stagnant, at best. Period. Case closed.

    Now maybe you are an idiot, and think that windmills and solar cells will eventually heat and cool your homes and operate cars with less human effort. If you think that, you are hopeless, so go read something else.

    But if you have a brain and realize that better-faster-cheaper is the only chance your kids have for a better life than you have, and that government is always worse-slower-costlier, and that the green con game is the SPEED KEY to throw your living standard back to the Stone Age, then stand up now against tyranny.

  5. BillK says:

    I believe most of these idiots polled don’t realize that “global warming cuts” means things like paying at least 2x what they do now for electricity and that gas, simply, may be rationed.

    Assuming these people live in apartments and don’t care what power costs, they still need to get to work.

    Take mass transit and don’t care about fuel costs? Wait until bus fare is $10 each way…

  6. eaglewingz08 says:

    I checked online with NJ Consumer Affairs which licenses accountants and accounting firms and there are no records of any Joe Fletcher or Joseph Fletcher being licensed. Is this guy for real or is he just a ghost of the reporter’s imagination? Seems like we may have another reporter acting like that discredited Jason Blair (also a liberal hardliner) did many years ago for the NYSlimes.

  7. pdsand says:

    The underlying questions in the poll as always are fascinating:
    http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-Stanford_University_Environment_Poll_Topline.pdf

    From the same poll, the headline could have been, “Two-thirds of Americans think scientists have no idea what’s going on”. Based on the following question:

    Do you think most scientists agree with one another about whether or not global warming is happening, or do you think there is a lot of disagreement among scientists on this issue?

    Most scientists agree 31
    Most scientists disagree 66
    Don’t know (DO NOT READ) 2
    Refused (DO NOT READ) –
    Based on: N=1,005

    They even ignored what is simultaneously the most and least telling question of the poll, because the results didn’t support their agenda.

    Q25. How much do you think the U.S. government should do about global warming? A great deal, quite a bit, some, a little, or nothing? 11/17/09-11/29/09
    A Great Deal/Quite a Bit 52
    A great deal 31
    Quite a bit 21
    Some 23
    A Little/Nothing 25
    A little 10
    Nothing 15
    Don’t know (DO NOT READ) *
    Refused (DO NOT READ) *
    Based on: N=1,005

    Note the careful and meaningless wording of the question and answers. Despite the preciseness of the terms a great deal, quite a bit, some and a little, those who believed the government should do either a “great deal” or “quite a bit” still only narrowly edged the “some” or “little/nothing” crowd by 52-48. And then when you go down further in the questions into details on what exactly the government should do, those actions which result in increased costs to consumers and individuals on electricity and gas all get disapproved by huge numbers. The questions of increased electricity costs or taxes gets disapproved 78-20 and 77-22, increased gas taxes or prices gets disapproved 64-35 and 70-30. Generally tax breaks to encourage greener energy production by power companies are approved by between 88-12 in favor of wind/solar, 65-31 in favor of carbon sequestration, and a low of 54-43 in favor of nuclear. It’s not until you get into the taxes on so-called polluting businesses or on imports from polluting countries that Americans favor taxes and price increases.
    So basically most Americans don’t think that there’s a consensus on global warming, are split on the question of whether the government should address the problem, and overwhelmingly disapprove of any actions that would hurt their own pocket book. Yet inexplicably believe there is a way to “punish the bad guys” that the media has spent lo these many decades constructing in their minds without harming themselves in the process. So there is still an opening for the enemies of our society to exploit.

    How the “journalists” who reported on this poll made the decision to cherry pick the results they did and tout them as the newsworthy results is impossible to fathom unless you grant that they are driving an agenda. And yes, these results were delayed until now for a reason, and there are yet further results being held for later release. My brief scan through showed at least 5 questions still being held for further release. In typical fashion I’m sure they will be touted around as if from a new poll, thus multiplying the impact and newsworthiness of a single biased poll.

    • pdsand says:

      Hah! Questions 1 and 2 are being held as well as questions 4-17. Once we get to see the underlying questions I’m sure it will be blatantly clear that the push was on full force before you get to the features results in question THIRTY SIX that finally got the results the AP wanted, that 40-46% of those polled, after weighting think that the government can address global warming and improve the economy and the job market while doing it. Who in the world could stay awake over the telephone to endure what seems to be at least (due to an apparent typo) 55 questions? Who would not be dizzy enough to make an honest mistake and give the answer they wanted to hear?

  8. pdsand says:

    “Another is, why is there so little concern from the media and the rest of the usually handwringing left about how ‘cap and trade’ will hit the poor and minorities the hardest?”

    That’s an easy one, and the poll results are already in:

    Q35. (Continued) For each of the following, please tell me whether you favor or oppose it as a way for the federal government to try to reduce future global warming:

    [HALF OF RESPONDENTS WERE ASKED THIS VERSION OF THE QUESTION:] Charge power companies an extra tax for each ton of air pollution they put out that many scientists think causes global warming 11/17/09-11/29/09
    Favor 59
    Oppose 40
    Don’t know (DO NOT READ) 1
    Refused (DO NOT READ) –
    Based on: N=501

    [THE OTHER HALF OF RESPONDENTS WERE ASKED THIS VERSION OF THE QUESTION:] Charge power companies an extra tax for each ton of air pollution they put out that many scientists think causes global warming and return the extra tax money equally to all Americans 11/17/09-11/29/09
    Favor 63
    Oppose 36
    Don’t know (DO NOT READ) 2
    Refused (DO NOT READ) *
    Based on: N=502

  9. Liberals Demise says:

    Actually, I foresee a tax on the American Citizens for Chinese CO2 emissions.

  10. evilmonkey says:

    So, based on the polling numbers, 0.00000335 percent of the people in the US will decide what the other 99.999999 percent will need to do with their lives in order to prevent global warming? Tell me, were the polling questions and statistics derived from the nice folks at the CRU?


« Front Page | To Top
« | »