Are global warming delayers failing to sway public opinion?

"How do you reconcile the 41% who think global warming is exaggerated in the media and the 74% who want to take at least moderate action to reduce global warming?"

The 2 questions aren't mutually exclusive. One can think that media reports are exaggerated but still think global warming is a serious problem, although perhaps a more long-term one. With a feeble economy, there are more pressing concerns. So the 2nd question implies 26% don't want to take any action on global warming, or little action. So of the 41% who think media reports are exaggerated, close to 1/3 of them ((41-26)/41) fall into the category mentioned above.

There is also a margin of error in each poll. Also, the Gallup poll was conducted in the winter - which happened to be fairly cold in certain populated parts of America, including the upper midwest and northeast (although quite warm from the Rockies on west), which might lead a few more people to choose "exaggerated". The Yale/GMU poll was conducted in fall - a more neutral time to take such a poll.

To answer the question, I think contrarians have done a good job at confusing the public. If public opinion matched scientific opinion, we'd have well over 90% agreement. Whether or not there are any lasting trends in public opinion is a bit unclear, since other polls conflict.

The idea that AGW conspiracy theorists would also become H1N1 conspiracy theorists is certainly not surprising. It must be a scary world to live in, believing that governments or even scientists are able to pull off hoaxes on such an incredibly large scale. When a new flu virus comes about, it has the potential to be very deadly and not find a lot of natural resistance. Most new strains are related to previous strains, so humans have some natural resistance. H1N1 had no relation to any previous strain, and so humans had no current antibodies to it. This is why it was such a big deal. Further, the lethality of a flu needs to be predicted in advance, so that there can be time for vaccines to be made. If it's not causing bodies to stack today, it could be a very different situation in half a year's time.The fact that the virus is going to be passing through millions of people over the next year means the chances of a dangerous mutation are high. They knew it was a gamble going in, that it might not turn out to be too deadly, but certainty in such a situation was impossible. They weighed their choices and they acted. So no, I don't think it will affect public opinion too much. With both AGW and swine flue the facts were sufficient for any rational (read: not conspiracy-minded) person to understand the justification for action. The vast majority of the H1N1 truthers were likely to have already been AGW deniers anyway.

1) Not any more. I think it's one of the reasons the party of obstructionists got booted in the last election. I hope they keep it up and permanently seal the deal.

2) Humans are generally irrational and notoriously bad at risk assessment.

We need better leaders to help people understand the risks, the solutions and what's in it for the average person.

Gore tries but he seems to be a polarizing figure. Hopefully Obama will do better.

It's such a big problem, so much information, so many changes, so many entrenched constituencies, it's like we need the equivalent of an Einstein, Churchill, Roosevelt and Gandhi rolled into one.

Most people who answer polls want the pollster to think they are intelligent. If 41% said it is exaggerated, that means the propaganda campaign is much worse than that suggests. Saying that requires actual thought rather than just being a sheep and going with what you are spoon fed. It is MUCH easier to just agree with what you are supposed to. That is directly contrary to the view of the poster's political party and the vast majority know it. The only people who think it isn't exaggerated are deniers that deny reality or people who think the biggest news is what Paris Hilton is wearing.

Public opinion is being swayed by two cold winters in a row, and by global warming protests held outside in unusually cool and snowy weather.

Polls are easily modified to get the result the pollster wants. This one doesn't seem like it is exaggerated but too often the pollee tries to tell the poller what he/she thing they want to hear. Are we delaying global warming or are you. I would think you would want that particular title.

Poll are just------------- well POLLS!

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/four-in...

If I carefully select my polling criteria, I can make a poll say anything I want it to, so it's almost utterly worthless.

I'm also rather shocked that a "scientist" gives a rat's rear-end about a poll.

If that were true, you and your friends would not be here trying to change public opinion would you, and such legislation would have been passed a long time ago.

I think belief with a part of the American public depends on their pocketbook, but for the most part, the "delayers" are losing.