Brits Question Global Warming More Than Americans & Canadians

From Angus Reid Public Opinion:

Half of respondents in the two North American countries think climate change is a fact and is caused by emissions—fewer Britons concur.

While Canadians continue to be more likely than Americans and Britons to blame global warming on man-made emissions, they are not as unwavering about it as they were last year, a new three-country Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

Overall, half of Canadians (52%, -8 since October) and Americans (49%, +7) say that that global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities. Only 43 per cent of Britons (-4) agree with this assessment.

In the United States, one-in-five respondents (20%, -5) think that global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven, along with 20 per cent of Britons (+2) and 14 per cent of Canadians (=).

More than half of Canadians (55%, -6) believe it is more important to protect the environment, even at the risk of hampering economic growth, while 22 per cent (+4) would prefer to foster economic growth, even at the risk of damaging the environment.

In the United States, 47 per cent of respondents (+2) would emphasize protecting the environment, while 26 per cent (-4) would foster economic growth. The biggest change since last year comes in Britain, where only 40 per cent of respondents would protect the environment (-11) and 33 per cent would prefer to foster economic growth (+11).

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

h/t to WUWT reader JB Williamson

About these ads

93 thoughts on “Brits Question Global Warming More Than Americans & Canadians

  1. Overall, half of Canadians (52%, -8 since October) and Americans (49%, +7) say that that global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities. Only 43 per cent of Britons (-4) agree with this assessment.

    Which goes to show that, in the eyes of people who take surveys, weather IS climate. Were a disproportionate number of American respondents from Texas?

  2. To make it easier to understand the numbers:

    47% of Brits think Global Warming is either natural or hasn’t been proven
    38% of Yanks ” ” ”
    35% of Canucks ” ” ”

    add a healthy 10-13% of not sures and these numbers equal or exceed the evanglisatas.

    It would have been better balanced if there had been a “Is there global warming or are temperatures rises and falls part of the Earth’s natural climate system?”

    bring on winter again – UK’s is forecast to be grim again.

  3. It’s daft to ask whether you’re more in favour of economic growth or protecting the environment, when if you don’t believe in cagw you can have both.
    The change in figures for the US over the years are interesting. Come on Anthony, you’re just not trying hard enough.

  4. In December 2010, the UK had its second-coldest December in the 350 year record of the CET. It is a wonder that any of them believe in global warming. But they have just had a cold summer and another cold winter will be soon upon them.

  5. Hi I live in the UK, I see what the BBC do to the reports on AGW using their even handed approach (sarc). I tell as many people as possible to use their brains and think about what they are being told on AGW and to spend a hour of their valuable time checking some of the data and its sources. I live within sight of the biggest onshore widfarm in the UK, “Scout Moor” which is being expanded, if the developers have their way. Local Authorities have no say in the outcome of the enquiry, it will be decided by Central Governement after consultation. The bulk of the people interviewed about this, on local radio, had very scant knowledge on the AGW issue, and most of the issues raised were do the “mills” detract from the view. How can you educate without an unbiased media?

  6. Keith:

    At September 13, 2011 at 2:36 am you say:

    “Overall, half of Canadians (52%, -8 since October) and Americans (49%, +7) say that that global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities. Only 43 per cent of Britons (-4) agree with this assessment.

    Which goes to show that, in the eyes of people who take surveys, weather IS climate. Were a disproportionate number of American respondents from Texas?”

    Your post is a nice try at spin but a complete FAIL.
    The people who took the survey specifically asked about “global warming” (n.b. NOT “weather”) and asked about human and natural causes of “global warming”. So, your suggestion that they misled people by confusing “global warming” with “weather” is completely without foundation.

    And the survey discerned that Britons are more doubtful of human-caused global warming than North Americans.

    The problem for we Britons is that all the main UK political parties have tied themselves to “global warming”: only one MP voted against the insane Climate Change Bill. Somehow we need to get the politicians to
    (a) accept the reality that overwhelming evidence refutes a human cause for global warming
    and
    (b) proper representation of their electorates would insist that they abandon their adherence to policies based on an assumption of human-caused global warming.

    Richard

  7. One big difference between these 3 countries is that Canada has a federal government that actually stated that observations trump computer models. The party that won the last federal election, on May 2, 2011, didn’t mention climate change/global warming at all during the election campaign, and won with a solid majority government and will be in power for the next 4 years unopposed as even the unelected senate is on this governments side.

  8. Off topic, but I am seeking some guidance from the clever folk frequenting this blog.

    It is reported in the Australian media, over past days, that arctic sea ice has been reduced to a record minimum, this northern summer. Is this correct? And best source for this (sea ice) information is?

    Cheers ….

  9. As a Brit, it is good to see the delusion wearing off in the place where it started. It will be the right place for the edifice to collapse along with the props, and a long overdue overhaul of the BBC. The trend is in the right direction so it is just a matter of time now. There will be a final panic by those who cannot accept defeat or being just plain and arrogantly wrong, but it is on its way to where it belongs.

  10. Some polling in Oz – I don’t have other than a verbal summary – says that about 50% accept AGW science to a degree, but at the same time many of these do not regard it as an immediate danger – there are more fundamental matters of concern, like incomes, health care, education.
    The Federal Government, meanwhile, today introduced its “Carbon tax” legislation into Parliament, against strong expressions of public will. There are about 16 Bills to read and digest, according to media.

  11. Rather badly worded questions with a warmist bias. e.g what’s ‘yet’ doing in Q3 ?

    Survey also leads the respondent into the belief that Global Warming is still happening when it has
    actually stopped for the past few years.

    Survey also ignores recent cooling and how that would affect peoples views on CO2 going forward
    should it be found that CO2 was ‘innocent all along’.

  12. Whats surprising is that the UK number is as high as 43%.

    And GW scientists only have themselves to blame, with predictions about long hotter summers, milder winters etc. etc. Non of which as come to pass. Outside of the London, the summer this year as been awful in the UK. Lots of cloud cover keeping temps down, and very very few spells of sunshine, hence its the dullest one since 1993…….

  13. It could mean that Brits like James Delingpole at the Telegraph, Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill or Richard North at EUReferendum are getting their case across better.
    It could also mean that Brits are sick of the hypocrisy of a Prime Minister whose father-in-law earns a £1000 a day from his windfarm scam, and a Deputy Prime Minister whose Spanish wife earns unbelievable sums as a Director of the Spanish Wind Turbine & Solar company, Acciona.
    Yours Bufo Toad.

  14. Occam’s Razor tells me that any changes in climate/weather that have been going on for millions of years have many more important influences than the pathetic contribution that mankind has had in the mere tick of the cosmic clock.
    The Al Gores of this planet should look at the real world and not unrealistic/overemphasised computer predictions formulated to allow GreenPeace, WWF, Friends? of the Earth, Plane Stupids,etc., to scam funds to keep their top executives pensions on line!

    The UK Coalition is about as poor a collection of politicians this country has had since King Ethelred became the Unready

  15. David Archibald writes: “…and another cold winter will be soon upon [the Brits]“. Not too sure about the scientific basis of your prediction, David, even if successful.

    But I’m a pot calling the kettle black here: I keep a toy car in the kitchen freezer. The little man inside is labelled Chris Huhne (our Climate Scam Minister). If my voodoo works, and Mr. Huhne’s ministerial car becomes buried in a snowdrift, remember where you first heard this!

  16. It’s a little unfair to blame only the BBC for alarmism in the UK media. ITV news is no more sceptical and Channel Four news is pretty much as bad as the BBC. Channel Four in general showed The Great Global Warming Swindle some years ago but otherwise is knee-jerk alarmist.
    As for newspapers, The Independent and Guardian are the worst for alarmism but all the others tend to parrot the party line. The Daily Mail has Booker and the Telegraph Delingpole but, (correct me if I’m wrong) only as a blogger, not in print. The Telegraph has some of the most egregious Greenpeace/WWF press release cut-and-paste jobs in the press. Otherwise all the media of Right, Left or anything else is pretty uniformly alarmist.

  17. To me the fact that pollsters are even asking is an indication of the insecure stance of the “orthodoxy”.

  18. Richard S Courtney says:
    September 13, 2011 at 2:57 am

    Keith:

    At September 13, 2011 at 2:36 am you say:

    “Overall, half of Canadians (52%, -8 since October) and Americans (49%, +7) say that that global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities. Only 43 per cent of Britons (-4) agree with this assessment.

    Which goes to show that, in the eyes of people who take surveys, weather IS climate. Were a disproportionate number of American respondents from Texas?”

    Your post is a nice try at spin but a complete FAIL.
    The people who took the survey specifically asked about “global warming” (n.b. NOT “weather”) and asked about human and natural causes of “global warming”. So, your suggestion that they misled people by confusing “global warming” with “weather” is completely without foundation.

    Hi RIchard,

    You misunderstand me, it would seem. If I were an AGW spin-merchant I’d be using a pseudonym, something like Indolent Youth ;-)

    People don’t need to be misled to confuse global warming with weather; they do it all the time, to judge by the results of this and other surveys, and comments in the media. Hence, from the report:

    The online survey of representative national samples also shows that belief in man-made climate change has reached the highest level in the United States since 2009, and has fallen considerably in Britain.

    Here in the UK we’ve seen the numbers supporting the AGW view falling ever since Climategate, though I’m sure most surveys have given less support for AGW than this survey has come up with. I dare say the good work of the GWPF has helped, but I’m fairly sure that it’s a few years of cold that has swung it, and a few more might statistically disprove AGW too. A healthy distrust of politicians, aided by the expenses scandals, has possibly also opened more eyes to the view that, if they’re virtually unanimous in their support of AGW then something probably stinks.

    The increase in those supporting AGW in the US of A since the last survey by Angus Reid in October stands out. Climategate has been just as big news over there, the last couple of winters have been brutal and there’s at least been some MSM exposure for non-Team science and opinion. So why the 7% increase? I’d put money on it being due to this summer’s Texas drought and heatwave. The general public are less likely to support a theory that is incongruous with their own experiences, but some will be swung back to AGW if they’re seeing a hot summer. One more cold winter and the figures will drop again.

    All the scientific evidence in the world does fairly little to change public opinion. It’s personal experience, and proof of being lied to, that causes the swings. Given the lack of MSM coverage since Climategate of the ongoing Team malfeasance, recent changes in survey results are more influenced by personal experience of the weather, it would seem.

  19. The masses are much more stupid down under:

    53% believe climate change causes tsunamis
    40% believe climate change causes earthquakes
    37% believe climate change causes volcanic eruptions
    93% think CO2 constitutes more than 1% of the atmosphere
    47% think CO2 is ‘pollution’
    37% think we should try to reduce carbon in the body
    44% think food and drink would be safer if it had no carbon or CO2 in it

  20. TBear (Warm Cave in Cold-as-Snow-Sydney) says:
    September 13, 2011 at 3:04 am
    Off topic, but I am seeking some guidance from the clever folk frequenting this blog.
    It is reported in the Australian media, over past days, that arctic sea ice has been reduced to a record minimum, this northern summer. Is this correct? And best source for this (sea ice) information is?

    =====================

    This year it looks like you get a choice:

    • Earliest End To The Arctic Melt Season On Record? — Or –Is ‘Arctic sea ice is melting at its fastest pace in almost 40 years?’

    http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/earliest-arctic-melt-season-record

  21. The poll was conducted from August 25 to September 2, 2011. Given that most people have short memories for weather, could the summer heat in N America and the lack of sunshine in UK have increased the divergence between the two regions? I wonder what the result would have been if they had polled 6 months earlier.

  22. Last year in a survey of Americans 40% couldn’t name a fossil fuel.
    Maybe they were asked about global warming.
    Just remember “rational ignorance.”

  23. The fact that opinion polls are created about this issue is proof it is a poltical, not scientific, issue.

  24. Well the questions are stupid…

    Global Warming or Man Made Global Warming or both..

    Global Warming could be extremely dangerous, but not though primarily due to man, etc,etc

    As I’m going to be ‘Revealed as A denier’ (thanks to Al Gore) tomorrow.

    My only question is, what next?

  25. To be honest, I don’t know anyone who believes that global warming is man made other than the idiots who teach it in schools and those with a fiscal interest in perpetuating the myth. I put that down to old fashioned, ingrained, Lancashire common sense. The Yorkshire tykes I know are also of the same opinion.

    I aim to put across the sceptical view whenever I can. I scored a minor victory with my local coffee shop. The owner put literature from a national company on every table extolling the virtue of solar panels and how those installing them could receive up to £1500 a year in feed-in tariffs. A few weeks later she received her electricity and gas bills for the cafe and was perplexed at how high they were. I simply handed her one of the leaflets and then asked her where she thought the money for the feed-in tariff came from. The leaflets disappeared that very same day never to return.

  26. I suspect all the weather disasters in the US is a big reason for the increase. In the press you constantly see “experts” stating that the disasters are enhanced by climate change. Hence, the reason we have seen all the disasters this is due to climate change even though they are weather.

    Of course, the people that are influenced by claims such as these will be just as quick to change back with a cold winter.

  27. It is a clever little trick to divide the skeptical viewpoint into two separate categories. It makes the pro-AGW viewpoint seem much more dominant.

    Of course there should only be to categories: Mostly man-made or mostly natural.

    The third category: global warming is a theory which has not been proven, is total nonsense. What constitutes “global warming theory” here? Lindzens view? Hansens? And what constitutes “proof” here? Does a so-called consensus constitute proof? Surely not.

    No sane person would tick “yes!” there exists a nondescript but precise theory of global warming which has been proven in all aspects beyond the shadow of doubt.

    It makes no sense.

    This third category has obviously been included for the express purpose of watering down the skeptic side, making “consensus” seem relatively more dominant.

  28. It’s 100 percent each way In Australia now, we’re right behind the dear leader Julia and Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

  29. I was under a the false impression that the school kids in the UK were being pumped with AGW propoganda and that they were not allowed any critical thinking or opposite views. I have been personnaly corrected in this matter by the head teacher of a school with over 1,000 pupils. So, at least in one school the pupils are allowed to investigate and argue about it, and they do very vigourously. Perhaps it will be the school kids in the UK who will cause a return to climate sanity in the UK. I always though the Ozzies had the edge when it came to sniffing out a good scam, but it looks like they are going under.

  30. @Richard S Courtney says:
    September 13, 2011 at 2:57 am

    I would say most people don’t know the difference between weather and climate. We keep being told that climate change is causing extreme weather events, such as the heat wave in much of the USA this summer, Hurricane Irene and the Texas wildfires. These are repeated ad nauseum by the popular media.

  31. I agree with Robert of Ottawa @ 4:52 a.m. An opinion poll has nothing to do with science. It is a tool of political parties – and advertisers.
    It is interesting to see that carbon dioxide is not mentioned in the poll. Nor is the term greenhouse gas used. Instead, respondents are asked about “emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities”. (Picture, dear respondent, the promotional ads and videos of black smoke from tail pipes and chimney stacks.)
    Notice that respondents are asked which question “is closest to your view”. In the analysis, those who respond with a view that is closest to “climate change is a fact and is caused by emissions” are identified in the analysis (but not in the press release) as believing. The skeptics, on the other hand, ‘brand’ climate change as unproven.
    Get ready for another climate change ad campaign.

  32. The number of people that still believe in manmade climate change is depressing. There are still huge chunks of the population that believe the Climate Liars, thanks to the effort of the lamestream media who never let facts or science intrude in their brainwashing efforts. People are generally quite gullible and believe what the media or their governments tell them. I don’t expect the collapse of the Climate Liar movement until they’ve enacted a large portion of their religion through laws and taxes. The resulting economic collapse will then wisen the vast majority of people up. I don’t have much faith that the masses will smarten up before it’s too late.

  33. tallbloke says:
    “The last two questions split the sceptic vote. Neat way to obfuscate the conclusion that in the UK at least, the sceptics are in the majority”

    And the first lumps those who believe AGW is not Catastrophic in with those that do.

    Another “trick” to make the “action must be taken now” (before everyone realizes it’s pointless) position seem dominant.

  34. This underscores the impact of action. As long as CAGW is a vague “pollution is bad” proposition it polls well- who wants to say pollution is okay? The minute you put a real cost to it, the numbers change dramatically. Britain has put a cost to it, Canada has talked a good game about while enjoying job creation and a financial windfall from the Tar Sands. In the United States the question has become a proxy for whether you support a gasoline and electricity tax hike.

  35. One of the reasons why perhaps more Canadians than Britts or Americans erronously believe that global warming is a fact and caused by man is the very sanitized news reporting about climate in Canada. It has been my observation that major tv networks like CTV, the publically funded CBC and to a lesser degree Global and the major national newspapers like Globe and Mail , The Star seem to refuse to report any news that calls to question the AGW science . Fortunately the National Post is only real fair reporter of climate news in Canada .The internet and international news fortunately allow Canadians to get a more balanced picture of the climate debate. Fortunately also the Federal party currently in power[ Conservatives] in Ottawa ,saw through all this global warming smoke and mirrors and recently killed Canada’s Climate Change Legislation Bill 311. At the provincial level, the Liberals and NDP [ in Ontario]are still pushing Cap and Trade or carbon tax on their platforms and openly boast in their election ads that their enviornmental platform is Suzuki approved . Nature however has other plans and the coming La Nina winter is bound be cold again like last winter with lot of snow and colder temperatures opposite to what the
    models called for which was for more warming .

  36. For those who think that CAP and Trade policy is dead in North America , I draw attention to the fact that four Canadian provinces and seven US states are currently quietly and yet actively planning to introduce this not at the Federal or National level but at provincial and state level s .If Liberal or Democratic parties get into power in these provinces and states they may very well bring it about unless there is a strong public objection

  37. Canadians are well disinformed by the Globe and Mail, newspaper owned by the richest Canadian family the Thomsons. One of the trustee of their multi billion investment arm the Woodbridge Foundation is Sir Crispin Tickell who has been in the corridors of UNEP since 1992 and has recommended Monbiot to some scientific society in the UK… Invested in green stuff such as Point Carbon, they never miss an opportunity to spew propaganda, support green politicians such as Quebec Premier Charest who welcomed Gore few years ago during his indoctrination boot camp and open their space to propagandists -political scientist, software developer- whose climatic knowledge consist only in repeating the pro warming crowd arguments.
    Even in Global newspapers, green agit prop is spewed on a regular basis. Only the National Post has columnists who dare denounce Big Green.

  38. Canadians have not woke up to the fact that if the world succeeds in reducing Global temperatures, it will necessarily reduce Canada’s temperatures the most. Many of the crops we now grow marginally will disappear. Fuel consumption and costs, to heat their homes, will rise massively. Canada will become significantly less inhabitable. They will diminish. For what? That is the question Canadians must wake up to! GK

  39. Ufsi says:
    September 13, 2011 at 5:07 am

    The third category: global warming is a theory which has not been proven, is total nonsense. What constitutes “global warming theory” here? Lindzens view? Hansens? And what constitutes “proof” here? Does a so-called consensus constitute proof? Surely not.

    A scientific theory is set forth to explain the available data in light of new information. All too often we hear people with an agenda exclaim, “it’s only a theory” or “it’s an untested theory”. There is no such thing as an untested theory! What makes a hypothesis into a theory is the fact that it has been tested and is supported by those test results.
    However the fact that a theory is tested does not close the case on the theory.
    It is the nature of science that theory is always and forever subject to new information and can be invalidated by new evidence only so long as a more useful theory comes as a result of that evidence.

    Thus the question “Global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven” is an oxymoron.
    I think, the intention was rather to formulate this question for better public comprehension, which seems acceptable in this case.

  40. Ufsi says:
    September 13, 2011 at 5:07 am

    The third category: global warming is a theory which has not been proven, is total nonsense. What constitutes “global warming theory” here? Lindzens view? Hansens? And what constitutes “proof” here? Does a so-called consensus constitute proof? Surely not.
    ====================
    Agree totally. “Global Warming” needs to be defined. Are we talking the small increase over the last 130 or so years? Or Al Gore’s “The End is Nigh!” nonsense?

    While I would probably go with option #2 my definition of “Global Warming” might be very different from the other guy’s, but we’re all lumped together.

  41. petermue:

    I don’t dispute your comment, but since when, has the AGW HYPOTHESIS attained the status of theory. The AGW CO2 hypothesis consists of conjectures NOT theory. Empirical evidence is required to transform conjecture into theory, before the hypothesis can be referred to as a theory. GK

  42. TomRude, you seem to be ignoring the SunMedia papers.

    A better “split” question might be:
    1) Global Warming (ie. climate change) is a threat that we need to address (ie. “tackle”)
    2) Global Warming (ie. climate change) is not a threat that we need to address (ie. “tackle”)

    Obviously, human activity changes local climate (UHI, land use), however I think the vast majority of “skeptics” agree that what is going on is:
    1) NOT properly documented, since we know temperature records have been fiddled with to exaggerate changes, and NO CAUSALITY has been shown
    2) NOT in the range that would or reasonably could be considered dangerous, or even worrying.
    3) NOT proven, or shown, or even credibly linked to, human activity

    Unfortunately, I have yet to see a mainstream pollster give this simple acid test question. We can have our opinions about the subject all day long, but it boils down to the simple question of whether or not we should do anything. We need, as Monckton says: “the courage to do nothing”.

    Those who invoke the precautionary principle are clearly uninformed. I’ve said this before: I have searched, diligently, for PROOF, and there is none. The closer I looked, the less evidence I found. However, the entire AGW thing has been an eye-opening education in leftist politics, as they engage their most powerful weapons, both of which were infiltrated from the 60s due to Vietnam: leftist domination of the media, and leftist domination of the education system.

    Also, the majority of US population is on the Eastern half of the continent, which has happened to have warmer temperatures in the last few years. The Western half has been far below average, but has fewer people to report or opine.

  43. Artwest.
    You’re right about Delingpole in the Telegraph. Years ago he was their ‘Arts Correspondent’. Occasionally he is allowed into the paper but only on topics un-connected with Climate Change.
    This is handled by an ancient, decrepit and mis-informed ‘environmentalist’ named Geoffrey Lean.
    Universally execrated by the entire readership he is nevertheless admired by Prime Minister Cameron.
    Lean recently suggested that Greenpeace ‘might rename one of its ships SAMANTHA CAMERON after its former (?) supporter’.
    As is is well known, Samantha’s father is the notorious windfarmer Sir Reginald Sheffield, who pockets £1000 a day off UK electricity users.
    Booker is better known for his weekly column in the Sunday Telegraph, which has a different editor, and differing stance on climate matters.
    Bufo Toad

  44. Approximately half the people (polled) think that AGW is real. Now ask that group how many believe CAGW is real, and how many are willing to be taxed significantly more, and have governments have more power over them, to carry out the plans of the Greens (Watermelon Greens).

    I’ll bet that less than 20% of the people (polled) are so certain that doom is approaching that they would agree to have the Gore-IPCC-Gillard draconian laws and taxes imposed.

    If a clear vote were held on the issues of additional taxes and governmental rule, the Greens would be done. Their task – and Gore’s – is to keep decision-making in the hands of the inner circle. The skeptics’ task is to get the message out to as much as the public as possible that the average Joe CAN and SHOULD decide for himself if the threat is real and significant, and the proposed counter-measures cost-effective and beneficial.

  45. petermue says:
    “It is the nature of science that theory is always and forever subject to new information and can be invalidated by new evidence only so long as a more useful theory comes as a result of that evidence.”

    A theory or hypothesis can be invalidated without a replacement theory or hypothesis. We generally (outside of climate science anyway) design experiments to test a hypothesis’ validity and that test does not always lead to another hypothesis per se.

    For example let’s say my car doesn’t start, my initial hypothesis (guess) might be that the battery is dead. I could then test the battery and discover that it is indeed in good condition. My hypothesis is invalidated while only eliminating one of many other possibilities leaving me without any further hypothesis from the evidence that the battery is good alone (other than it’s not the battery).

    Although, the CAGW theory of High Sensitivity Climate has been invalidated and replaced with Low Sensitivity Climate Theory by several lines of evidence including Trenberth’s: Earth’s Energy Balance

    Which provides us with the total near surface downward heat flux of 494 W/m2 resulting in an average temperature of 288K; so, the climate sensitivity was 288/494 ~ 0.6K / W/m2 on average for the period of observation over the entire heat flux range. Even though the heat flux to resulting temperature is NOT a linear relationship it’s still useful to know the average for comparison to sensitivity claims. The farther one claims sensitivity is away from 0.6K / W/m2 the more skeptical I become.

  46. With all ‘polling’ one must check the fine print.

    Methodology: From August 25 to September 2, 2010 Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 1,001 Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panellists, 1,000 American adults who are Springboard America panellists, and 2,005 British adults who are Springboard UK panellists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.1% for Canada and the United States, and 2.2 per cent for Great Britain. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure samples representative of the entire adult population of Canada, the U.S. and Great Britain. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.

    Does anyone here actually belong to one of these ‘Panels’?

  47. What matt v. said. The CTV and CBC have been in our faces so long that a lot of people believe everything they say. Even so called conservatives. And the newspapers are probably the worst. As others have said only the National Post, Sun tv news and Quebecor media go after this lie in this country. There are some good blogs as well. Kate at Small Dead Animals is one of the best blogs at exposing this garbage among other things.

  48. Here in Canada, the official news agency TASS, err oops, I mean the CBC ;-) has their own CAGW propagandist-in-chief David Suzuki celebrating the apparent lower level of skepticism in Canada:

    http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/09/12/itunes-back-to-school-series-david-suzuki/

    “Suzuki points to the deep level of skepticism in the U.S. about climate change, as opposed to Canada, where an “overwhelming majority of people know that something is going on.””

    Yeah, “something is going on” all right. Just follow the money.

  49. If everyone had been allowed to hear as much about the lies, cheating and falsehoods put out by the so called AGW ‘expert scientists’, and slavishly accepted by almost every media outlet, as they do about the false claims put out by the AGW cult, then I’m sure the results of the poll would be very different indeed. Balanced arguments are an anathema to the press which consistently turns a deaf ear to logical scientific papers that dispute the AGW dogma on the subject. In these very unbalanced circumstances therefore, I think the poll results are surprisingly good for the sceptics and far from being the results that the cult would have liked to have seen; polls that will go even more against the accepted doctrine as the months and years progress.

  50. Here in the US I believe that many still get their ‘news’ form TV sources such CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. A growing number have abandoned these sources of bias / propaganda reporting. It is possible that the poll results are heavily weighted by the views of those that still follow the mainstream media. I don’t believe that the results would be nearly as favorable for the AGW warming tilt as would be if both sides of the debate were presented.

    The MSM is often laughed at by most within my circles with their exaggerated level of reporting and bias. The ridicule is often a topic of comical conversations (i.e. what will they say next?). The TV and many newspapers are quickly becoming irrelevant. This shows in their circulation totals.

    It is true from my observations of human folly that there will be some who are so convinced in their views regarding CAGW that everything that happens is a result of global warming. If they want it to be the hottest summer that they can ever remember because of several 95 degree days, then “it’s global warming and don’t tell me about any of the other summer temps”. If they want it to be global warming and you express how cool it has been this summer where we live, they quickly point out the drought and fires in Texas, having nothing to do with the conversation at hand. If you point out the frigid winters and lots of snow the past few years, you get the “that’s what global warming does” pitch. If you suggest checking out a web site for a little more perspective on AGW, you get the “you can’t believe what you read on the internet”. I could go on but this is enough. The reliance of ‘TV news’ has caused quite a bit of confusion in the populace and in my opinion is influencing the decay of this country. The press / MSM should be ashamed.

    To the editor’s in the mainstream media I suggest this; you have done a good job of controlling the debate with your clear bias and now fewer are listening to you. You are now preaching to the choir. But at least attempt to be somewhat truthful to those who will still listen. After all, they still trust you.

  51. Oh dear. It would appear that the Angus Reid Forum Panel is not exactly a random sample. According to their Rules and Regulations (available here: https://www.angusreidforum.com/skin/images/en-ca/rr.pdf)
    the panel is composed of self-selected volunteers who are paid for participating in the surveys. They may try to balance their survey respondents based on demographic data, but the bottom line is that the panelists are motivated respondents.

  52. In great Britain maybe only 43% of the people ‘believe in AGW’ but unfortunately all MPs (ie government and opposition) do believe in it; and there is only one Green Party MP among the lot of them. On the matter of renewables (the economically bankrupting unspeakable windfarms) we are being dictated to by the EU; and anything they tell us to do we jump.

  53. 1.Those who wish to vote against the UK climate bill, might I suggest e-petitions (epetitions.direct.gov.uk), you might even enjoy yourself looking through some wild, wacky and worthy petitions to Parliament.
    2. I despair of the BBC and it’s current climate/weather site, it is completely biased,
    3. Finally, I hear dire and grim winter forecasts for the UK partly based on the shifting gulfstream which appears to have gone west, can anyone enlighten me?

  54. jeff says:

    “In the United States the question [CAGW] has become a proxy for whether you support a gasoline and electricity tax hike.”

    My guess is you are right, but I suggest you should also note that the playing field of CAGW concerns in the USA is exploding. In the past few weeks CAGW has emerged as a key media litmus test for 2012 Republican and Democratic candidates. That means the USA is about to engage in a presidential political debate that will include a sharp focus on CAGW. Wherever one stands on the issue, it will be an excellent chance for major constructive changes in climate science and its public policy implications.
    The WUWT website and its entire contributor community deserve exuberant high fives for their roles in giving the rest of us this marvelous opportunity.

  55. To see how deep Big Green is playing in Canada check how Andrew Weaver is playing politics in BC: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/clarks-hydro-policy-threatens-to-collapse-climate-change-progress-scientist-says/article2157488/

    They present him as a Nobel award winning without the precision that he won it with the IPCC and that it was a political award not a peer scientific one. Already the utility company promotion was given to Hoggan and his public relation firm. He is the owner of Desmogblog and chairman of the David Suzuki Foundationand taxpayers spent in excess of $500 million in 8 years in advertisement while the supposedly smart meters are supposed to bring the same savings in 20 years!!!

    Weaver like Jaccard have unduly influence on BC politicians: school boards have to pay some government trust to compensate their CO2 emissions! Jaccard has brought the BC Carbon tax and if the Aussie one is useless, imagine what the BC one is!

    Weaver is also using attack lawyers against Tim Ball and in their brief they dare presenting him also as a Nobel winner without distinction between the political Peace Prize and the real scientific award. Weaver is Hansen’s north! LOL

  56. Springboard America panelists are not a random sample. They are invited to join the organization for the purpose of completing on-line surveys on matters of interest to them. For each on-line survey they complete they are credited with “Survey Dollars”. When they reach 50 Survey Dollars, the credits can be redeemed for cash or merchandise.

    This is hardly a scientific “poll”.

    https://www.springboardamerica.com/PORTAL/support-and-faqs.aspx

  57. pauline says:
    September 13, 2011 at 10:11 am

    3. Finally, I hear dire and grim winter forecasts for the UK partly based on the shifting gulfstream which appears to have gone west, can anyone enlighten me?

    It’s probably due to reduced solar activity allowing increased cloud formation from aerosols produced by cosmic rays, This in turn leads to global cooling – see Henrik Svensmark and Cern ‘Cloud’ experiment.

  58. “In the United States, 47 per cent of respondents (+2) would emphasize protecting the environment, while 26 per cent (-4) would foster economic growth.”

    It is an online survey so i don’t know ho valid it is.

  59. Check these polls same time next year they WILL down!
    Here in Canada we still have the green wash mentality at the Provincial (State) and Municipal government level. They push Carbon taxes, wind-power, run of the river projects and solar At 6+ times the cost of hydro or gas Electric production plus the wonderful world saving Smart meters and the Mercury laden light bulbs. Our Media seems to love pushing the doom and gloom climate scenarios. and don’t forget the alarmist in chef David Suzuki and his Foundation who owns multiple homes (Mansions) and is on of the founding members of the million mile air club to promote the warmist don’t fly ,don’t drive ,don’t breath agenda for the little people.

  60. That’s a crock poll on Canadians – that is a poll of Ontario and no doubt the hard Leftists in British Columbia, the home of David Suzuki, the Canadian fool, Al’s little buddy. BTW, Ontario residents a few days of plus 30C in Toronto doesn’t signify Canada warming – and this is strictly for Toronto residents only – Canada is the second largest land mass on planet earth – Toronto is the pimple on Canada’s – well you know what I want to write. Western Canadians are not that stupid. Why? My temperature dropped to -1C last night – extremely early for temperature of this type. Believe me this is gonna be one heck of a cold winter. BTW, ice comes and goes as it has done for millions of years and the planet earth is still standing and doing very well.

    Moreover, can anyone in their right mind find fault with a slightly longer growing season for FOOD? Anyone? I’d love to ride my Harley a few days more than I do in Canada – heck I want it as warm as it was when dinosaurs roamed North America all the way to the Northern land mass – they thrived.

  61. If you changed the question to dangerous or catastrophic warming which is really the point, it would no doubt be much lower.

  62. G. Karst says:
    September 13, 2011 at 7:56 am

    Canadians have not woke up to the fact that if the world succeeds in reducing Global temperatures, it will necessarily reduce Canada’s temperatures the most. Many of the crops we now grow marginally will disappear. Fuel consumption and costs, to heat their homes, will rise massively. Canada will become significantly less inhabitable. They will diminish. For what? That is the question Canadians must wake up to! GK

    What’s hilarious is that the “mitigation” strategies, if you get down to the fine print, hope only to reduce the increase by a few % of 1° given realistic CO2 cuts, and even less if the self-protective intransigent sanity of China and India are accounted for. The actual impact, IOW, of “mitigation” will be below the LND (Least Noticeable Difference) threshold for both humans and crops.

  63. The positive sign in this survey is the trend of these numbers . Despite the massive sanitization of climate news by the mainstream media in Canada , the public is gradually not buying the flawed AGW science nor the biased reporting. A similar survey done by the same firm in 03/22/07 found that 77% of respondents think the science behind climate change estimates is real . This latest survey shows that only 52 % think that global warming is a fact and caused by man and this latest number is down 8% from just last October

  64. The only good source of news that Canadians have is CBC (our national broadcaster) and CBC is notably and obsessively politically correct with a few exceptions such as CBC radio’s Ideas show. One of the really huge failings in the whole AGW farce has been the unwillingness of reporters to actually look into the scientific literature to present a balanced picture. Maybe reporters are just too scientifically illiterate to be reporting on important matters?

  65. As usual, the correct answer is not amongst the options. How about:

    Correct answer: The planet DID warm during the 20th century, primarily due to natural causes. Whether the planet is still warming is uncertain, but warming seems to have stopped.

    The planet has experienced well over a decade with no global warming. No knowledgeable person would express any certainty that the globe is currently warming (well, except for the IPCC liars, but they are lying). The most recent data actually shows that the sea level has started to fall. Sea level is determined primarily by the thermal expansion of the oceans (secondarily by ice melt). Dropping sea levels are a very strong indication that the oceans are starting to cool, and for all intents and purposes, ocean temperature IS planetary temperature, as the vast majority of the eco-sphere’s thermal energy is stored in the ocean’s, with only a relatively tiny amount stored in the atmosphere.

  66. Those are very interesting statistics. 3-4 years ago, a British friend of my acquaintance liked to mock US climate skeptics as conclusive evidence of (from his view) proto-typical anti-science know-nothingism in the US. He was very proud of how the British public (at that time) accepted the obvious scientific truth of AGW and liked to compare stats on the matter at every chance.

  67. These stats confuse me.
    People say support for AGW is plummeting.
    Yet these stats show about half in each of the three countries say there is change and blame humans.
    Perhaps it is the question asked – some surveys ask to rank in importance, the economy and other immediate issues usually come first.
    We have a long way to go to convince voters.

  68. jeff says:
    September 13, 2011 at 6:39 am
    This underscores the impact of action. As long as CAGW is a vague “pollution is bad” proposition it polls well- who wants to say pollution is okay? The minute you put a real cost to it, the numbers change dramatically. Britain has put a cost to it, Canada has talked a good game about while enjoying job creation and a financial windfall from the Tar Sands. In the United States the question has become a proxy for whether you support a gasoline and electricity tax hike.

    Scarcely any of the AGW climate-catastrophe proponents consider trying to convince people to voluntarily work towards reducing the purported threat of global warming. They could lay their cards on the table, openly discuss the science, debate the skeptics and encourage a dialogue about the problem and possible solutions. Instead they want to ridicule and silence skeptics, denigrate any industry they cannot co-opt and force big government solutions upon us.

    The market will respond if people believe there is a real problem. They won’t have to regulate light bulbs if they can sell the problem and the solution to us. Companies sell billions of dollars of “green” and “environmentally friendly” products to people who choose to buy them.

  69. Two reasons why the Brits are becoming more sceptical about AGW propaganda:-
    1) Three freezing cold winters in a row
    2) Three miserable summers in a row (apart from a short respite in April this year).

    David Walliams turned up at Lechlade last week for his charity raising swim along the length of the Thames to discover the water temperature was 15degC – unbelievably cold for the end of “summer” – and he had to swim it in a wet suit instead of swimming trunks.
    The British public have seen every claim by the alarmists to be falsified over the past ten years – ie no more winter snow, deaths from heat and drought, vineyards in Scotland – and are finally getting the message that is was all a load of b…s!

  70. With the Australian Government introducing a “Carbon Bill”, it is interesting that the Australian people (population 22 million) where not involved in this survey.

    Regards
    Wuwtgirl

  71. Tallbloke said;

    The last two questions split the sceptic vote. Neat way to obfuscate the conclusion that in the UK at least, the sceptics are in the majority

    ———————
    Yes, a deliberate attempt to mislead and influence people to vote for agw next time by making it look as if a majority believe in climate (fraud) change. One or two more hard winters and these crooked polls will disappear.

  72. The poll is stupid.
    None of the answers is correct for me.
    The correct answer:
    In some periods of history global warming is a fact
    in others global cooling is a fact
    and for the past 15 years there seems to have been neither warming nor cooling

  73. Not mentioned is that many Canadians might welcome a bit of global warming – and that some wishful (or wistful?) thinking is inflating the numbers.

  74. I believe that the reason that more Brits are skeptical is because Britain is further along the AGW catastrophe, i.e. the looting and destruction of their economy. Rolling blackouts, skyrocketing energy prices, unemployment and unaffordable taxes all tend to “focus the mind”. When your children are cold and hungry, a person starts looking for answers.

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  75. Brian H says:
    September 13, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    What’s hilarious is that the “mitigation” strategies, if you get down to the fine print, hope only to reduce the increase by a few % of 1° given realistic CO2 cuts, and even less if the self-protective intransigent sanity of China and India are accounted for. The actual impact, IOW, of “mitigation” will be below the LND (Least Noticeable Difference) threshold for both humans and crops.

    Yes, but I would use the word “ironic”, in regards to China/India being the source of Canada’s salvation. However, indicators of major cooling (solar minimum, double-dip La Nina, etc) do not bode well. Canada loses big, if and when, cooling resumes. Warming is a pleasant walk in the park.

    They should NEVER forget that…! EVER…! GK

  76. I know it is going to be another long cold winter in Alberta just like last year – so another 6 cords of wood to be cut turning carbon into carbon from my carbon sink outside the back door … Those city folks in southern Ontario would think differently if they had to cut and split their own wood to keep warm at 40 below on a frosty Alberta morning.

  77. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition ….three reasons

    “Hugh Davis says:
    September 13, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Two reasons why the Brits are becoming more sceptical about AGW propaganda:-
    1) Three freezing cold winters in a row
    2) Three miserable summers in a row (apart from a short respite in April this year).”

    3) Huge and ever-increasing fuel bills to support a C02 tax and ‘green’ energy

  78. I think the fact that we might all have overlooked is that the bottom three statistics in each column quite clearly show that all who were asked the questions do not believe that global warming is man made. If we add all those replies together for each country therefore we get 48 per cent in Canada, 50 per cent in the US. and 57 per cent in GB who do not support the man-made global warming argument. This makes the figures far more favourable to the sceptics viewpoint.

    (I note that the statisticians have ‘lost’ 1 per cent somewhere in their figures for the US, but even when added to the ‘believers’ stats. it still doesn’t give them a majority who believe in AGW in the US)

  79. George Lawson says:
    September 14, 2011 at 3:22 am

    If only public opinion could control the World! I’d pay less tax, have longer holidays and get paid more!

  80. As an Australian denier I find it interesting that my fellow citizens overwhelmingly are against doing anything about AGW whether they believe in it or not!
    Might be part of the ‘she’ll be right’ philosophy?

  81. US and Canada are not paying the huge $’s to ‘fix’ global warming that the UK is, I think that is probably why people in North America are more indifferent to whether Climate change, easier to accept the general tone that is repeated, that global warming is a fact, when it does affect you, than to try to understand it. Since the media is generally lazy and controversy driven the facts generally shouldn’t get in the way of a good story of apocolypse, so the media repeat the climate warming change industry message. As Canadian Conservative’s we should be fully from past canadian occurances that the media by in large are: a) not free market focused, or informed, b) favour central planning concepts c) looking for angles to stories they favour political/human interest views rather than fact views…so in conclusion we should not be surprised that average person, being disinterested, relies largely on a media that repeats stories from biased groups and therefore North Americans view climate change with something more acceptance than UK.
    I will give one more example on the controversy on Nicole Turmel, interim NDP leader, on her membership in 2 separatist parties, I was out of the country at the time, and caught a link a friend sent me of a press conference in Hamilton on-line of PM Harper, and read some blogs following press conference, and the attacks on the Conservative Party for criticizing Ms. Turmel and NDP were telling. Many criticisms were “wasn’t Stephen harper a member of a separatist party how dare he…”; “isn’t the Conservative party a merger of the separatist reform party and PC”. Now I joined the Reform party in 1988, I lived in Ontario, I was about one of first 50 members east of Manitoba and probably one of the youngest at that time, and the comments would be true if you simply relied on old press reports, that made up a story “Reform Party separtist”, pure fiction, and then other journalists used someone else’s opinion as fact, and readers used fiction as a basis for their opinion. My point conservatives tend to believe in facts, cause and effect. The left are about politics and power, how do I get what I want when I want it. It’s not about facts its about getting something by whatever means. The conservative view to assess success and the ‘statist left’ are so different, you will go crazy trying to understand on cause and effect basis, it is based upon “How do I get what I want.” Unfortunately, trying to figure out what they want is often masked by what they say they want. An insight, and I paraphrase as I understood from a book I read in the summer from author G.K. Chesterton, (1874-1936) which is: you can trust reformers because they have a goal and tell you where they want to go, but you can not trust the inherent dishonesty of progressives, they tell you they are progressives and relish in their progressiveness, but never exactly what they are progressing towards, they do not have normative, or he called “orthodox” values that are fixed and can be relied upon over time. Notice conservatives how the ‘progressives’ change over time “this is what I want or need full stop”…they get that, later “that’s not what I really wanted that was an obvious first step, now this is what I want/need”…is it? Is Global warming/climate change a cause and effect issue or a progressive issue a step to something that no one not even they are really clear on?

  82. A message to all those Britons who would, if asked by the pollsters, have replied that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is bovine faeces : please sign one ( or both ) of the e-petitions to have the Climate Change Act 2008 repealed. http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43914.
    html.http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2035.

    Note to our North American and Australian friends – we already have the CO2 regulations you are desparately trying to forestall. By the UK Govt’s own figures, the cost will be £300 pa for every man, woman and child in the country every year for 40 years, a grand total of £732 Bn. This is without taking account of opportunity costs, collateral loss of businesses / jobs, etc, nor does it factor in subsidies requested by energy generators for conventional power stations operated uncommercially as core load back up for wind farms.

Comments are closed.