Believers in global warming unchanged since 2001, 1 in 4 Americans don’t buy it at all

One in Four in U.S. Are Solidly Skeptical of Global Warming

Nearly 40% are “Concerned Believers” in global warming, others are mixed

by Lydia Saad, Gallup

PRINCETON, NJ — Over the past decade, Americans have clustered into three broad groups on global warming. The largest, currently describing 39% of U.S. adults, are what can be termed “Concerned Believers” — those who attribute global warming to human actions and are worried about it. This is followed by the “Mixed Middle,” at 36%. And one in four Americans — the “Cool Skeptics” — are not worried about global warming much or at all.  (see graph)

Gallup Global Warming Opinion Groups

The rate of Concerned Believers has varied some over the past decade and half, but is currently identical to the earliest estimate, from 2001. Over the same period of time, the ranks of Cool Skeptics have swelled, while the Mixed Middle — once the largest group — has declined modestly.

These groupings stem from a special “cluster” analysis of four questions that measure Americans’ belief and concerns about human-induced global warming, all of which have been asked together on Gallup’s annual Environment survey seven times since 2001. The latest results are from the March 6-9, 2014, Environment poll. However, the groupings derive from analysis of seven years of combined data.

Gallup has recently reported on a number of the individual trends included in the cluster analysis as part of its Climate Change series. This analysis provides a unique way of summarizing Americans’ overall stance on global warming.

Complete report here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/168620/one-four-solidly-skeptical-global-warming.aspx

About these ads

61 thoughts on “Believers in global warming unchanged since 2001, 1 in 4 Americans don’t buy it at all

  1. I wonder what percentage of “Concerned Believers” drive cars, use electricity, heat/cool their homes, have kids, etc…probably more than half.

  2. The number of believers in man-made global warming hasn’t changed precisely because they are believers. They are immune to additional evidence and factual information. The mixed middle are more open to more data, and have been migrating to the cool skeptics side, despite the huge propaganda effort by the media, well funded eco groups and our own government.

  3. It’s interesting that the educational demographics for concerned believers and cool skeptics are nearly identical, but that they don’t differentiate liberal arts education from technical/hard science education.

  4. Thanks for the update. It is interesting.

    My problem has always been that I do believe that the planet has warmed and cooled many times in the past. I also believe that it has warmed a lot since the end of the little ice age and I am thankful that it has warmed. CO2 has nothing to do with it, other than a warming planet looks to produce more CO2 via natural causes.

    But I am concerned about the political thing called “climate change”. I am concerned that the various state governments around the world will use this scare-mongering fraud to drive us all into energy poverty and further enslave us.

    Which group do I fall into?

  5. I’m not impressed by statistics. You can’t vote for, or against the truth. Remember, a significant number of Americans, when polled, believe in angels and UFOs as well. Their opinion on any given topic is tainted by this reality.

  6. I wish they would give the exact wording of their questions. Results can be easily manipulated by formulating questions to tilt toward the desired outcome.

  7. Sad that skepticism has declined a little since 2010. Evidently propaganda spending has had an effect.

  8. Three quarters of people believe the what the MSM tells them – pretty much without question – and regard the remaining quarter, if they are vocal, as fringe conspiracy types or worse (because that is exactly what they have been brainwashed to see them as).

    We can rant on blogs like this, but it’s hard when the MSM is ‘in on the game’ (oops, I must be a conspiracy theorist). By in on the game I mean, of course, complicit in the mass transfer of wealth and implementation of agenda 21 and, heck, you all know what I mean.

    Man in the street isn’t even aware he’s getting shafted – it’s for the children, save the planet. They suck up the propaganda like a sponge. A large part of the reason for that is television; it has provided a much more effective propaganda tool (especially the rolling 24 hour news broadcast format) than newspapers ever could have.

    Depressing, really.

  9. I am concerned about global warming.
    Not the poorly defined and measured physical phenomenon, but the politically motivated power play that filth like Al “I invented the Internet” Gore use to get rich and powerful and destroy opportunity for the people he looks down on. And in any meaningful measurable way that is the only way global warming matters- how the political class uses it against the rest of us.
    I will be leaving all of my lights on this evening as a testament to the incredible advancement of Western civilization despite the best efforts of scoundrels like Obama and Gore.

  10. The most telling response to me is to the “Cause of the rise in Earth’s temperature” question. From the believers replies, it looks as if the EPS has done a great job of painting plant food as pollution.

    Now excuse me while I go pollute my hot house tomatoes.

  11. This is a good juncture to point out that most thinking people see the “climate change” debate as a smoke screen in front of the resource limitation-human population crisis. Ever since Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome people pointed out the natural limits to our ability to consume more and more of the earth’s limited resources, we have tried to turn the debate to one side of the other of “What’s happening now?” Unimportant. We just don’t want the Warmists to hijack the argument base on bad science. We are engaged in a game of triage, to survive, not to polish.

  12. Uggh. “it looks as if the EPS has done a great job of painting plant food as pollution.” Should read:

    it looks as if the EPA has done a great job of painting plant food as pollution.

    Me and my cantaloupe fingers.

  13. Concerned believers skew female and young, groups tending to react emotionally to danger and threat. Males and older people tend to be less risk-averse so it make sense they would be cool skeptics. These questions aim at a visceral response rather than a thought out position (using the words “worry”, “serious”, and “threat” go for emotion, not reasoning).

  14. Time for the new Common Core Next Generation Science Standards to shift those ratios in the direction of True Believers. With its concept of Three dimensional learning of Overall Disciplinary Concepts, Crosscutting principles, and desired practices and behaviors embedded in learning tasks and projects the plan is to have Climate Change as a crucial lens of the K-12 experience.

    It’s all over the UNESCO intended curriculum globally and embedded now in Biology and AP Human Geography and gaming. It’s also all through the math curriculum of model, model, model real life problems as the new goal to be relevant.

  15. I really am not kidding about the planned role of online gaming as supposedly acceptable classroom learning now via the Common Core. This came out today. http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2014/04/tapping-into-the-potential-of-video-games-and-uninhibited-play-for-learning-education/

    It cites Jane MacGonigal. I have read and written about the cited book Reality is Broken and she does say these games are being designed to alter students’ perception of reality. Make them believe through immersion in virtual reality that this is how world works in fact so students will feel the need to act for transformative change.

    They’ll never even hear there’s been an almost 2 decade pause in temp increases. It will not be designed into the games’ parameters.

  16. James Hastings-Trew says:
    April 22, 2014 at 9:32 am
    I’m not impressed by statistics. You can’t vote for, or against the truth. Remember, a significant number of Americans, when polled, believe in angels and UFOs as well. Their opinion on any given topic is tainted by this reality.

    Without dwelling on what exactly constitutes “significant”, you are indulging in the logic of the excluded middle. If, as a matter of faith, I believe in angels, it is a far different issue than evaluating the evidence to determine whether I believe in the phenomenon of AGW, with or without the “C”. The former is the realm of faith and theology, not know for an abundance of testable facts and the home of revelation from burning bushes to dreams. The latter is, in theory if not in practice, amenable to testing and replication.

    Likewise for UFO’s, anything moving about in the sky that isn’t identified is, perforce, a UFO. The implication regards a belief in “little green men”. That may or may not be the intended response; it would require an inspection of the survey question(s). Again, whether or not someone believes that aliens are buzzing the planet doesn’t directly indicate how well or poorly said individual applies the scientific method as regards the question of global warming.

  17. Eustace Cranch says:
    April 22, 2014 at 9:29 am

    Funny thing about reality… it cares not a whit how many believe or disbelieve it.
    You have the wrong end of the stick. Reality isn’t about belief or disbelief. It is about judging the evidence for oneself. That is why the direction is always from some form of belief, even if based on assumptions, towards skeptcism, and finally reality, not the reverse. Skeptics/climate realists have done the hard work of slogging through the information available to all, whereas Believers merely accept the pap doled out to them.

  18. Kitefreak:
    Precisely.

    It would be interesting to ask the same questions of members of the American Legislation.
    Ask them twice, once anonymously.

  19. Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted March 6-9, 2014, on with a random sample of 1,048 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
    ======
    Conservatives and libertarians do not poll…
    …they hang up

  20. Notice how believers have risen from 33 to 39 in the last two years, a result presumably of the intense second-wind warmist propaganda effort.

  21. Climategate and, probably most of all, particularly cold winter experiences around then caused an uptick in skepticism as in the 2010 peak.

    However, unfortunately this is a case where the wrong side has on the whole more devoted followers. Why is it, for instance, there will be mass protests against something of real human advancement (i.e. nuclear power — and, no, manmade nuclear waste isn’t that problematical when only short half-lives allow its quantity to be even significant next to trillions of tons of natural uranium, thorium, K-40, etc. isotopes in Earth’s crust) but not in favor of it? Probably the answer involves multiple reasons, including producers being less likely to focus on meme wars and being more probable to have real jobs rather than be inclined towards standing around in protests or other activism. For climatology, that is on top of the funding disparity.

    There are results like skeptics using HADCRUT4 from CRU of Climategate, BEST from a known environmentalist, or the latest most fudged temperature history version from activist Hansen’s GISS, just because doing otherwise would be more trouble.

    For climatology, matters have gotten worse in ways, like there was relatively a lot more honesty and unfudged data in publications of even the 1990s than in the 2000s. Mann’s hockey stick and the like was an instruction guide to many, of how to succeed and get rewarded. Both sides are more experienced now, with skeptics less likely to seek employment in climatology, while supporters realize how well tactics like the Big Lie work for them (or how some data fudging gets naive audiences disbelieving the solar link in favor of weak vagueness or semi-circular logic like blaming variation in the global temperature index just on the AMO temperature index).

    And indoctrination is getting targeted extra towards young children.

    Cooling beyond what the most creative data adjustments can cover up, repeated winters worse than 2009/2010 in a way too blatant to the public, are what might most likely really change matters later this decade and beyond. Else they could actually win, for pointing out data fudging becomes necessary (as someone auto-trusting what data the CAGW movement publishes just becomes their puppet, able to be made to believe anything) but takes too long to convey to the average person.

    The way a naive but particularly common segment of the believer population thinks of global warming is little more than “CO2 causes warming,” “Earth has been warming,” “trust the [perceived] scientists,” … end of story — with a rarity of mathematical literacy or depth, as if any of that meant CAGW predictions of X degrees warming follow.

  22. Bruce Cobb says:
    April 22, 2014 at 11:00 am

    Uh… you just said, at rather more length, exactly what I meant. If you like, I’ll rephrase:

    Facts aren’t determined by how many or how few people believe them.

  23. @Latitude 11:11.
    Yep.
    The media has demonstrated their willingness to lie to us, so why bother answering their asinine questions.
    Plus the pollsters always call at supper time.
    This is the reason polls are so often slanted to the progressive point of view.
    Only the parasites have surplus time on their hands and the overwhelming egoism necessary to sit through those “surveys”.

  24. Good news. It doesn’t matter exactly what the groupings mean. (There is no sensible way of wording the questions that will bring out the opinions of both the <1% of the population that reads WUWT and the rest). As with temperature series, the important thing is the movement over time. And it's going our way.

  25. the mixed middle contains those who believe warming is caused by man and those who think its natural, I didn’t see anything breaking ti down further than that.
    so there could be a high percentage of them thinking its natural which is what all this is about.

  26. john robertson says:
    April 22, 2014 at 11:51 am
    ====
    John exactly…
    If they could poll the people that don’t pick up the phone for a number they don’t know…
    …hang up and will not poll
    I mean who in their right mind would poll some liberal agenda….when you read in the news every day about the IRS, etc

    again…conservatives and libertarians do not poll..and they are the ones that say no

    Don’t believe a thing about this poll….

  27. I place very little attention to polls, such as this!!! I would be far more interested to know how many people hold the opinions on both sides of the issue, but with much more investigative background put into the census, meaning just how what the values, ideals etc. are of the people taking sides in this issue are. For instance, there are so many naysayers out there that do not wish to change their extremely wasteful ways. And I would not have much regard for those on both sides of the issue who have grant money or who are involved in the petrochemical industry for example. I would not pay nearly as much attention to those people as relatively unbiased informed people. Rod Chilton, Climatologist, http//www.bcclimate.com.

  28. John Boles says:
    April 22, 2014 at 9:16 am

    I wonder what percentage of “Concerned Believers” drive cars, use electricity, heat/cool their homes, have kids, etc…probably more than half.

    I’d say at least 97%. Finding 3% of Americans (about 10 million) who don’t do those things would be extremely difficult.

  29. I look at this as mostly good news. Seems the true believers (which seems to closely match the number of progressives and Democrats) is staying pretty constant. Over time, the Middle is steadily moving into the the skeptic camp.

  30. Jim Clarke says:

    The number of believers in man-made global warming hasn’t changed precisely because they are believers. They are immune to additional evidence and factual information…

    True dat. People rarely change their religions.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    dmacleo says:

    the mixed middle contains those who believe warming is caused by man and those who think its natural… there could be a high percentage of them thinking its natural which is what all this is about.

    Exactly right. The entire ‘climate’ debate, whether people admit it [or even understand this], is about whether global warming is natural. If they think it is man made, then they have to blame “carbon”.

    The average person has never even heard of the climate Null Hypothesis. Current global climate parameters [temperature, extreme weather events, etc.] have all been exceeded in the past, when CO2 and human industrial activity were very low.

    If that hypothesis can be falsified, then there would be a good argument that human activity plays a part in global temperature changes. But as Dr. Roy Spencer says, “The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.” That fact is so bothersome to Kevin Trenberth that he now demands that the Null Hypothesis must be changed to presume that humman activity is the null, forcing skeptics to have to prove a negative.

    Those who think that the immense expenditure of advertising and propaganda dollars has made a difference are right. But as this poll makes clear, the public is becoming aware that the predictions of runaway global warming are never mentioned any more because none of those predictions have happened. And of course, the Orwellian language meddling to “climate change” has replaced the endless predictions of “runaway global warming”.

    To change the ‘believers’ numbers the True Believers in CAGW will have to die off, because they will never willingly accept the fact that they have been proven wrong. So those numbers will probably remain static. But it is heartening that even after hundreds of $millions in propaganda, and the President’s constant use of the bully pulpit, the alarmist side still isn’t getting any traction.

  31. I have trouble believing the results of this survey. What I would need to see are the actual raw numbers including the numbers of contacts before agreement to answer the questions. I would also need to see the results of some basic knowledge or awareness items before considering the results of the survey. For example, if the respondent does not know their Congressman or the US VP to what extent should we be using this index as an indicator of anything? What if they do

  32. Sorry either I or my computer pressed the wrong button: The last sentence should read, what if they do not know how much the earth’s temperature has increased in the last 50 years?

  33. Useful: “I don’t believe in anything – it’s not a matter of belief. I believe in Science.”

    I understand the point he was attempting to make, however extreme the oxymoron ….

  34. So, since 2006, the hardcore believers have remained at the same level, while some of the Middles have migrated to the Cools.

    Unfortunately, in the USA and almost everywhere else in the world, political power is in the hands of the hardcore believers.

  35. Interesting that 100% of cool skeptics believe that all the warming is from natural causes. Seems hard to believe that 25% of those polled and every skeptic, actually believe that all the warming is coming from natural causes.
    Not even 1 thought CO2 causes some of the warming?????

    Are they trying to make out skeptics as being closed minded and unable to see that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which probably contributed to some of the beneficial warming?

    Not surprised that 80% of skeptics associate with one party and those with the opposite view, associate with the opposite party. Just more powerful evidence that this is a political issue, not scientific.

  36. The generational effect is interesting here: Older people have seen more temperature changes, may remember the 1970’s cooling scare, and were told in school abnout even worse hurricanes before they were born. Young ones have been lied to in school.
    But guess what? Today’s young people adore their elders and would “follow the boomers over a cliff” as William Strauss and Neil Howe put in their books “Generations,” “RThe Fourth Turning” “The Millennials and other books. We can rescue these young people from those lies. They love us and they want to learn from us.
    We need to realize that this is a serious matter, not from nature, but because the True Believers have crashed the economy with energy restrictions. That threatens the actual “environment” (well-being of the biosphere” and also threatens world peace. It threatens boomer retirement and young people’s early job experience.

  37. Mike Maguire says:
    April 22, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    Interesting that . Seems hard to believe that 25% of those polled and every skeptic, actually believe that all the warming is coming from natural causes.
    Not even 1 thought CO2 causes some of the warming?????

    The summary didn’t say that “100% of cool skeptics believe that all the warming is from natural causes”. “All” wasn’t mentioned; what the article said was that, “100% of Cool Skeptics say it (warming) is due to natural changes in the environment”. The extent of “natural” isn’t quantified, only the percent (100) of Cool Skeptics who attribute some, maybe in some cases, all, of the warming to “natural changes”.

    If I were to try to quantify my own guess, I’d say that perhaps 10% of whatever warming may actually have occurred since c. AD 1850 could be attributable to manmade CO2, but I’m not sure that the net sign of temperature change from human activities is even positive. In any case, the anthropogenic component is negligible.

  38. Latitude says:
    April 22, 2014 at 12:19 pm
    john robertson says:

    April 22, 2014 at 11:51 am
    ====
    John exactly…
    If they could poll the people that don’t pick up the phone for a number they don’t know…
    …hang up and will not poll
    I mean who in their right mind would poll some liberal agenda….when you read in the news every day about the IRS, etc

    again…conservatives and libertarians do not poll..and they are the ones that say no

    Don’t believe a thing about this poll….
    ====================================

    Or we are not home, rather outside doing something productive.

  39. James the Elder says:
    April 22, 2014 at 4:13 pm

    Don’t know how well Gallup compensates for differential response rates, but it’s not as if they’re unaware of the problem. Different pollsters handle such issues in various ways.

    “Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the most recent Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the most recent National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the most recent U.S. census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.”

  40. Believers in global warming unchanged since 2001, 1 in 4 Americans don’t buy it at all

    This is just one of the problems with this infernal debate. I am a ‘believer’ in man-made global warming. I am also a ‘believer’ in natural global warming. I am not convinced by the IPCC’s exaggerated garbage about projected global surface warming for 2100. They have failed in their previous reports time and again. That alone should be enough for doubt as to their skill – as a result they use consensus.

    We have a consensus!

    IPCC – SPM
    …………..The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16.
    …………
    No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

    Close down the IPCC. The ‘best’ brains in the land cannot agree and resort to guessing for our future. After decades of grinding of teeth this is what they have produced. After billions spent this is it?

  41. I know that the people who work for the IPCC work for ‘free’ but the pal reviewed papers they use cost public money. As well as some of their gray literature.

  42. Gallup says:
    “One in Four in U.S. Are Solidly Skeptical of Global Warming”
    Heck, I am not sceptical of global warming!!!! This is crazy, does anyone know what the main question was?

    We have the future possibilities of mild and beneficial warming, moderate warming and hot, hot, hot warming. This is what the debate is about and not about whether the global surface temps have warmed since 1850, 1950 or 1975 – they have. Man has also played a part. How much???? PDO, AMO, ENSO, UHI, sparse thermometer data, MWP gone and NH affair, LIA NH affair, data tampering at GISS NOAA et al and all because of 0.8C ‘rise’.

  43. I would like to see ‘concerned believers’ split into two groups:
    Those who SAY they are concerned and those who BEHAVE as though they are concerned.
    That would be interesting.

  44. Sorry, I read this graph a bit differently.

    Since 2010 the “Concerned Believers” have risen from 33% to 39%. Over that same interval “Cool Skeptics” dropped from 28% to 25%. “Mixed Believers” dropped from 39% to 36%.

    That would be ~3% transfer or so from “Cool Skeptics” and “Mixed Believers” each to “Concerned Believers”.

    Or did I do my maths wrong?

  45. I believe that 2012 was the year of the “Super Storm Sandy” hype late in the year, thus an uptick in hysteria, albeit small in 2013. I am a relative newcomer to skepticism, so there are converts all the time. And of course the K-12 propaganda machine doesn’t help, but once the kids get a little dose of reality, they are likely to come around. I tell my daughter that she will have to undergo deprogramming after high school. My son is more skeptical to begin with, so he probably won’t need deprogramming. He may outdo me.

    I wish there were statistics, but my take on the group that hangs out here is that they are fairly technical, both hard sciences and technology types, with engineers as well as scientists and a mixture if others. I think that engineering might be more of a skeptical group than hard science, as engineers live in the real world where you can’t make simplifying assumptions to make your equations work. You have to take the world as it is, with all of the complicating factors and still make the doggone thing work. This may play into the gender gap. While the ranks of women in science are increasing all of the time, they are still under represented in engineering. And women are culturally more accepting–I can say that since I am one. That doesn’t mean there aren’t also many women who are not push overs–the bell curve skews more to the trusting side. It would be interesting to have a demographic survey taken of WUWT.

  46. Cold in Wisconsin says:
    April 22, 2014 at 7:49 pm

    Your comment elicited much thought on many subjects. Thank you for that. I often find that is why I am here…………..

    William

  47. This site is comprise of believers in the religion. The owner does his best to silence or drive off unbelievers in it.

    The atmosphere’s thermal profile is established in accordance with the Ideal Gas Law PV = nRT where R comprises any of the standard gas mixes found in the atmosphere anywhere around the globe, being able to hold heat.

    James Hansen’s believers even here, are rocked daily with people mocking their inability to sort out the actual laws of physics vs the Hansen Infrared Warming Fairy Physics.

    So yeah you’re right: belivers are going to believe, no matter how many time the actual laws of physics are used to bludgeon them into sullen temporary silence in spreading their “message of the great light in the sky” that was “growing ever brighter with the addition of CO2.”

    Of course it obviously hasn’t been growing for the past 17 years.

    And actually it wasn’t growing as far back as 1996 when NOAH set out longwave earth frequency infrared detectors and discovered after fourteen years of monitoring what’s effectively ground zero for Green House Gas Law version of atmospheric thermal profile assignment: the Great Plains of the United States.

    After more than three quarters of a million readings it was discovered there was less Backerdistical Glow than when the true believers started checking for it in ’96,

    when they terminated their fruitless grope for the magical light they swore was associated with CO2 in the air.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1?journalCode=clim

    Worldwide these ignorant wannabes who followed government scammers down the drain hole of their own credibility have bunkered themselves behind every possible advantage having firm control over media on the matter can give.

    To this day, one in four people is prepared to tell them none of it’s real.

    Those are the one in four who understand gas mechanics well enough to remember the Ideal Gas Law is what determines the atmospheric thermal profile.
    There is no such thing as a Green House Gas Warming Effect.

    That’s why people come before these befuddled wannabes slack faces, and mock them to show us their results of having quantified that magical entity.

    DTruber says:
    April 22, 2014 at 9:14 pm
    And 46% of Americans don’t believe in evolution. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx)

    So yeah, If there’s one thing we excel in, it’s allowing our ideologies to trump our rationality. This site being a prime example.

  48. One in four people still telling the believers who followed the pied pipers of systematic computer programming and fantasy physics to turn back, –

    – and they’re still all over the internet shouting how the fact they wouldn’t listen to sense,

    means they could have been right if they hadn’t been humiliatingly wrong.

    A lot of these believers wasted entire careers telling everybody that if we just believed too, maybe it would turn out not to have been such a crushing blow to their – thats the believers – reputations.

  49. It would be interesting to know how these US subsets of opinion vote in elections.

  50. “Useful Idiot says:
    April 22, 2014 at 12:31 pm
    In the IAI TV debate Bob Carter had a great comment. something to the effect:

    “Reporters are always asking me if I ‘believe in global warming’. I don’t believe in anything – it’s not a matter of belief. I believe in Science.””

    With the advantage of hindsight, Bob Carter SHOULD have said,
    “I believe in the Scientific method”, NOT “I believe in Science.”
    The latter confuses Science as a compilation of dry facts and measurements rather than a
    program for discovering natural laws.

Comments are closed.