Gallup: Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

Judith makes a forecast - Cartoon by Josh www.cartoonsbyjosh.com

Multiple indicators show less concern, more feelings that global warming is exaggerated

by Frank Newport, Gallup News

PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup’s annual update on Americans’ attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.

1997-2010 Trend: Percentage of Americans Who Believe the Seriousness of Global Warming Is Generally Exaggerated

These results are based on the annual Gallup Social Series Environment poll, conducted March 4-7 of this year. The survey results show that the reversal in Americans’ concerns about global warming that began last year has continued in 2010 — in some cases reverting to the levels recorded when Gallup began tracking global warming measures more than a decade ago.

For example, the percentage of Americans who now say reports of global warming are generally exaggerated is by a significant margin the highest such reading in the 13-year history of asking the question. In 1997, 31% said global warming’s effects had been exaggerated; last year, 41% said the same, and this year the number is 48%.

Americans Divided on Causes of Global Warming

In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.

2003-2010 Trend: Are Increases in the Earth's Temperature Over the Last Century Due to Human Activities or Natural Changes?

In 2003, 61% of Americans said such increases were due to human activities — in line with advocates of the global warming issue — while 33% said they were due to natural changes in the environment. Now, a significantly diminished 50% say temperature increases are due to human activities, and 46% say they are not.

Americans Less Sure About Scientists’ Beliefs

Since last fall, there have been widespread news accounts of allegations of errors in scientific reports on global warming and alleged attempts by some scientists to doctor the global warming record.

These news reports may well have caused some Americans to re-evaluate the scientific consensus on global warming. Roughly half of Americans now say that “most scientists believe that global warming is occurring,” down from 65% in recent years. The dominant opposing thesis, held by 36% of Americans, is that scientists are unsure about global warming. An additional 10% say most scientists believe global warming is not occurring.

1997-2010 Trend: What Do Most Scientists Believe About Whether Global Warming Is Occurring?

The percentage of Americans who think most scientists believe global warming is occurring has dropped 13 points from two years ago, and is the lowest since the first time Gallup asked this question back in 1997.

Implications

The last two years have marked a general reversal in the trend of Americans’ attitudes about global warming. Most Gallup measures up to 2008 had shown increasing concern over global warming on the part of the average American, in line with what one might have expected given the high level of publicity on the topic. Former Vice President Al Gore had been particularly prominent in this regard, with the publication of his bestselling book, “An Inconvenient Truth,” an Academy Award-winning documentary movie focusing on his global warming awareness campaign, and Gore’s receipt of a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

But the public opinion tide turned in 2009, when several Gallup measures showed a slight retreat in public concern about global warming. This year, the downturn is even more pronounced.

Some of the shifts in Americans’ views may reflect real-world events, including the publicity surrounding allegations of scientific fraud relating to global warming evidence, and — perhaps in some parts of the country — a reflection of the record-breaking snow and cold temperatures of this past winter. Additionally, evidence from last year showed that the issue of global warming was becoming heavily partisan in nature, and it may be that the continuing doubts about global warming put forth by conservatives and others are having an effect. A forthcoming analysis here at Gallup.com will examine shifts in global warming attitudes in recent years among various demographic and political groups.

Read the entire poll results at Gallup News

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Another hockey-stick???
Ecotretas

R.S.Brown

What we need is an advertising campaign in a big time
newspaper to stop this trend in badthought !

Milwaukee Bob

OT
In- WUWT, “IPCC announces “independent” review” Curiousgeorge asked for a link to the Energy Sec. Chu remarks. Thought others might be interested also.
WSJ
MARCH 8, 2010
Politics and Policy
Energy Secretary Steven Chu on the administration’s game plan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575104

And partisan = ideologues with vested interests versus free thinkers.

alex verlinden

absolutely great cartoon ! … 🙂
just 137kb and saying it all … everything and everybody is in it …

Fortunately common sense is on the increase

Is global warming exaggerated?
There’s a simple test anyone can do to see whether it is. First write down all the measurable possible advantages of hotter weather: longer growing season, less winters deaths, higher food yield. Then go and read so called scientific papers on the effects of “global warming” and divide them into two groups: those that mention the obvious benefits and those that don’t.
Now label the groups: “biased, bogus environmental propaganda” and “research which at least attempts some scientific impartiality”.
In my case, it was 99 “scientific” papers in the bogus clap-trap pile, and one don’t know. Which I think means we can be >99% certain the harmful effects of any global warming are exaggerated.

Baa Humbug

They are missing a key question
Just your impression. Which one of the following statements do you think is most accurate-
1-)Most Politicians who are trying to introduce New Taxes, Trading Schemes and Regulations (TTsR) believe that GW is occuring,
2-)Most politicians who are trying to introduce TTsR DON’T BELIEVE GW is occurring,
3-)Most etc etc are UNSURE whether GW is occurring or not.
The results would have been interesting.
I would have said 2 ofcourse

Wouter

I’ll respond in kind, by referring to a cartoon: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1271

Geoff Sherrington

The Mark 1 eyeball suggests to me that public opinion was swung by the 2007 IPCC reports. People might have realised that there was an oversell and that the portents of doom were not matched by changes in the daily lives of people. Nothing much had changed in the climate lifetime of most readers.
Of course, the impact of CA enhancing WUWT , tAV, Niche Modeling etc, though hard to measure, could be showing in the figures. (Apologies if I have them out of historic order).
The poll results are being driven by some effects; they are not a random walk concept.

CodeTech

At the moment, I see no other comments yet, but I’ll point out what I’m sure others will too.
By my rough estimate, using a Fortran IV model developed at considerable time and expense and using the above raw data, slightly homogenized and a little pasteurized, I have come to the following conclusions:
a. by 2014, EVERYBODY will believe AGW is completely exaggerated.
b. by 2016, more people will believe climate change is natural than there are people. That is, greater than 100%.
c. by 2020, the “Is Occuring” line will cross zero
It’s worse than we thought!
Congress should IMMEDIATELY increase their spending on propaganda. Oops, sorry, I meant Research, marketing, and positioning.

RDG

It is extremely difficult believing in things that are so hard to produce hard evidence to support. I am totally open to the fact there may be the tiniest of human influences but the effects being predicted are ridiculous on their face.
When you predict and you are wrong over and over then get a grip and change your mind.
Personally it was the sea level rise (upper level) changes predicted in the 4 IPCC reports over a 17 year period that ‘proved’ that these guys just don’t really have a clue for me.
They adjusted their upper level predictions down by 85% in 17 years whilst bellowing ‘trust us’ for their catastrophic predictions for the next 100 years.
It’s actually quite embarrassing being a human being when human beings can behave en masse like this.

Joe

Two years ago AGW was at the maximum hype with Gore’s “Inconvient Truth” and the peace price given to IPCC and Gore.
These were massive amounts of media coverage.
So wonder why the hype for “Green” everything started?
There was absolutely no coverage of the scientists that became the “Deniers”.
They were just given a very hard time to stick to the regime of the concensus (IPCC).
Funding flowing with no regard for what was being done with it except it was going for something “Green”.

BillD

IMO, a cold winter is enough to change some of the general public. If we have a new record warm year with the El Nino, concerns about warming will swing back.

Michael

All hell is going to break loose soon. Get ready. All the scams are being exposed. Repo 105 seems to be the last straw.

Milwaukee Bob

On this subject- beyond Gore, the IPCC and even the Lame Stream Media, the ones that have caused the greatest amount of disconnect with the real status of the science behind GW for Americans (and others) is Nature, Science, Smithsonian, Scientific American, Discover, Etc. magazines. Many of us used to (and many still do) “believe” their reporting was well researched?, verified?, independently analyzed? separate from the source. To weed out the garbage. So as to be kind of “Fair and Balanced”. You know, info WITHOUT a political slant. How naive – – I was.
The LSM prints whatever fills columns with, sensation. Understandable. And stupid in an age of untold numbers of info sources, not the least of which is the Internet. Thank You again, Anthony. But when the editors of a periodical such as the above START from an ideological point, it not only reduces their words to below the level of a super-market rag, it “misinforms” a large segment of he populace, not directly involved in climate science, that we want engaged and active in the discussion/process. And they wonder why, when the likes of The National Enquirer are reporting more accurately then them, we turn to the Internet. Talk about “forcings.”

Just as I was commenting on the previous post, this new one appears. My comment may be more appropriate here. There is a long way to go:
http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/03/public-opinion-about-global-warming/

Joe

The Passing of a Pioneer Woman:
Ms. Simpson, who died March 4 at age 86, didn’t have much success suppressing storms. But her discoveries about the nature of clouds and the formation and dynamics of hurricanes were some of the most significant in 20th century meteorology.
Joanne Simpson helped show how hurricanes draw their power from warm seas. Armed with that knowledge, she set out to destroy one by sending a payload of silver iodide into the heart of a storm.
Ms. Simpson didn’t quite achieve her goal of never retiring, but she used retirement to take a swipe at global-warming theorists, whose dire predictions she felt were over-reliant on computer models.
Now there is a scientist! She too was also deemed a “Denialist”.

Most politicians don’t care if they believe or don’t believe this or that, as long as what they are saying gives them more opportunity to grab more money and power. The very notion of “truth” (scientific or otherwise) is alien to the ruling classes. They suck moral relativism and disdain for human nature with their mother’s milk.

A comment I made in the last posting may be more appropriate here. To stop this AGW black hole of funding, we need strong public consensus. The lastest poll is a start:
http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/03/public-opinion-about-global-warming/

Roger Carr

But we are still seeing comments like this:
Imagine if countries got together and enacted laws to reduce and regulate the carbon emissions into the atmosphere. What a success that could be.
Andrew Bolt’s blog today.

Sou

Most US Americans appear to be quite gullible at best. Sixty six per cent of people in the USA surveyed by Gallup in 2007 thought that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. And in a gallup poll only last year 44% thought that God created human beings in their present form.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
Yet in the same poll, 53% thought it was definitely or probably true that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.
It’s a strange world indeed and some education systems must be even stranger.

Sou

Correction – the ‘yet in the same poll’ refers to the 2007 poll, not the 2009 poll.

Jon

BillD … temperatures in Canada were above normal this winter: http://www.cbc.ca/nl/features/nlweather/2010/03/warmest_driest_canadian_winter.html
Seals are pupping on beaches in northern Newfoundland because of the lack of ice.

Roger Carr (03:31:01) :
But we are still seeing comments like this:
“Imagine if countries got together and enacted laws to reduce and regulate the carbon emissions into the atmosphere. What a success that could be.”

Imagine if countries got together and enacted laws to eliminate warfare and promote universal brotherhood. What a success that could be.
Oh. Wait…

Carax

Opinion on global warming for 2010 waning after a long harsh winter, gee what a coincidence.

Johnny Canuck

HELP!
I cannot open Climategate.com anymore.
I went to Google and found the listing, but it was blocked when I tried to open it.
I tried it on “BING” — same thing.
This only started happening since yesterday or the day before.
Has anyone an explanation?
I suspect chicanery’

Roger@03:31:01, perhaps the writer was listening to music and got caught up in all those “Imagine” lyrics.

Gail Combs

Michael (03:00:45) :
“All hell is going to break loose soon. Get ready. All the scams are being exposed. Repo 105 seems to be the last straw.”,/i>
The whole thing has been a financial/accounting scam ever since the goldsmiths figured out they could write ten “1 oz of gold” promissory notes for every oz of gold left in their vaults for safe keeping. It was made law as “fractional reserve” banking and the bankers have been lending us pixie dust ever since. They collecting our wealth (labor) in return for their pixie dust. To add insult to injury they then charge up to 30% interest on that pixie dust! They also lend the same type of pixie dust to the federal governments.
Here in the USA
“Grace Commission report notes that 100% of personal income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt, the lion’s share of which goes to the banking cartel that we know as the Federal Reserve.” http://www.bloggernews.net/17032
To add insult to injury the banks are not even doing “fractional lending” any more now the entire amount loaned to the public is pixie dust. “US banks are already operating free of any reserve constraints. The graph below shows reserve requirements falling to zero over the last fifty years.” the graph can be seen at http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/03/us-banks-operate-without-reserve.html
Now just sit back for a second and think about the amount of WEALTH the bankers are skimming off through taxes and principle and interest!
The whole “banking crisis” is nothing but an accounting scam. If 100% of the “money” you lend out is counterfeit* but 100% of the money you collect as principal and interest is backed by wealth (labor) then how the heck can you bank be “failing” without a lot of fancy accounting tricks.
The fancy accounting trick is to consider the counterfeit* money REAL as soon as the bank creates it and entires it on their accounting records. Wouldn’t you love to be able to print money and lend it to people at interest?
Money Is Created by Banks Evidence Given by Graham Towers
http://www.michaeljournal.org/appenE.htm
Evidence given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government’s Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939. Here are a few excerpts:
Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange?
Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for… That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287)
The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238)
Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238)
Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans.
As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt.
Once the public in all of the countries with Central Banks figure out they have been had by the few banking families that control the entire world banking system, we maybe able to straighten out the mess they have made. Until then they control the politicians and through them us.
Unfortunately now that they have more wealth than the know what to do with they have decided to “play chess” with our lives to keep themselves entertained.

gcb

According to this article, NASA knew there were problems with the GIS dataset three years ago, but somehow this information never became public, even though a USA Today reporter was informed of it.
So much for the impartiality of the press!

rbateman

Roger Carr (03:31:01) :
Imagine if countries got together and enacted laws to reduce and regulate the economy into the dark ages.
What a success that could be…. unless you are a peasant.

son of mulder

” Roger Carr (03:31:01) :
Andrew Bolt’s blog today.”
Interestingly Bolt’s chart shows 71% drop in SO2 (a cooling aerosol) since 1980 in the US.
Globally SO2 has decreased 25% in the 10 years 1990 to 2000
see
http://ideas.repec.org/p/rpi/rpiwpe/0504.html
where it says (to inject a bit more fear about global warming)
“Global anthropogenic sulfur emissions increased until the late 1980s…….This paper combines previously published data and new econometric estimates to show a 25% decline over the decade to a level not seen since the early 1960s. ………….If this new trend is maintained local air pollution problems will be ameliorated but global warming may be somewhat exacerbated.”
So we are supposed to have anthropic CO2 forcing warming, decreasing SO2 forcing warming yet no statistically significant warming since 1995.
Together with IPCC gaffes, and Climategate no wonder concerns are dropping.

RichieP

@ Johnny Canuck (05:04:41) :
“HELP! I cannot open Climategate.com anymore.”
Nor can I (UK) – just get one of those pages that suggests the domain has ceased to be. Hmmm.

Green Sand

Richard North’s Eureferendum has pointed out a study that may influence the next poll: –
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/honey-ive-shrunk-birdies.html
Climate change makes birds shrink in North America
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8560000/8560694.stm
As Richard says “it just gets better and better”

Douglas DC

Here’s the latest SST’s from Unisys:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
Note the warm water off the coast of Newfoundland.
Note the Baltic.Note the Bearing.Note the Gulf of Mexico.-all cold
Note the Flaccid “Multi year, worst ever!” Nino.
Neutral to Nina by the summer…

gcb

@Johnny Canuck (05:04:41) :
Looks like the domain registration expired or they’re in a dispute. When I go to climategate.com now I get the sort of “generic page” that you get when the domain registrar is looking for someone to buy it.
Whois reports that the domain information changed yesterday:
Domain Name: CLIMATEGATE.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS1.SEDOPARKING.COM
Name Server: NS2.SEDOPARKING.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 11-mar-2010
Creation Date: 05-jan-2008
Expiration Date: 05-jan-2013

Pamela Gray

Just my opinion bout mother seals, but I would rather pup on a warm beach than ice any day.
To gauge the change in attitudes in political circles which would be the more accurate proxy? Shaving or coring?

wws

re: Roger Carr: I think you turned up Micheal Mann’s sockpuppet.

Graph 1 – hockey stock brewing
Graph 2 – tipping point soon to be reached
How will all that AGW BS end? Slowly die off, being replaced by another looming catastrophe? Abrupt end, when some influential politicians start to talk in open? Who will bear the responsibility?

Gail Combs

Green Sand (05:33:31) :
Richard North’s Eureferendum has pointed out a study that may influence the next poll: –
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/honey-ive-shrunk-birdies.html
Climate change makes birds shrink in North America
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8560000/8560694.stm
As Richard says “it just gets better and better”
GEE could not have anything to do with inbreeding populations, pesticides, herbicides and GMO crops… NAWWWwww the only possible cause is the politically correct cause dejour. I am sure there is another study linking the same decrease in size to GMO crops.

Kay

@ Grumpy Old Man (03:09:16) :
Just as I was commenting on the previous post, this new one appears. My comment may be more appropriate here. There is a long way to go:
http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/03/public-opinion-about-global-warming/
That the number of people being more skeptical of AGW is “less than half” at 48% isn’t the important thing. What’s important is the sharp downward spiral and downward trend in such a short time–if they do this poll again in a couple of months, the number of those for AGW will probably be outnumbered by those against.

While science is not ruled by polls ( thank goodness ) Politicians are. The real reason this is good is that it means that politicians will not do anything stupid while we are still figuring everything out. No one really disputes that over the 200 years temperature have managed to warm up. What is in dispute is the following. Is it bad, is it unprecedented, is it only caused by man.
If it is bad then we should be at least worried a little, bad is well bad.
if it is unprecedented then that is worrisome because it means we cannot predict with accuracy how the world will react.
if it is only caused by man then that means we can more easily effect the environment on a global scale then we thought.
However it is most likely not ‘bad’ change occurs and is only that, change.
As best as we can, tell despite some climate scientists wish that this next statement is not true, it does not appear to be unprecedented in the last couple of thousand years.
Since it is not Unprecedented then odds are man is not the ONLY cause of the warming. If that is true then those claiming it is unprecedented and bad and that man is the cause of it all are not to be believed. THIS is the reason people are upset at ‘the facts’ because they are being presented by political scientists at that point with an agenda. Facts speak for themselves you do not need to inflate them. Or diminish other fact to make the ones you want to believe true.
Does an increase in CO2 increase temperature, of course it does. Is all the warming that has occurred over the last century directly attributable ONLY to that? We do not know!!! So stop trying to say it is when in a court of law all you can say is that well there is a correlation, so in the next 50 years we are going to increase the temperature by 5 degrees Celsius unless you do something NOW!!!! Which I see no direct correlation based on the evidence to agree with that statement to date. Theory yes, but I can theorize anything with data and so long as I can JUSTIFY my GUESS then my theory until the evidence suggests otherwise is PLAUSIBLE.
Anyway, while climate scientists call a skeptical thought process like this stupid, or funded by big oil I actually think of it more as common sense… Perhaps I am wrong, anyone able to take me to task on this?

sam bailey

I have a neighbor.. and true Agw Algorite… whom in in the spirit of detente’.. after many legendery exhanges over what he considered settled science my penchant for.. self indulgent sarcasm that had touches of objectivism that on climate issues might find.. refreshing
I offered him a a a gift.. a token of peace if you will.
It was a hockey stick… with the end.. cut level and straight..
For a vegan.. hed had a pretty good swing.. thankfully no stitches….
:’)

Pascvaks

Ref – Sou (04:04:50) :
“Most US Americans appear to be quite gullible at best…
“It’s a strange world indeed and some education systems must be even stranger.”
________________________
Americans, like many people around the world, tend to still believe many of the things they grew up “knowing”, even if they now “know” that these things really aren’t, probably, true. (Know what I mean?)
And, Americans, like many of the people around the world, tend to “believe” people, and what they say, until they find out otherwise. Or until someone else they “know” better, or “respect” or “like” or “etc.” more says it ain’t so. (Know what I mean?)
Americans are like most people around the world. We can’t appreciate others too well, and others can’t appreciate us too well.
But.. the American Education System, that’s a different story. Nobody, nowhere, nohow, nowho, nowhat, nowhen (lately), and nowhy likes it. One of these days….(@#$%$#%$)

Gail Combs

rbateman (05:19:26) :
Roger Carr (03:31:01) :
Imagine if countries got together and enacted laws to reduce and regulate the economy into the dark ages.
What a success that could be…. unless you are a peasant.
Actually the laws are to starve a great number of peasants out of existence. After all you only need so many peasants, if you have too many they become hard to control and besides THEY are using up YOUR resources. Environmentalism is actually about peasants using up the elites resources, that is why WWF was started by royalty.
Am I being sarcastic? No
Spermicidal corn: http://noblelie.com/2009/03/10/gmo-population-control-spermicidal-corn/
Vaccines: Sterilization & Abortion: http://www.whale.to/m/sterile.html

It’s the taxes…..
It is easy to believe in faeries when it costs nothing.
A poll a few years back found the support for taxes to combat GW went to near zero when the cost was $1,000 a year per family. And there was a drop off even at $100 a year per family. At $10 a year the numbers held relatively steady.

son of mulder

“Gail Combs (05:54:38) :
GEE could not have anything to do with inbreeding populations, pesticides, herbicides and GMO crops… NAWWWwww the only possible cause is the politically correct cause dejour. I am sure there is another study linking the same decrease in size to GMO crops.”
Or maybe cold kills so smaller birds of the species die without breeding. Warmer is better and the smaller birds survive to breed and so on average the bird size gets smaller.

Curiousgeorge

@ Milwaukee Bob (01:26:18) :
OT
In- WUWT, “IPCC announces “independent” review” Curiousgeorge asked for a link to the Energy Sec. Chu remarks. Thought others might be interested also.
WSJ
MARCH 8, 2010
Politics and Policy
Energy Secretary Steven Chu on the administration’s game plan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575104
The link you gave returned a “Page not found” error, but I managed to run it down based on the other info above. Funny tho, there is no mention of the CO2 layer comment you referred to either in the text or the accompanying video. Here’s the link I found: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575104621269451154.html?KEYWORDS=energy+secretary

gcb

@Pascvaks (06:06:55) :
But.. the American Education System, that’s a different story. Nobody, nowhere, nohow, nowho, nowhat, nowhen (lately), and nowhy likes it.
So does that make the Education System like the weather – everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it?
If that’s the case, can we expect “Anthropogenic Global Stupiding” to be the next big media feeding frenzy?
🙂

OceanTwo

Wouter (02:01:56) :
I’ll respond in kind, by referring to a cartoon: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1271

While you are making the obvious point regarding polls, here’s a couple of thoughts:
What’s the difference between ‘the majority believing/knowing X’ and a ‘consensus’?
Weather there is a consensus that the world is flat or not, there’s a difference in relevance when the public at large have an opinion about something that affects them directly and an opinion about an irrelevance.
This is why an opinion poll in this case is quite important: it demonstrates that there’s a lot of people believe that the case for AGW contains very little compelling evidence. This is going on the worst case scenario that people will believe pretty much anything placed before them – the ‘gullibility’ as it were.
Polls are decidedly unscientific, but then, we are polling on an un-science.
Regardless, event though the intelligence of a whole group of people is below the average intelligence of those members individually, people are not as stupid as they are made out to be.