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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Keith

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?

AleaJactaEst

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.

Bloke down the pub

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.

David Archibald

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.

Greg Holmes

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?

Richard S Courtney

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

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.

TBear (Warm Cave in Cold-as-Snow-Sydney)

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 ….

BargHumer

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.

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.

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’.

James

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…….

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.

SteveE

@TBear (Warm Cave in Cold-as-Snow-Sydney)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
It’s about the second lowest at the moment depending which one you use, still heading down at the moment, but unlikely to beat 2007 low I’d imagine. Few more days left yet though!

Brian Johnson uk

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

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!

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

artwest

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.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

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

Keith

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.

Dr A Burns

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

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

Peter Plail

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.

Chuck Nolan

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.”

Robert of Ottawa

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

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?

UK Sceptic

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.

Richard M

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.

Ufsi

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.

Paul R

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.

Peter Dunford

At least they called it global warming and not climate change or climate disruption.

This is not science, this is consensus, and should be treated with the distain reserved for consensuses.

BargHumer

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.

Nuke Nemesis

@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.

imoira

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.

Owen

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.

John W

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.

jeff

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.

Craig W

Oceans not notions.

matt v.

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 .

imoira

matt v. @ 6:44 am
For for relief from global warming propaganda (and especially CBC), watch SunTV.

matt v.

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

TomRude

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.

G. Karst

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

petermue

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.

Greg, Spokane WA

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.

G. Karst

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

CodeTech

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.

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

Doug Proctor

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.