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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
I agree with Robert of Ottawa @ur momisugly 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.
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.
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.
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.
Oceans not notions.
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 .
matt v. @ur momisugly 6:44 am
For for relief from global warming propaganda (and especially CBC), watch SunTV.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.