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

It is interesting to compare this with the YouGov poll (2013) on evolution:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/23/on_in_five_americans_believe_in_scientific_evolution_without_god/
37% believe God created humans
25% believe God guided human development
21% believe humans evelved without God’s direction
Well CAGW has always been a religion

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

@Brian H – it is within the margin of error.

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).

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.

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

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.

@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”.

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.

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.”
Great video: http://iai.tv/video/what-we-dont-know-about-co2

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 ….

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.

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.

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.

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.