Yougov Poll: Only 36% of USA Believe Humans are Mainly Responsible for Climate Change

Yougov
2019 Yougov poll of climate opinions.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t JoNova, GWPF; The USA are amongst the most skeptical of the countries surveyed (fourth from the bottom of believers).

International poll: most expect to feel impact of climate change, many think it will make us extinct

In:InternationalScience & environment
September 15, 2019, 2:00 p.m.

New YouGov study of 30,000 people in 28 countries and regions uncovers noticeable differences in attitudes between East and West
Climate change may never before have been as firmly fixed in the public consciousness as it is today. With campaigner Greta Thunberg set to speak at the UN’s Climate Action Summit, a new international YouGov survey uncovers attitudes to climate change across the world.

Acknowledgement of mankind’s role in the changing climate is widespread

That climate change is happening and that humanity is at least partly responsible is a view held by the majority across the world. Indians are the most likely to think that human activity is the main reason the climate is changing, at 71%.

At 35% Norwegians and Saudi Arabians are the least likely to think this, although a further 36% and 48% respectively in each country think that humanity is partially responsible for the changing climate.

Read more: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/articles-reports/2019/09/15/international-poll-most-expect-feel-impact-climate

Its not all good news for US climate skeptics.

There is another chart (see the yougov link above) which suggests slightly over half of US people surveyed think climate change will have at least “a fair amount of impact” on the economy, so there is concern.

The survey also suggests that around 50% of people surveyed in the USA believe drastic changes are required to avert climate change, with an additional 15% supporting continuation of existing climate policies. I’m not sure how that view reconciles with the 36% who believe that humans are mostly responsible for climate change.

JoNova raises concerns about the poll methodology.

Scandinavian countries are highly skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, I found this surprising; for some reason I thought they were all activists. Greta Thunberg’s Sweden is third from the bottom of the list of climate believers.

For some reason Canada doesn’t appear on the summary page. I had a look at the full report, Canada gets a few mentions but I didn’t find an explanation of why Canada’s opinions don’t appear in the summary.

Advertisements

135 thoughts on “Yougov Poll: Only 36% of USA Believe Humans are Mainly Responsible for Climate Change

  1. That the climate is changing…..and all the responsibility for the past ~50 years is developing countries
    ..and not the USA

    I’ll bet there ‘s not 2 people they surveyed that know that

    Until we stop letting them get away with framing the question…we’re losing

    • So why aren’t the U.N. Warmists insisting 3rd world countries STOP developing? Oh wait … they are … they want to STOP the burning Amazon … which is hurting primeval Stone Age Amazonian tribespeople. The UN wants us ALL to live like primeval tribespeople.

      • The burning of the western Amazon is not hurting any primeval people. It’s farmland more than rainforest in that area. The burning this year is way down from 10–15 years ago and only a little above the recent 5 year average. There is more rainforest today than in 1950.

        The relatively increased burning is caused by the environmentalists. Biofuel production has been taking over farmland, displacing farmers and ranchers, so they seek new land. Right now is is about 2.3% but they expect it to climb to 36%. But the enviros in Brazil are exerting pressure to stop all land clearing, ignoring that there is lots of land going back to nature. [Also, many indigenous people are moving off the land to the cities, vacating slash and burn altogether.] In response to the threat of being denied land, the farmers are rushing to clear more land before the freeze is imposed.

        One of the enviro solutions is to make everybody vegan so there will be need for grazing land. They create a problem and make others be the forced solution. Nice.

    • It doesn’t look like Gretta is having the effect she wanted in Scandinavia.

      As to the perceived incongruity between those who think that climate change is human caused or not, and the purported need to spend public funds to mitigate any effect: There is no connection.
      One can believe that a hurricane is coming and act to mitigate its damage while simultaneously understanding that humans had no responsibility for its existence.
      Nobody is seriously debating whether the world has warmed slightly. The arguments are all about whether we can do anything to effect the climate, what the effects of a slightly warming planet are, and if any actions can or should be taken to mitigate any of the effects.

      • But, the political pressure she has created on the Swedish government has got all the green energy companies salivating over a new batch of government handouts and subsidies.

        The big problem is that a very high percentage of politicians believe in AGW, while more normal, real-world people do not.

        • Charles, I’m not sure the pollies believe in AGW like you say. They certainly believe there are votes in it. A few more repeat surveys like this and the pollies will go quiet.

    • Nonsense. Look at these two files and tell me they do not prove that only a small amount of climate change is man made and most is natural and in areas where there is little or no human activity exists. Also if emissions have arrived from fossil fuel use areas it needs serious explanation as to how they managed to do it with no trace of the greenhouse effect on the way in and the spectacular heating rate in an areas where otherwise it is to say the least the sun’s warmth not very noticeable.

      https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2018/11/29/10/6789588-6441849-image-a-10_1543488309269.jpg

      AMSRE_SSTAn_M.mov

      Notice the most extreme Arctic region anomalies seem to occur around September.

    • Forget the questions, Latitude — the headline / conclusion is deceptive.

      “75% of Americans believe humans are mainly or partly responsible for climate change” SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE HEADLINE !

      The sub-headline should have been:
      “Not that polls of ordinary people have anything to do with real science”.

      This poll was a waste of time.

      • Humans responsible?
        UAE – 52%?
        Saudi Arabia – 35%?
        Oman – 43%
        Bahrain – 46%
        Qatar – 52%
        Kuwait – 52%
        Hong Kong – 50% A thoroughly urban area that is unlikely to ever give up fossil fuels?

        What kind of poll gets these kind of results with heavy Middle East representation?

        One suspects that these numbers are from volunteer poll respondents at colleges and perhaps High Schools in urban locations. Responders, only too thrilled to respond many times.

  2. Encouraging news. Let’s hope that the feverish idiocy regarding ‘climate change’ grinds to a halt soon. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
    It’s ironic, considering that Messrs. Gore and Hansen in the USA are regarded as the high-profile initiators of all the current hysteria. Certainly, the first time I saw a reference to the possible effects of CO2 on climate was in an American undergraduate science textbook in the mid 1970s. That time, it seems to me, is when the seeds were set for all the craziness that’s happening now.

    • As did I Carbon but they were talking the coming Ice Age and not coincidentally, this end of days nonsense ramped up after Ehrlichs blockbuster hit Science Fiction Novel “The Population Bomb” – oh wait they placed that in the non-fiction section at all the university libraries.

      • I have a college biology text that contains a squib about CO2 running up the global temperature. I’m away on vacation, otherwise I’d post the appropriate documentation.

        The point being that CO2 warming has been an issue for a long time. Of course in all that time, it doesn’t seem to have produced much of an effect.

        • when did you go to college Steve and how do they correlate Biology to climate science? I wonder, does that trump my Earth Science College text from 1974? They did shift their hobgoblin from the coming ice age to Global warm…ahhh climate change along the way. So maybe we can triangulate the the year they shifted the narrative.

    • Carbon 500; it will not grind to a halt as long as there are vast amounts of money to be had for supporting the idiocy, and as long as politicians can use this “cause” as a lever for power, influence, and most important of all, more taxes. Only when these advantages are gone, will the fanfares of the “climate crusade” fade away into a bitter whimper from “failed saviours”, the great majority of whom will be white, male and elderly.

  3. “There is another chart (see the yougov link above) which suggests slightly over half of US people surveyed think climate change will have at least “a fair amount of impact” on the economy, so there is concern. ”

    Climate change will have a huge impact on the economy – especially from the conversion of electricity production to the inefficient renewables. Costs of power and electricity will skyrocket.

    • There’s the problem. What do you mean by climate change. The climate changes. The climate has always changed. Climate change has a huge effect on the economy. Warmer is Richer.

      My parents survived the Dirty Thirties. I believe in natural climate change.

    • Joe,
      There is minor distinction between actual climate change effects to the economy and effect on the economy of political machinations regarding the climate.
      Higher energy prices are not being driven by changes in climate, but by politics.
      I suspect any actual changes in climate will have effects on the economy like lower crop prices, which are not always beneficial.

      • “Higher energy prices are not being driven by changes in climate, but by politics.”
        And folk wonder why most world economies are slowly grinding downwards.

  4. Answering YES on such a poll has a virtue signalling component to it. Very few people actually want to pay to “fix” such a problem or issue.

    • Arizona had a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2018. Tom Steyer got it on the ballot. The Attorney General required an addition to the statement to include “irrespective of the cost to consumers”. It failed by 2 to 1. The cost language part mattered, and pissed Steyer off so much he went all in against the Republican AG who squeaked out a 3% victory. The added statement regarding COST was a major reason the initiative failed by such a large margin in a blue wave selection in Arizona. Even Democrat voters care about their pocket books when it is obvious there will be higher costs TO THEMSELVES every month for years to come, they just don’t care when they think someone else will be footing the bill.

      The same crap was approved in Nevada 60% to 40% the same year, also backed by Steyer, but we in Nevada had a democrat AG and governor and no “irrespective of the cost to consumers” in the proposal or the explanation included in the sample ballot. This being a constitutional amendment it will need to be approved again in 2020 to take effect. The state legislature passed unanimously, and the governor signed a bill providing the same as the ballot initiative. The democrats had control of both houses on the legislature with only one vote short of a super-majority in the Senate. The Republicans voted for it to use to oppose the constitutional amendment as unnecessary and allowing for repeal of the requirement by legislative action in the future, and as campaign fodder when electrical rates start rising as the requirements are implemented.

      • If true, then California will be really screwed, one less neighboring state to supply power when the renewables dont work

  5. You have to ask the correct question. Too many times the question is: Do you believe in climate change?
    So I assume there were 4 questions asked here.
    Anyway, if 36 % in the USA believe humans are MOSTLY responsible for climate change that is 36% TOO MANY.
    It shows what irresponsible media and “pseudo-scientists” can do.

  6. Only 30 thousand people? Why so little? Have these people been shown past solar cycles, past weather pattens, do they know of past hot/cold weather? do they know about the north/south flip? How about the weak magnetic field? Were have they got the facts to come to the conclusion that co2 is causing climate change.. al gore and his nasty money making liers are hell bent on sending us back to the dark ages…

    • Bloody Brilliant!

      Media literacy is taught in a lot of high schools across North America. That skit should be compulsory viewing in all of them.

      • Sadly it’s message, that opinion polls are unreliable, will not be learned. Even more insidiously this could influence the less than ethical on how to get more false ammunition for their cause.
        Nowhere in the skit did the politicians even mention that this sort of manipulation is ethically WRONG!

      • My pleasure, perhaps a quote from co-author Jonathan Lynn may also strike a chord.

        “there was not a single scene set in the House of Commons because government does not take place in the House of Commons. Some politics and much theatre takes place there. Government happens in private. As in all public performances, the real work is done in rehearsal, behind closed doors. Then the public and the House are shown what the government wishes them to see.”

        It’s one of those parodies that (sadly?), is difficult to spot if you’ve ever had any dealings with the UK’s Government lol.

  7. Yes, drastic measures are in order like telling urban planners that maybe just maybe their “good planning” crutch is wrong in dictating the massive number of parking spaces required for new shopping and office developments in America. We never actually paved over Vietnam as some mused during the war but we are doing it now to America. Someone get word to the planners that we don’t swarm malls the way we used to before the internet and we don’t even shop for Christmas or attend churches the way we used to. The UHI effect is very real and man made.

  8. Jo Nova is skeptical. Well, I guess so.
    Australia is near the bottom of the list, just a bit above that bastion of skepticism, Scandinavia! And if you believe that one …….
    Next up, S.E. Asia, all at the top. Taiwan, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines. All hotbeds of activism, for sure.
    Get This: China is more alarmist than Australia. (!!!!!) No wonder Jo Nova is skeptical.

    Notably missing:
    Russia and japan, neither of which buys into AGW at all.
    Also missing is New Zealand, one of the all-time greats of alarmist countries. Maybe not as alarmist as India, in this poll??????

    This poll might make sense if you turned it upside down.

    I am calling it -Flag on the field-
    FAKE NEWS

    • Resourceguy LOLOL all these climate scare stories yet coal and nuclear plants are being built around the world, india, china, Australia etc etc will carry on as usual….

      • Yes, it doesn’t matter what this poll claims Indians believe, they are going to DO what suits them best, which is currently the cheapest fuel available. Go Coal!

        Having said that, I don’t trust this poll any more than TonyL above. We all know just how sensitive poll results are to the actual phrasing of the question. I don’t currently speak any of the hundreds of languages used in India, but I bet the people running this poll don’t know many more. How many interpreters did they employ? lol.

    • And I found a survey indicating that 86% of responding Liberal Democrats would destroy the world to save it from humanity

    • Just so you know griff, the term “flat earth”is a trademark of trolls along with the creationist terms for the age of earth being less than 100K years old or whatever the number they’re using. Those trollish behaviors are especially irksome when directed at geologists with advanced degrees or others with advanced degrees in their fields.

    • 36% believe that man is primarily responsible for the temperature increase since the end of the LIA.
      33% of millenials believe that the earth is flat.

      Just goes to show that the destruction of the public school system is advancing at full speed.

  9. To participate in YouGov polls you have to answer a lot of very intrusive personal questions, information about yourself which YouGov sells to companies who then target you. People completely unconcerned about their privacy tend to be young, and possibly stupid or at least uninformed enough to give away their personal info for free. So this is a poll representing young and uninformed opinions.

    This is supported by the fact that people in equatorial countries seem unaware that their climate will change least.

    It’s also interesting that those icons of Leftist Socialism, the Scandinavian countries all seem to be at the bottom of the charts.

  10. I was referred to this study by someone who noted that the survey mthodology itself throws doubt on the numbers as it is a self-responding survey – that is people chose to respond as opposed to being approached, thus making it self-selecting. This is the wording at the bottom of the actual YOUGOV post:

    “All of the surveys were conducted online, and in some countries the internet penetration is low to the point where the sample can only be said to be representative to the online population. The countries where the online population is lower than 60% of the total are China, Thailand, Vietnam, Egypt, India and Indonesia.”

    You can imagine that not a lot of people will actually take the time to respond to a survey unless they are already primed to the issue.

    • I thought the same thing, but then I looked at the YouGov Q&A here:

      https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/research-qs/

      There are a few murky weasel words in here where they say their “incentive system” is designed to prevent the self-selection problem and claim they could detect any deliberate attempt to game a poll by activist groups. It’s also not clear how they get the universe of names they poll; they talk about people “proactively recruited via other carefully-selected websites”, whatever that means. But it seems they make a fairly honest effort to be a real polling outfit, not the hokey self-selecting joke I thought.

      • I joined YouGov under a pseudonym, and I found they require you to answer highly intrusive survey questions which try to pin down your political positions, demographics and even psychological profile with no “I don’t want to answer” option. The “incentives” are points which you can convert to merchandise at absurd rates. You have to answer hundreds of surveys to get anything. Surveys like the one above are few and far between. Their primary focus is building a detailed profile of you.

        • “at absurd rates” – And this is the problem. Since you have to complete a lot of survey to get gift certificates, I believe that YouGov subscribers do what my wife and I are doing: almost every answer are complete at random. The only questions we don’t fill out randomly are those that concern us.

  11. Another example of a poll using biased/misleading questions to get a higher percentage of the preferred result.

    It takes a lot of drilling down in the results to see the actual survey question. Once the actual survey question is posted, you can see that it is highly biased with the implied presumption that CO2 is the primary cause of the current warming

    Similar to the survey question that found 80+% of republicans responding that they are in favor of the “passing laws to reduce the pollution that causes global warming”

  12. They use ambiguity, and things that are trivially true to get the answers they want, much the same way lawyers do in a courtroom. The ambiguity of the phrase “climate change” is especially useful, since even a cooling climate is “climate change”. If you spit in the ocean, that in fact does affect both SST as well as SLR. So what?

  13. Hey, Eric, Canada does not appear in the statistics because the majority of Canadians wish it would warm up some, and Trudeau is finally realizing his doomsday fantasies aren’t selling. Remember, 80% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the USA border, and that would be what they call a clue!

  14. Indians are the most likely to think that human activity is the main reason the climate is changing

    Well, we know the Sen. Elizabeth Warren is fully onboard.
    (Sorry, couldn’t resist)

    • Hmmm. I’m about twice as much Indian than Warren claimed to be (great-grandmother was half-Indian). My skepticism must come from the other Heinz 57 varieties that comprise my genetic make-up.

      By the way, based on what I see in the mirror, when you combine all that DNA, what you get visually, is Opie Cunningham.

  15. I didn’t find an explanation of why Canada’s opinions don’t appear in the summary.

    “Sorry, eh, but I don’t want to give my opinion. That’d be rude, eh.”

  16. Canadian universities are now hijacked by the climate strike minority crowd:
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/climate-strike-students-ubc-1.5287855
    And the CBC finds the local sympathetic professor, George Hoberg, a professor at UBC’s School of Public Policy and Global Affairs… a climate expert obviously…

    George Hoberg
    @ghoberg
    · 13h
    How can college and university faculty support the #GlobalClimateStrike ? 1. Cancel your class that day and encourage student involvement by declaring you will attend the event or 2. Build teaching about climate into your pedagogy for the week
    George Hoberg
    @ghoberg
    I don’t teach that day, but all my classes that week will be focused on climate policy and politics. And I’ll be donating my day’s salary to a climate action NGO dedicated to promoting a better future for our students. #GlobalClimateStrike

    Eco-totalitarism is near.

  17. I have my own view, not covered above.

    The “narrative” by the Fakestream media, politicians (Algore) and other liars is that fossil fuels are running up carbon dioxide (that part has to be at least partly true), which is re-radiating heat waves in all directions, slowing its escape to space, thus resulting in a higher equilibrium temperature. That temperature stuff has been much debunked on this site. The records that make it look that way are heavily faked. The narrative continues that the small difference produced will cause enormous damage to the biosphere and maybe even end human life.

    But almost everybody on this site is a physical scientist. I am a life scientist. It has been mentioned here that carbon dioxide is the basis of photosynthesis, and it has been pointed out that geologists studied temperatures before all the screaming began to determine temperature optimum. I do not know what the best was–but “climate optimum” means a warm period, the “Eocene Climate Optimum” is defined correctly even in Wikipedia last I checked, and was six Celcius degrees warmer than present.

    Today’s young geologists do not even know what the term “climate optimum” means.

    The summary position of this site is that fossils have little to do with global temperature, and that strongly beneficial. I concur with that.

    Yet over the long term (even Miss Donkey-mouth has admitted the twelve years was “a joke”), there really IS occurring climate change that is severely harming the biosphere. It has been going on since the start of agriculture about 14 000 years ago, and turned the Sahara and former “Fertile Crescent” into deserts. The US got its first taste of this desertification with the 1930’s Dust Bowl” and another uncomprehended lesson this year with severe flooding in the Midwest, followed magically by drought.

    Agriculture as we have always known it involves plows or other tillage, and a lot of bare soil. Those two things destroy soil structure, so that the soil cannot absorb the rain at all well, and you get runoff and floods. Then the dry soil supports fewer plants, there is less transpiration from fewer leaves, thus less cloud formation, and less subsequent rain. The bare, damaged soil forms a rural heat island, which further reduces rain. So–drought. And high daytime air temperatures and low nighttime temperatures. That is the real climate change. It can be reversible in as few as three years.

    The human race vanguard is learning awesome things about enhancing soil structure and improving fertility. Because YOU know so little about it, these pioneers believe the garbage about fossil fuels. That is dangerous, because fossils and only fossils increase the carrying capacity of the Earth for life. Fortunately, their rightness matters much more than their mistakes. Permaculture, Regeneration Agriculture done right, are profitable. No smashing of the economy needed.

    There IS climate change, it IS dangerous, because starvation causes wars, and it IS caused primarily by humans. It is not caused by fossils–their carbon dioxide reduces the problem. The real cause is profitable and fun to fix.

  18. I speak to lots of people here in Austria. Most are very skeptical of this Climate Change thing without any prodding. I must confess that I speak primarily to people my age and older and at our age one tends to be less panicky and more conservative. Most of those who say they believe in Climate Alarmism don’t really understand the consequences. As there is no emissions-free energy form, we must commit collective suicide as otherwise, 8 billion people living at Medieval standards will also impact the planet. Living standards will have to drop massively, life expectancy will drop massively, the poor will be even poorer, the Middle-Class will vanish. That’s not a world I want to live in – and a large majority of people agree once they come to understand the real choices.

  19. Russia and all of eastern Europe omitted? No Mexico? Not a single Central and South American country? A lot of people live in these places.

    I am convinced that the only reason “climate change” gets purchase in many countries is that Obama, in signing on to Paris, agreed to distribute $100 billion per year among whatever are called “undeveloped countries.” This excites developed countries because we are to pay more than any of them thus supporting the screw-the-USA meme. It’s the same issue that causes so many climate researchers and industrialists to sign on and stay aboard. It’s about money, who gets it, and who doesn’t.

  20. I wonder if they ever thought about asking the sample participants, what do they think was the cause of climate change before humans existed as sentient animals roughly one hundred thousand years ago? ( I am being generous re the sentient time scale)
    I wonder what could possibly have prompted the climate to change during the 4.5 billion years of planet Earth’s existence, prior to human evolution as humans?

  21. You can’t trust polls favoring any action until the $$ costs start being felt…or the foreknowledge of the certainty of very high costs (and no calculable benefit) is in play.

  22. ‘Climate change’ ranks at the bottom of Americans’ concerns, yet WaPo now claims 8 in 10 Americans Believe. Bulls*it. Even 36% seems high, all things considered. Seems the leftist/fascist media is following Rules for Radicals #1: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” When you own all the megaphones you can create a new reality, so my biggest concern is election fraud, the only way democrats can ‘win’ with their laughable platform and no doubt they know it. Between ‘fraction magic’ that turns votes into fractions and illegal voters it looks bad. And the entire media is paving the way and obviously complicit.

    Please check out ZipPollsUSA.com? It’s the best kept secret because it inadvertently exposes the sham. Zip anonymously polls over 100,000 Americans across the political spectrum and a high majority support Trump. Zip is owned by a liberal and all their questions are spun that way, so the results are clearly not rigged. They won’t ask the Big Question: “Who will you vote for in 2020?” and blow the illusion completely, but the questions they do ask make it obvious, despite the liberal spin. Zip predicted the Trump landslide and it’s now being ignored by the ENTIRE media, all pushing the left/right narrative and ignoring the vast MAGA middle, which of course makes demonizing Trump supporters easy and is in line with the illusion that most Americans Believe in man-made climate change. All smoke & mirrors!
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker—trump-win-election/88640044/
    USA Today: App Maker: Trump will win election
    August 13, 2016
    Excerpts: “”Based on the stats we see, he looks strong,” says Ric Militi, co-founder of San Diego-based Crazy Raccoons, maker of the Zip question and answer app. His app poses questions and polls responses based on an average of 100,000 daily users. “We’re not a poll. We’re a conversation, and 100% anonymous,” Militi says. “People feel comfortable answering questions without fear of being bullied or being called a racist. People can express themselves safely, and you get a pure answer.”. . .He contends that most media polls are just flat-out wrong and that smartphone answers are the future. . .So either the traditional polls are right or Militi is onto something, with a different way of polling that lets citizens answer more openly. We’ll find out on Nov. 8, when voters go to the real polls.”
    https://zippollusa.com/category/politics/

  23. YouGov polls are basically worthless. The high numbers in India do not surprise me, it’s possible that 95% of the respondents there work in information technology and rarely get out into the real world.

  24. Canadian citizens are being RAPED by carbon taxes. Yeah, I doubt any global warmist wants Canadian opinions about global warming.

  25. “Doomsdays that didn’t happen: Think tank compiles decades’ worth of dire climate predictions”

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/failed-climate-change-predictions

    “The conservative-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute has put together a lengthy compilation of apocalyptic predictions dating back decades that did not come to pass, timed as Democratic presidential candidates and climate activists refocus attention on the issue.”

    • Mark, I think you will find that crop increase is due to increased CO2. Climate change is independent of CO2, so we must be grateful that the ending of the little ice age and the thawing of the planet since 1850, is now complimented in the past 75 years by a good increase of CO2. More would be helpful. I would love to see the desert areas continue to shrink as they are currently doing. 600 PPM would be a good figure to aim for. Then we can decide if the cost of all the additional crop yields continuous record harvests and so on, is too much to bear?….

      • The world has warmed since 1850, though in all likelihood CO2 has counted for less than 5% of that warming.
        This warming has resulted in lots of land that used to be too cold to grow crops on now being farmed.

      • Earth has warmed since c. AD 1695, during the Maunder Minimum depths of the LIA.

        But lamentably, the long-term trend remains down. The Holocene Optimum (~5 Ka) was toastier than the Egyptian (4 Ka) and Minoan (3 Ka) Warm Periods, which were balmier than the Roman WP (2 Ka), which was warmer than the Medieval WP (1 Ka), which was warmer than the Modern WP so far.

  26. Canada is missing, but I think asking why is the wrong question. My question: Why is the USA included since the entire rest of North and South America is not? At least not on the top line graph.

  27. This survey reminds me about when Lord Monckton was at COP15 in Copenhagen 2009 and asked people in the street about global warming, which it was called back then. Monckton approached a young woman, who told him how bad it was and that we would soon cook, the polar bears going extinct, and bla.. bla.. Monckton asked her where she had this information from about the temperature, polar bears, etc. With a clear and authoritative voice, she said: “From Greenpeace”.
    Monckton politely asked her to check the facts at more reliable sources.

  28. This was an online survey. Who else would go to a UN related climate site other than UN nut-bar enviro groupies… and this would be low stats for them, and there are only 1000+ in each country. Obviously the problem is a lot less than we thought 🙂

  29. Yet another laughably biased analysis of a survey. And yet you people want to convince us of your ability to interpret more scientific information. Shameful.

  30. “…why Canada’s opinions don’t count…”
    It’s Canada A
    It’s Turdeau Country A
    They belong under a Mile of Ice to protect the Arctic.
    Maple Trees will grow farther south

  31. I firmly believe that Climate Change can be averted by sending massive amounts of money to my Swiss bank account that I will supply at a later date.

  32. The USA is in good company with Denmark, Norway and Sweden. They are normally more right about things than most countries.

    • As a Dane living in Sweden, I am more than surprised. I am often confronted by Danes with standpoint on AGW, most likely due to my involvement in power generation and wind turbines in the mid 1980’s. Most get very angry with me, when they hear my standpoint, and most higher educated friends are so much for wind and solar, and so much against “dirty oil and coal” and nuclear. In some way I understand them, as Denmark has a considerable income from the wind turbine industry. But their attitude was also partly the reason why I left Denmark for Scotland, US and The Netherlands. When I moved to Scotland in 1989, heating oil was free of tax and VAT. The Oil exploration off of Aberdeen was kind of booming, the area between Glasgow and Edinburgh was nicknamed Silicon Glen. It looked like Scotland was rising above just being home for sheep and haggish for dinner.
      During the ten years I stayed there, people were more and more often asking about AGW. Heating oil got VAT attached, the US companies began to pull out of Silicon Glenn and significant increase in receivership.
      Then I left Scotland for The Netherlands, to work for an American company and enjoyed a new boom, until Al Gore et al spoiled it all.
      Pols, like in this article, has probably played a role in forming peoples (sheeples) opinion, as you want to be trendy, follow the majority and not burn the bridges behind you.
      You are very welcome to talk about the weather, it is socially perfect; but be very careful with the long term weather, also called climate, if you dislike wind, solar and agenda21, and like good old coal and oil. – Oh, and please do not say that Saint Greta is right, Obama has just had a talk with her, where Obama says Greta is the greatest savior of the planet of our time. – I always thought that James Bond did a fairly good job saving the world.

  33. How many are willing to pay for it?

    It looks like Germany is willing to go down the tubes but I’m not so sure about others called to fork it over.

    BTW, this headline and image says a lot. see Reuters story

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-carbon-companies/german-carbon-pricing-plan-may-cost-dax-companies-billions-report-idUSKBN1W31M3?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FbusinessNews+%28Business+News%29

    • ResourceGuy… How sad germany and europe has become, the tax is a damaging scam… taxing us and building wind farms or solar panels is a massive waste of money

  34. Beware of variation in statistics, you’ll find claims of much higher levels of belief.

    One department of a US ivy-league university is clearly biased toward AGW, its statistics cannot be trusted.

    One established polling outfit is clearly biased

  35. I believe your title is incorrect. Looking at the graphic it shows 38% for USA, not 36%.
    It’s worse than we thought!!!

  36. …in Denmark one of the 2 major TV networks just had a Saturday evening AGW special called – “Denmark plants trees” – it had as many viewers as the other channels Wednesday program “grandma’s hunt for men”
    Around 350.000 viewers – ‘Dancing with the stars’ on Friday usually hits 1 million viewers.

    All employees on all media platform in Denmark never the less talks as if climate change is the major topic on all Danes mind. This poll however will as a consequence never the mentioned by any newspaper I’m quite sure.

    • “Denmark plants trees”
      Wow, that sounds like scintillating TV. /sarc

      “grandma’s hunt for men”
      Now THAT is more to my liking. Does she use a rifle or shotgun?

  37. I socialize and speak with hundreds a people monthly and topics of the day are very often part of the discussions. Climate Change rarely enters the discussion…almost only when I am the one bringing up the topic (Climate fraud). There have been a few instances where those in the conversation will say that “we should be doing more” about the climate” But their lives don’t demonstrate any concerns…most of their carbon footprints would rival Al Gore’s.

    If pollsters would ever just step away and have poll takers simply list 10 or 15 things that concern them the most, the climate would never come close to implying that 35% of Americans are “Concerned Believers”.

  38. Haven’t read all the comments, but I know more about polling than I do about atmospheric chemistry, and I have serious doubts about this polling methodology. The sample sizes are kinda okay for making “national” assertions, but what were the controls? How was the sample generated? Not randomly I bet. On line polls with voluntary respondents make great copy but I wouldn’t base major decisions on them. If as I suspect many people responding were motivated on the issue, interesting that 10% of Americans must have said “no opinion” and the USA sample was the highest percentage in the world saying there is no climate change at all or if there is, no human cause (15%). Public opinion polling like this basically is measuring only the penetration of the media messages bombarding people – and with the steady one-sided media diet, that level of skepticism is encouraging. Fewer than 40 percent put the main blame on humans?

  39. I think the questions are misleading. “The climate is changing and humans are mainly responsible” is one. If they mean Co2 is responsible they should say that. Humans like all animal make changes in their environment. Cutting down trees, land use changes, air conditioners, use of heat retaining materials. All these cause warming yet I doubt if that is what they mean in the question.

    Then, what drastic actions do 50% of US citizens think their government needs to do to avert climate change? Turn off their electricity?
    I don’t think any government has managed to avert climate change.

  40. It’s GLOBAL WARMING not climate change. ”Climate change” is made up. We should not allow ”them” to use the term. No proof the climate is changing because 30 years of weather does not a climate make. Only three climates. Cold, temperate and hot and they don’t change that often.

  41. I find it interesting Norway and Sweden are at the bottom of the list. Norway does not surprise me as their whole economy revolves around oil. Their entire infrastructure, services, education, health and wealth are all derived from oil.

    • Patrick, that is a bit of a stretch—Oil and gas are now down to 17% of the Norwegian GPD. 98% of their electricity is from hydro. Perhaps the Scandinavians as a whole are more aware that glaciers recently came and went, all naturally.

      • Much of the rest of Norway’s economic sectors however depend upon fossil fuel revenues, to include services and construction. Also manufacturing and financial and real estate to some extent.

  42. Certainly, there are both natural and anthropogenic causes of global warming. As to the proportions, everyone is entitled to make a guess (some guesses are more educated than others). However, anyone who claims the proportions can currently be measured is a science denier.

  43. The poll failed to address an important distinction. I believe that humans are partly responsible for warming over the last half century but I also believe that CO2 is a trivial contributor. I believe that because that is what the (far from perfect) evidence says.

    The corollary is that there are an awful lot of extremely corrupt people around, or possible people who are extremely arrogant and exceptionally dumb. These comprise largely of scientists, politicians and – particularly loathsome – celebrities. These are the people who are or will be most to blame for the total waste of trillions of $$, and diverting this money from worthwhile cause that would enhance peoples lives and reduce poverty. In my view they are criminals.

  44. It’s suppose to be encouraging to skeptics but consider what the “36%” would have looked like before decades of propaganda?

    In 1965 I’m reasonably sure the number would under 2% in the hard science and engineering community and most would have laughed at the proposition as it’s framed today.

    That’s a pretty massive decline in deductive science reasoning. A pretty massive growth of government dependency in political academic funding trickling through the whole society.

    What percentage of the current 36% are ready to punish nonbelievers? That’s the truly shocking decline in the society at large.

  45. I was watching Hans Rosling on Ted the other day and I read his book a few months back. A consistent pattern I noticed was the Americans, although scoring badly generally on their knowledge of the state of the world, did score significantly better than Europeans. This is exactly the opposite of how us ‘sophisticated’ Europeans see ourselves compared to Americans. I believe Americans a better informed due to a single Factor: Fox News. We have little like that in Europe (somewhat in U.K.) and here in Ireland absolutely nothing other than the Marxist state broadcaster RTÉ.

    • Fox News does 10x more reporting of government audit reports than its peers. That difference gets overlooked a lot.

  46. That’s interesting as the Scandinavian countries are well known for being among the best educated and most advanced countries in the world – longest life spans, healthiest people, etc. Liberals here cry about how they want to be like them all the time. I guess they won’t mention that little tidbit.

  47. well then, case closed.

    Science should always be put up for a vote among people, 80% of which have no Science education.

    where do I send my check to the petro and coal companies? oh yeah, I already to the every month.

  48. These results are very pleasing- clearly the overwhelming majority of people across the world’s countries believe that climate change is occurring and humans play some role in it- despite the best efforts of misinformation campaigns.

    The only outliers are saudia arabia and the united states both of which have a very low level of scientific literacy amongst their citizens.

  49. Beware of polls!

    Although they can reflect what people think, these surveys should be read with the greatest skepticism. YouGov surveys are completed by YouGov subscribers. They receive gift certificates after completing a number of surveys.

    My wife and I have subscribed to YouGov. Since most surveys are often long or even very long, we quickly concluded that the only way to make it a somewhat profitable activity was to answer… at random. I normally complete a survey of 30 to 40 questions in less than a minute, standing on the bus in the morning….

    Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator

  50. When public support hits about 30 % the pitch forks are coming out .
    10’s of thousands of preventable fuel poverty deaths and $trillions wasted on a con-job .
    On a cheery note the Democrats and Liberals are going to get politically suicided
    for being infiltrated by eco -anarchist socialist .

  51. “Scandinavian countries are highly skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, I found this surprising; for some reason I thought they were all activists. Greta Thunberg’s Sweden is third from the bottom of the list of climate believers.”

    _________________________________________________

    Nordic / Scandinavian “freedom of speech” as Nordic / Scandinavian law are very similar to nowadays thinking and nowadays laws:

    https://heimskringla.no/wiki/Magnus_Lagab%C3%B8ters_landslov

    Kap. 7. Om sysselmændenes ting (s. 13)

    Kap. 8. Om domrov og betalingsterminer (s. 13 – 14)

    Kap. 9. Om lagastevninger (varselsfrister for offentlig stevning) (s. 14)

    –>

    Chap. 7. About the things of the governors (p. 13)

    Chap. 8. About Domrov and Payment Terms (pp. 13 – 14)

    Chap. 9. About lawsuits (notice of public notice) (p. 14)

Comments are closed.