Pew Survey: Most Americans think global warming isn’t a serious problem

Latin America, Africa More Concerned about Climate Change Compared with Other RegionsAnother survey across 40 countries shows what most Americans already know: we don’t think global warming is a serious problem and it’s not one of our main concerns. The survey, conducted by Washington-based Pew Research Center and released Thursday, showed that both the United States and China, considered the two largest emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2), were least likely to be worried about climate change.

China is the largest CO2 emitter, belching out nearly 10.3 kilotons of CO2, followed by the United States, which emits half as much. The European Union and India were numbers three and four respectively. This comes on the heels of another survey released last week showing that among American voters, the number of people “unconcerned” about global warming has jumped to nearly 40 percent in only four months. This new survey shows that concern about global warming hasn’t changed much over the years.

A majority of respondents across different regions said they would “support cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by their governments as part of a global accord being negotiated at U.N. talks in Paris Nov. 30-Dec. 11.” The survey also found, unsurprisingly, that a greater effort should be made by rich countries over poorer nations to reduce CO2 emissions. This “rich-poor divide” is already proving to be a key sticking point at the upcoming Paris climate talks occurring Nov. 30-Dec. 11.

Those concerned about weather-related events were most concerned about droughts, followed by floods and intense storms. The new survey, conducted in person and by telephone with 45,435 people from March through May, found that Latin American and African countries were most concerned about global warming. Surprisingly, the results are only now being released as nations head for Paris to broker a CO2-reduction treaty. Even the Pew Research Center ties in the survey results with with the Paris Climate Talks on its website, writing:

“In a few weeks, world leaders will gather in Paris to negotiate a climate change agreement that will frame the global agenda on this issue for the next decade and beyond. As a new Pew Research Center survey illustrates, there is a global consensus that climate change is a significant challenge. Majorities in all 40 nations polled say it is a serious problem, and a global median of 54% consider it a very serious problem.”

They go on to say that a median of 78 percent support the idea of their country “limiting greenhouse gas emissions as part of an international agreement in Paris.” Except there is one slight problem: the two countries that release the most CO2 are the least concerned about perceived problems associated with global warming. The poll also measures the “degree to which people fear climate change” and how it will affect them personally, which varies widely across the globe.

Only 41 percent of Americans believe that climate change is harming them “now” and only 30 percent think it harms them personally. But based on the observed data, global warming is actually affecting zero percent of the respondents. That’s because the most recent satellite observations that show the global warming hiatus has lengthened to 18 years and 9 months. This warming hiatus represents the satellite dataset, which, as previously reported here, has been monitoring the Earth’s temperature and shows no statistical warming. The satellite measurements are accurate to within .001 degrees Celsius.

Even The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that “15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation.” When the hiatus or pause lengthened to 18 years, NOAA found itself in a predicament. Rather than admit that there is indeed a difference between what’s being observed and what the computer models have predicted, they went back to the drawing board and revised a bevy of temperature datasets to make the past appear cooler, which made the last 19 years look warmer. And last week, NASA released a report after it could no longer mask the fact that Antarctica is actually gaining in mass through record snowfall and thicker land and sea ice.

Not surprisingly, the Pew survey also revealed that young Americans aged 18 to 29 were generally “more concerned” about climate change than those aged 50 and older and saw global warming as a very serious problem. But as noted above, a person born 18 to 29 years ago has not experienced any significant global warming based on the satellite temperature record. Even the land- and sea-based temperature dataset shows less warming than the margin of error for their respective measuring devices.

And NOAA’s gambit to cook the temperature books, which provide political cover for Obama’s expensive, onerous climate policies, helps squash the troubling fact that there hasn’t been any statistical warming for nearly 19 years. These readjustments have also been decried by climate scientists and Congress is now investigating them as well. Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech who actually believes man affects the climate, doesn’t find NOAA’s re-analysis at all convincing, writing, “While I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”

The survey, which is already garnering headlines as a bellwether for the upcoming climate talks, shows that depending on your political affiliation, religion, your country’s development status, etc…, also affects your answer. Domestically, half of all U.S. respondents said developing countries should do just as much as richer countries to reduce CO2 emissions. And despite their political differences, more than half of Democrats and Republicans believe that the “burden of adjustment should be equally shared by both rich and poor nations.”

Source

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (22)

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    I read somewhere that during this delay period, 8 other pipelines were built.
    No problem.

  • Avatar

    Vern Cornell

    |

    Sir…
    Obviously we are not paying attention to the benefits of added CO2 in the atmosphere!
    The earth has greened in the last 70 years as we’ve
    Gone from 300 to 400 ppm. This has benefited
    mankind very, very much.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Most Americans think global warming isn’t a serious problem yet their President considers it to be the greatest challenge of our time ? I think I will go with the 200 million plus Americans on that one .
    I read the speech by Obama on cancelling the Keystone Pipeline. Without initially realizing it was actually Obama’s speech I concluded part way through that who ever wrote it was an extreme nut .

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      100% of alarmists models are wrong.

      [img]http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png[/img]

      • Avatar

        Peter_PNW

        |

        100% of all models are wrong. It is the nature of “models”.

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          No, they’re just plain lies.

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          And all alarmist claims are made using models.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Yea, no warming here, no science here, lots of stupid people… Move along…

            http://bloom.bg/1HizlHx

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Try growing up Pete. How many times does your position have to be proved conclusively wrong before your mind will accept it, if ever

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Yea, no warming here, no science here, lots of stupid people… Move along…[/quote]

            Pete’s idea of science,

            [quote]42 % of Americans think the earth was created 5,777 years ago[/quote]

            Projection is sadz. 😥

            [i]Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science?[/i]

            [i]Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.[/i]
            -Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan

            [i]A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.[/i]
            -Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 89

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            If I’ve ever doubted the intelligence of the small population of intensive “skeptics” homing here, it was in the context of playfully splashing the verbal acid around, the way ya’ll do. And I learned a great deal, following the crumbs. Given the immense body of data that can be applied, and the focus on a narrow physics facet (as differentiated from the nonSkeptic’s diffuse range of socio/econ/politic/entertainment core topics), it makes perfect sense that skeptics would be slightly more correct, statistically that is. But slightly more correct is no proof. You know… We don’t know the control ranges…nor the actual dimensions.

            It’s the risk analysis,…

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            We know what you are. You are drewski/andrezjewski and a lying phony.
            Liars like you always demand that your own surrender is necessary to conclude an argument as if conclusively proven wrong is immaterial.

            Well dope,

            You can conclusively prove me wrong by

            submitting scientific method proof that there is a

            GREENHOUSE EFFECT

            as proposed by the alarmist jerks like you.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Prove geologically significant changes in CO2 will not perturb the Holocene Stability

            If I’m wrong, we all win.
            If you’re wrong, we are transacting massive loss right now.

            Risk analysis? What would a conservative person do….?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Apparently you do not understand the English language and syntax nor the scientific method. Try reloading again once you have gained an understanding if you can.

            I don’t have to prove anything because it is dopes like you who incite alarmist nonsense without proof and expect it to be accepted as biblical level authority until proven wrong.

            It is not up to us to prove a jerk like you wrong.
            It is up to you to prove your case.
            Moreover,
            Previous posts have proven you conclusively to be a liar as well as the positions you declare conclusively wrong.

            I don’t expect you’ll understand nor accept,
            because you are a LIAR.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Winning an argument is tactical. Learning from an argument is strategic. I appreciate what I’ve learned from forums like one

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I don’t think anyone expected you’d understand.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            I doubt you learned anything but as long as you are learning, then continue to do so, and people here will continue to be tatical! Cheers snookie! 😉

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]It’s the risk analysis,…[/quote]

            Risk analysis has been done. The Paris Summit, even if “wildly successful” in the eyes of alarmists, would only result in a possible .02C reduction in global temperatures over a century. Instead of wasting trillions of dollARS on a meaningless gesture, we could save hundreds of millions from starvation by [b]properly[/b] allocating our resources.

            Not worth the risk.

            Once again, skeptics see the whole picture and plea for life and sanity, while alarmists run from modeled acorns.

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      Wow, Pete !
      42 %, you say ! I think we can come up with a correlation here.
      42% of Americans identify themselves as left leaning liberals, and
      42% of Americans openly and notoriously affiliate with the Democrat party !

      • Avatar

        Peter_PNW

        |

        So much for “most Americans think” as a reference point

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          So much for your ability to think at all.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.