Survey: Healthy Skepticism Overcoming The Climate Fearmongers

A huge international survey measuring public concern about the threat of climate change appears to indicate growing skepticism across the globe.

The Gallup Risk Poll, which questioned 125,000 people in 121 countries, reported that less than half of those surveyed saw anthropogenic climate change as a very serious threat. There is now, it appears, a consensus of skeptics. [bold, links added]

The most skeptical countries in the survey were China, where only 20 percent view climate change as a clear and present danger, the Middle East and North Africa (27 percent), and South East Asia (39 percent).

At the other end of the spectrum was the US, where ‘climate change awareness’ has grown, albeit slightly, since the survey was last undertaken.

To see the results, click on this link. From there, go to Report 1: A changed world. Perceptions and experiences of risk in the Covid age.

You will then be able to access the survey results for every country in the report. One of the questions on Page 1 relates to perceptions of the risk of climate change.

The results have been collated by region, compared with the previous report, and are summarised in this syndicated article.

The overall survey result represented a 1.5 percent drop in belief in climate change as a very serious threat.

In a year of often hysterical headlines and saturation coverage of devastating floods, hurricanes, and wildfires – and in the UK at least, spontaneously combusting houses and hedgerows, all blamed squarely on humans and their wicked fossil fuel ways – this is surely a significant outcome.

There are signs too that growing public questioning of the orthodox narrative may be starting to influence governments.

The survey comes soon after the Swedish government declared it was scrapping its Environment Ministry and throwing its weight behind nuclear energy.

Sweden is not alone: Japan has fallen back in love with nuclear too after a ten-year hiatus induced by the Fukushima earthquake crisis, as has even Germany to some extent.

In the UK, the government is expected to grant up to 130 new North Sea oil and gas licenses and has, via Jacob Rees-Mogg, who has been critical of climate alarmism in the past, initiated a review of the whole Net Zero project.

The most obvious cause of all this is the focusing of minds and reordering of priorities precipitated by the war in Ukraine and the ensuing energy crisis.

With the looming possibility of being unable to heat your home or cook, a more quizzical attitude quickly evolves.

Even the faith of the usually implacable green super-elite has been shaken.

Greta Thunberg, no less, has distanced herself from the most diehard of her fans by acknowledging, in a ‘say it ain’t so’ interview, that under present circumstances nuclear power may have a place in the future energy mix of Germany.

But could there be a bit more to it than simply panicky self-interest? Climate change skeptical voices have been growing in confidence and organizing for some time now.

In September 2019, the European Climate Declaration (now the World Climate Declaration) was presented to challenge the orthodox apocalyptic narrative. It now has 1,400 signatures and is led by Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever.

And in Italy in January, four leading scientists produced a major study that concluded that the ‘climate crisis’ was not supported by evidence.

There may also be a spillover from the after-effects of the last two and half years of Covid-induced fearmongering.

Growing suspicion of the relationship between Big Government and Big Pharma – witness the recently-launched official investigation into the EU’s vaccine procurement – could mirror similar disquiet of the ties between politicians and the green economy.

And Professor Neil ‘Master of Disaster’ Ferguson may have done climate skeptics a huge favor by permanently discrediting the use of computer-based modeling informing government policy, as exemplified by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Inconvenient truths have also played their part in stalling the green juggernaut, causing great difficulty for its media outriders.

Even the avowedly climate-orthodox BBC had to admit, albeit at the very end of a long article, that the Sri Lankan government’s attempt to ban fertilizers had been the cause of a calamitous economic and food crisis.

Likewise, it has been hard to put a positive spin on the Dutch government’s plan to expropriate farms in a bid to reduce nitrogen emissions, which has met fierce resistance.

Signs of growing public dissent were seen when Sky’s Daily Climate Show was moved from its prime-time slot and reduced from 30 minutes to just ten.

Sky had to admit that according to its own research, two-thirds of Brits don’t think climate change affects them, and a quarter was unwilling to change a single habit to ‘save the planet.’

The previously untouchable David Attenborough has been criticized for overdoing the catastrophism and for basic factual inaccuracies in his recent wildlife documentaries.

One last factor is simple disgust. We may also have reached a tipping point in our tolerance of extreme climate activists.

The death of two women caught up in a Just Stop Oil protest in London was as tragic as it was wearily predictable.

The public patience at the infantile and dangerous antics of conspicuously privileged and ideologically possessed activists may have been exhausted.

If one good thing ever comes out of the last two and a half years, it is a return of healthy skepticism in the face of a relentless monotonous government/media barrage pushing one narrative and brooking no dissent.

This survey appears to show evidence of such a renaissance.

Some would say it’s not before time.

Read more here Conservative Woman