Here’s Why People Don’t Believe In Climate Change

READER RESPONSES ARE OVERWHELMINGLY CRITICAL ABOUT THIS BIASED REPORTING BY MS. BERTRAND. I AM VERY PLEASED THAT PUBLIC FINALLY SEES THE LIES BEHIND THE “CLIMATE CHANGE” DECEPTION. FOR A WHILE I WAS AFRAID THIS HOAX WOULD LAST AS LONG AS THE “BLOOD LETTING” LASTED IN MEDICINE. T. SUMER

Here’s Why People Don’t Believe In Climate Change

Business Insider

By Natasha Bertrand

 

More than one-quarter of Americans are climate change skeptics, according to a new report released by the Public Religion Research Institute. These deniers don’t believe that the planet Earth’s climate is changing, even though 97% of scientists believe it is.

When asked why they don’t believe, the skeptics’ most common response was that they had not noticed a change in the weather around them, and that the weather was actually getting colder where they lived.

“I hunt a lot, and last winter I froze my butt off,” wrote one respondent.

Here is a chart from the report showing this and other reasons that skeptics gave for doubting climate change. The survey is based on telephone interviews conducted among a random sample of 3,022 adults living in the US (see the full report here).

 

View gallery

.

climate change skeptics

Public Religion Research Institute

The second most common response was that temperatures are not rising because of human actions, instead they are just fluctuating as part of a larger natural cycle. “I think there are just trends where the temperature goes up and down as part of a natural cycle every couple of hundred years,” said one respondent.

In fact, there is plenty of evidence that humans have contributed to changes in global temperatures. The chart below, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, includes a series of graphs, each presenting two models. The purple stripes show the climate changes we’d expect from only natural events, like solar variations, and the pink stripes show the changes in a model that includes human actions, like burning fossil fuels.

 

View gallery

.

IPCC_Chart_Temperature

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report

If human actions had no effect on climate, the purple and pink stripes would occupy the same space on each graph. Instead, they’re different in almost every case, meaning human actions have a definite effect on climate change. Most tellingly, the black lines on each graph represent the changes we’ve observed in real life — not just in models — and they match up with the pink stripe in every case.

The third most popular response, with 12% of deniers selecting it, is that there is not enough scientific evidence to back up the claim that the Earth is getting hotter.

“I don’t see any real evidence of that in the news media,” said one participant. “The entire scientific community really appears divided and scattered about the entire issue.”

But in reality, the scientific community agrees. More than 97% of scientists believe in global warming.

A small minority of skeptics (4%) responded that they have alternative theories about global warming. Around 2% said they believe God is in control and 5% believe that data and news reports showing global warming are propaganda.

More From Business Insider 

2,408 CommentsMy Comments
Popular Now Newest Oldest Most Replied
  • Paul427 22 minutes ago

    0
    4

    Another weak-minded set of “examples” in a useless article which offers us nothing to add to the case for human caused climate change via carbon dioxide emissions. The reason people don’t believe these bozos from the IPCC is because there has been no statistically significant warming of the planet since 1995, the hockey stick curve of Michael Mann has been discredited as a fraudulent, statistical monstrosity, and the 35 scientific errors permeating Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. Maybe Gore should write a book about deception where he talks about his personal usage of electricity in Tennessee at more than 10 times the rate of the average citizen living there, or the use of his private jet, his houseboat, or the new house he allegedly bought at the shore in California (I guess sea level is not rising there) or about his incredibly good returns of approximately $150 million he made allegedly in green companies – or how about his new carbon sequestration company interest…(starting to smell a little hypocrisy or “conflict of interest” anyone?) At the end of the day, if you accept all of these chicken little rantings, then you realize that there is simply nothing that we could do as a nation to alter the climate by so much as a tiny fraction on the planet (again assuming we have correctly modeled the planet’s climate drivers which we ultimately have not yet achieved) even if we completely bankrupt ourselves and shut every operational plant down on the planet. In more recent times, Obama’s irresponsible endorsement of this nonsense seals the deal of deception among the other, more “scientifically misconceptions” for me- personally I mistrust everything that comes out of his mouth – and he’s all in on this BS.

    Expand Replies (1) Reply
  • Ed 24 minutes ago

    1
    1

    Not being a scientist studying the affects of human activity on the climate myself I cannot say for certain if humans actually contribute to a global warming I’m not personally aware of.

    On the other hand I learned long ago not to bet with the 3% of experts that disagree with the other 97%. Sure, they may be correct but I’m not going to bet on them. Atlanta or New Orleans might win the Super Bowl but I won’t place a bet on it.

    Reply
  • Michael 5 hours ago

    3
    22

    or maybe scientists like this:
    Another scientist has pushed back against the doom-and-gloom climate change predictions from the United Nations and other governmental agencies.

    Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume.

    In an interview, he laughed off man-made climate change as nonsense and a money-making industry for the green lobby, which approaches the subject with a religious fervor. Explained Woodcock:

    “The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…”

    Added Woodcock:

    Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”

    Politicians and journalists — two groups who ordinarily lack any scientific training or background — insist that the global warming debate is settled and there are no dissenting scientists.

    So-called green guru Dr. James Lovelock also questioned the climate change movement (which used to be called global cooling and then global warming). He described the environmental movement as becoming like “a religion, and religions don’t worry too much about facts.” He added that “It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You can’t be certain.”

    In perhaps a further contrary development for the climate change adherents, it’s been reported that the polar ice cap is actually expanding rather than contracting: “… In fact, receding Arctic ice rebounded between 2012 and 2013, growing by 29 percent into an unbroken patch more than half the size of Europe and within 5 percent of what it was 30 years ago, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Last month near the South Pole, a Russian ship carrying scientists and tourists traveled to the bottom of the Earth so passengers might document global warming and shrinking ice caps. But the ship got stuck on ice that was thicker than at any time since records started being kept in 1978.”

    Dr. Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co-founder, has also publicly expressed the opinion that “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years… no actual proof, as it is understood in science, actually exists.”

    More
    Expand Replies (4) Reply
  • Mark of the Beach 1 hour ago

    2
    10

    The 97% figure is misleading – it’s derived from “examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. 66.4% of all abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.”

    When you remove the 66.4% of articles that take no position, that leaves 33.6%. The 32.6% that endorse AGW are 97% of the remaining 33.6%.

    That’s not the end of the silly “97% consensus” definition. To “endorse AGW”, it means the author attributes any non-zero portion of the measured warming to human causes – anywhere from 0.1% to 100%.

    Most credible scientists agree that “about half” of the warming change is due to direct warming from the sun, which got considerably brighter from 1900-1970 and stayed there for 20+ years. (TSI = total solar irradiance). The rest is due to varying ozone levels, volcanic activity, water vapor fluctuations, and, YES, even CO2.

    97% is a nice figure Obama and others like to use to scare us into agreeing to a new UN carbon credit (wealth redistribution tax) scheme.

    Another thing to consider – CO2 doesn’t get hot all by itself. Something has to heat it up first, before it can radiate back into the atmosphere. CO2 warming is called a “positive feedback” – as the sun got hotter, the CO2 effect in turn added a little more to the temperature rise – this would have happened at 280 or 400 ppm CO2, but of course the 400 ppm effect is greater than the 280 ppm effect, that’s how positive feedback works. However, as the sun cools as expected over the next 30 years, the positive feedback says less heating by the sun also means less heating by the extra CO2 as well.

    Thanks to the extra CO2, the next “Little Ice Age” in 400 years may be a little less brisk than it otherwise would have been.

    More
    Expand Replies (7) Reply
  • Larry 3 hours ago

    3
    13

    A statement in this article says….. “If human actions had no effect on climate, the purple and pink stripes would occupy the same space on each graph.”. I’m not going to take that statement at face value. Where are these scientists getting their funding? Are they influenced by governments and politicians who have a vested interest in climate change?

    In addition, I don’t like the premise of some of these polls on climate change. I think that a lot more than 25% of the US population agree that there are far more important things to focus on, including jobs and the economy.

    Don’t get me wrong. I totally get that pollution is bad. I’m just not convinced that the impact of humans on climate is large enough to impose corresponding taxes and regulations, that are bad for businesses and the economy.

    Expand Replies (1) Reply
  • Ronald 8 hours ago

    3
    23

    Among the propagandists the term “global warming” wasn’t getting anywhere so it was changed to “climate change.” Of course the climate changes all of the time. The earth goes through periodic changes the the centuries.
    The problem is that certain people would like to control so they bring about a crisis in order to call for change. The crisis is non existent but that is immaterial. If you can dupe enough people into believing that there is a crisis you can get the change you want.
    There are hundreds of scientists and professors who will tell you that there is no climate change going on such as we are being told today. Many of them will tell you that the earth is actually going through a cooling down period but, the alarmists are doing there best to quash such information in order to bring about the change they want.

    More
    Expand Replies (5) Reply
  • Robert 1 hour ago

    2
    5

    I have two good reasons for not believing the fanatics and government power and control propagandists.

    First; Climate science is so advanced that scientists are able to predict local conditions up to 24 hours into the future with almost 40% accuracy and 72 hours into the future with over 10% accuracy. Al Gore, NOAA and the UN expect us to believe that they can take the same science and predict 40 YEARS into the future with 100% accuracy! And yes, weather and climate are interrelated. And NO, weather and climate are not responsive to political positions.

    Second, The history of climate science (all 40 years of it) is a long and detailed tale of wrong guesses. The politically driven UN – IPCC, the politicized studies released by NOAA, even the summary press statements released by the press office at NASA (which have conflicted with NASA’s own data every time), ALL have proven wrong within a few years – every time. The latest UN report (UN – IPCC5) specifically stated that every previous climate model (prediction) was wrong and they did not know why. When a supposed science is proven wrong in its predictions 100% of the time, that is good enough reason to disbelieve their current predictions.

    Expand Replies (2) Reply
  • Think Free 5 hours ago

    3
    13

    You can use stats, numbers and graphs to advocate for, or against, either side of global warming. Real or Not. However, its clear that the politics and motivation behind the global warming movement are socialist/ leftist. These people have a vested interest in controlling the lives of other people and confiscating other peoples money under the guise of saving the planet. These leftist make billions in carbon taxes and gov grants, others simply hate progress and like to dictate how people should live, the size of their home, the type of cars they drive, where they travel, etc. Its clear that their motivations outweigh any real science they claim to have that shows global warming.

    If you doubt this, note they most of these “green advocates” live a lifestyle much contrary to what they want the rest of us commoners to live. Al Gore and most of Hollywood. Even Pres Obama.. he takes two jets on vacation for convenience sake. If they really believed GW, wouldn’t they act accordingly?

    More
    Expand Replies (1) Reply
  • Gene 7 hours ago

    3
    18

    I believe the climate is changing, I just dont believe its anthropogenic. The instant I saw the remark about 97% of scientists believe the climate is changing, the article lost any potential credibility. An intelligent person would stop using that 97% statement because it has been irrefutabbely fact checked and proven to be misleading. Any group can be polled and asked if they beileved the climate is changing and the overwhelming majority would agree that it is, but when you leave out the part about why they think it is changing and report the results as 97% of all scientists believe in climate change, its easy to see through the bovine feces. 97% of all scientists are not willing to empirically claim that anthropogenic activity is causing global warming.

    We have some serious environmental problems that require some serious people to address them, but instead, we have are experiencing the politicization of theories that have not lived up to any of the predictions or models that have been created so far. NOAA was caught red-handed earlier this year manipulating data in order to put the fix in on global warming. They have consistenly reported every month last summer as the hottest months on record, the problem is they had to go back and change the data from the past, in order to make these present day claims. The Australian government was caught doing the exact same thing. Just because its not a headline story in the NY Times or the lead on CNN or MSNBC doesnt mean that its not true.

    Most climate change deniers like myself would still like to see further research and development of renewable energy sources and the reduction of pollution, but I am never going to accept that CO2 is a pollutant. The simple fact is CO2 is a naturally occuring trace gas that makes up approximately .04% of our total atmosphere. The main way CO2 is sustained and replenished on planet earth is by animals (both oceanic and terrestrial) dispelling CO2 when they exhale. Without CO2, planet earth would not be able to sustain and replenish Oxygen which is also done through the natural process of photosynthesis. Out of all of the CO2 that is released into our atmosphere, less than 3% can be attributed to anthropogenic activity. That means less than 3% of less than 1/2 % of the total atmosphere can be attributed to anthropogenic activity. That is less than the eauivilant of a fart in a whirlwind.

    George Kukla, who was a paleoclimatologist and lead research scientist from Columbia University, proved that the current interglacial period earth is experience is a natural occurence. His research proved that the ongoing cycle of glaciation closely matches cyclic variations in Earth’s orbit around the sun, which has lead many researchers to conclude that orbit drives glaciation. This correspondence between orbit and climate is called the Milankovich cycle, after the scientist who analyzed and popularized it in the 1920s.

    Kukla stated, “I feel we’re on pretty solid ground in interpreting orbit around the sun as the primary driving force behind ice-age glaciation. The relationship is just too clear and consistent to allow reasonable doubt, It’s either that, or climate drives orbit, and that just doesn’t make sense.”

    Real science is a pain in the rear end for the kool-aide drinkers in the world. I know what I posted here wont effect what people will believe, but it is factual and backed up by reality and scientific facts, not what politicans are telling us.

    More
    Reply
  • RayRay 7 hours ago

    3
    16

    All the catastrophic prognostications over the years have never come true. That’s the #1 reason to not believe them any longer. When people try to silence debate on the subject, that’s another good reason to not believe. Changing the name from global warming to climate change? Really? You’re argument is that weak you have to change the name? Science is NEVER settled, that’s the nature of science. There are so many variables that affect our climate, all have to be considered without interference from outside self serving political/financial interests.

    More
    Expand Replies (1) Reply
  • fester 10 hours ago

    3
    28

    This is what we get for evidence? A cheap series of graphs that look like they belong in a 6th grade science book. These graphs are from their computer models, yet nothing is explained about the models. The IPCC would say that these models use calculations that are too complex for most of the world, therefore you must take us at our word. BS! Do these people who cook this trash up think they are the only ones in the world that understand partial differential equations, which is what I must assume they used. Of course I could be wrong on that. They could have simply created the graph slop using data points on a spreadsheet. Who knows. Ocean heat content graph? Want are they trying to say here? The ocean heat content was “0” in 1960 and its is now 10exp22 or it had a value and it is now 10exp22 more than that value. For that matter what is the heat holding capacity of the oceans? On and on we can go, the variables are tremendous. There is not enough information supplied to form any judgment. This is why people don’t believe this s***. The IPCC depends on the slowest of minds, to fund the largest insane asylum on the planet, the U.N.

    More
    Expand Replies (3) Reply
  • DookieSince1973 8 hours ago

    3
    16

    Noticed that you presented way cool, multi-colored graphs from MODELS! This is actually the real problem….presenting predictions as facts and then calling people idiots for not buying them. I guess there is no possible way model may have been incorrect in generating it’s pretty blue stripe. And of course, the only reason were are now using Model Version 8, instead of one of the earlier versions is because they added better graphics. Couldn’t have been because they are improving deficiencies and inaccuracies discovered in the earlier models (the results of which you were also declaring as FACT.) This is SCIENCE. People are making their best guesses, then testing their guesses against REALITY and hopefully improving their guesses as time goes on. THEY ARE NOT FACTS! Saying “consensus” proves that. There is no “consensus” on facts. Facts are facts. Consensus only exists for THEORIES. Just make sure you write about the new way cool graphs created by Model Version 9 (to be released soon) that corrects problems in the current Model Version 8.

    Expand Replies (12) Reply
  • RayRay 7 hours ago

    3
    16

    All the catastrophic prognostications over the years have never come true. That’s the #1 reason to not believe them any longer. When people try to silence debate on the subject, that’s another good reason to not believe. Changing the name from global warming to climate change? Really? You’re argument is that weak you have to change the name? Science is NEVER settled, that’s the nature of science. There are so many variables that affect our climate, all have to be considered without interference from outside self serving political/financial interests.

    More
    Expand Replies (1) Reply
  • Robert 5 hours ago

    3
    7

    NOT a Skeptic! I know for a fact that the earth is getting warmer and has been since the flood. I also know lying to the world about it so you can spray the skies with nano particles that kill everything is happening now. I know you are spraying Aluminum, Barium and fluoride and other deadly nano sized particles . I also know it’s not for climate change. It is for control of the climate and weather and food and water. I know eventually it will be used to spray degraded Uranium. I know this is the truth so i’m not a skeptic. My father helped in planning and implementing this in the 80z and 90z and revealed it to his family just before his death. Spraying the skies is a multi-purpose implementation program. Designed for weaponized weather, food and water control and population control. It’s nothing new . it has been on the public record for years. You just don’t know where to find it or too lazy to look. All Praise and Glory to God the Father and Jesus Christ. The true source of Absolute Truth ! Not relative truth as you all speak.

    More
    Expand Replies (5) Reply
  • Yuck 3 hours ago

    3
    3

    I find it amusing the only “climate scientists” are considered qualified to offer opinions. Out of curiosity I looked up what the entry requirements and courses are for a graduate degree in “climate science”. Laughably, the requirements for a MS at one of the more prestigious universities is one semester of calculus, one semester of chemistry, and one semester of statistics. A standard engineering degree requires four semesters of calculus, two of chemistry, two of statistics, and in addition, two in heat transfer, thermodynamics, basic physics, and atomic and nuclear physics. This is kind of absolute minimum for doing modeling of a complex dynamic system that any engineer has at the BS level, and yet is not required for climate scientists, instead they study policy and politics and social aspects of climate change. Lame.

    More
    Expand Replies (1) Reply
  • john s 7 hours ago

    3
    9

    FACTS
    The world is actually only .36 degrees warmer than it was in 1979, and actually temperatures have been dropping since 1998 by 1.08 degrees total. So actually we haven’t seen any global warming in about 17 years. My data is from remote sensing systems they provide data for NASA and NOAA. Since Al Gores extremely profitable “global warming” initiative the polar ice caps have increased in size form 43% to 63% based on NASA satellite images. The 97% of scientist agree comment is always misused just as it was in this article. It is supposed to be 97% of scientists agree climate change is man made and that fabricated number and has been debunked by the wall street journal. 100% of scientists would tell you the climate is changing and always has. The suns solar cycles effect the temperature on earth more than any other factor by a extremely disproportionate margin. The fact of the matter is the “global warming” initiative is just a way to take money out of your pocket and line politicians like Al gores pockets and even Obama too. We spend 22 billion dollars a year to try to stop this so called global warming epidemic. The NOAA doesn’t even record actual temperatures anymore they use a computer model to adjust the temperatures. In 2001, before leaving office as vice president, Gore was worth less than $2 million. Since then, he has grown his wealth to $100 million . . . almost entirely by investing in a handful of “green-tech” companies . . . 14 of which received more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants, tax breaks, and more from the Obama administration.

    Should we be investing in green energy and working towards a greener future? Absolutely its common sense. Its just not the epidemic that it has been made out to be and it is most definitely not worth the cost to tax paying American citizens. Especially when we put ourselves at a disadvantage shipping our fuel to places like China and India who are increasingly polluting the same sky.

    More
    Expand Replies (14) Reply
  • Don 3 hours ago

    3
    2

    I don’t believe in global warming because of the East Anglia University emails. The UN IPCC panel members that shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore were caught red-handed discussing how to continue scamming the public. I don’t believe the media because any coverage they gave to the story was to try to polish this huge wet turd. I know they were investigated and everything was found to be OK. Problem is they investigated themselves. Read the emails and form your own opinion.

    More
    Reply
  • Robert 7 hours ago

    4
    11

    The majority of the computer models that scientists based their global warming theories on have been proven to be flawed. Some of the research has been tampered with to prove a preconceived outcome. The last 19 years we have been in a cooling trend. The Antarctic Ice Cap has been growing. Notice how the terminology has changed from global warming, to man-made global warming, to man-made climate change to climate change. No doubt the climate changes constantly. We have not been recording temperatures long enough to be able to observe long term cycles in the earth’s climate. Two simultaneous major volcanic eruptions can and have altered earth’s climate for decades.

    More
    Expand Replies (2) Reply
  • Andrew 3 hours ago

    3
    1

    I am the Prophet & first proponent of the PNGW / PNCC theory.

    That is – Paranormal-pogenic Global Warming or Climate Change. (And it’s pronounced “Pingwuh” or “Pinck” you skeptical denying d-bags!)

    For all you laypersons and deniers out there — PNGW / PNCC states that Global Warming (aka Climate Change aka Global Cooling aka Climate Hysteria) is caused primarily by the gases & toxins released into the atmosphere by the decaying flesh & consciousnesses of Paramormal Entities.

    That is to say – Ghosts and Zombies and the like.

    Think about it. What is a Ghost but a consciousness trapped in a collection of coalesced gases – mainly Co2, nitrogen & hydrogen & assorted acids?!? (What did you think the Ghostbusters were measuring, electromagnetic disturbances?!? Pfft… Imbeciles!)

    And what is a Zombie but decaying human flesh that walks and consumes human brains – all while releasing more of the same ozone-destroying, flesh-filleting nastiness?!?

    You’re welcome for the Truth. All Hail Me!

    (send PNGW tax dollars to my PayPal account)

    More
    Expand Replies (2) Reply
  • Guest 7 hours ago

    3
    11

    Ok, let us go on the premise that this Global Warming is actually real AND that it is man caused.
    What is the solution. All these treaties aimed at increasing money intake and power to governmental type organizations just does not seem to fix anything other than providing $s for pet project (or friend). Especially when the biggest sources of the supposed harmful elements will be unaffected by the treaties (China/India/etc)
    So, other than running around yelling “the sky is falling” or melting…please provide solutions. There is already much research going on in the Wind/Solar front. More natural gas? More Nuclear? Less people and cows? What is it that the believers want…besides more money/power.

    More
    Expand Replies (3) Reply

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s