Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Poll: Americans Skeptical about Climate Change

By Stephen Lacey, Editor
August 6, 2010 | 22 Comments

Do you like this news?

Bookmark

Feed

Tennessee -- People support renewable energy for a variety of reasons: Job creation, security, technology innovation, and of course, climate change. But a new poll of Americans shows a trend of increased skepticism around the issue of climate change.

"The good news is, Americans are still going green, whether they believe in global warming or not."

--Suzanne Shelton, CEO of the Shelton Group

The poll, conducted by the Shelton Group, surveyed 1,098 Americans who purchase “green” products. (A slippery term, yes – but it shows that these participants are at least thinking about the issues).

The results show that the number of Americans who believe that “global warming or climate change is occurring and it is primarily caused by human activity” is declining. 52% of the people who bought “green” products agreed with the statement, compared to 49% of consumers overall. The Shelton Group reports a decline of 6% from a year ago.

It's a good thing that renewables are attractive for so many other reasons.

When asked about whether so-called “nightmare scenarios” (The polar ice cap has completely melted, kids cannot play outside in the summer, or Nebraska is turning into a desert) would convince them of the reality of climate change, 27% of doubters said that none of them would have an impact on their belief.

“That means over half of those who are unconvinced about global warming are either unlikely to change their mind or unlikely to change their ways, no matter what happens,” said Suzanne Shelton, CEO of Shelton Group, in a statement.

According to the survey results, a small number of current doubters would respond if:

The polar ice cap had completely melted - 15%
Kids should no longer go outside to play during the spring and summer due to consistently dangerous ozone/pollution levels - 15%
Shifting weather patterns/lack of rain was turning Nebraska into a desert -- 3%
There were only 20 polar bears estimated to be left living in the wild -- 2%
Residents of American Samoa were having to be relocated due to rising tides -- 0.6%

While this survey was focused mostly on consumer products that you find in supermarkets, the implications for renewable energy are clear: While many people support across the political spectrum support the industry, it's often because of factors like jobs, security and international competition, not necessarily climate change.

“The good news is, Americans are still going green, whether they believe in global warming or not,” Shelton said.

Bioenergy, Geothermal Energy, Green Power, Hydropower, Hydrogen - Fuel Cells, Ocean Energy, Other, Solar Energy, Wind Power, Energy Efficiency

22 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 22

BlueRock

August 6, 2010

This sounds like a poorly conceived poll - selecting people to canvass based on them buying 'green' products. Intuitively you might think they are more likely to accept climate science, but intuition is often wrong.

Here's a more credible recent poll: "...75 percent of respondents said that human behavior was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/opinion/09krosnick.html

Comment
2 of 22

nmanley

August 6, 2010

How exactly is the study from the advertorial in the NYT more credible?

Comment
3 of 22

daniel-mitchel-35984

August 10, 2010

Readers might be interested in a poll carried out by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California. The poll converns California residents views on the environment. It has been repeated over a long time span, the newest was done in July, 2010. Conclusion? 67% support a state law (AB 32) requiring California to reduce it greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Here is a link to the 36 page PDF report:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_710MBS.pdf

Comment
4 of 22

john-dye-169531

August 10, 2010

Astonishing that so many could deny the obvious, as presented in a recent NOAA report. To deny the science of climate change is simply to deny the validity of science altogether.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.php

The 2009 State of the Climate report is a comprehensive appraisal of Earth's climate by more than 300 authors from 48 countries and portrays all aspects of the climate system. Observations spanned the atmosphere, land, and ocean from the poles to the equator, and confirm that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the "active-weather" layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth's surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

Comment
5 of 22

pgardner

August 10, 2010

The poll sounds ill conceived and not carried out to standard polling practices.

Insulting the NY Times (5 Pulitzers last year alone) in the comment above shows basic ignorance on the part of the reader.

I do not believe that there is anything to conclude from the poll except that the small population polled is misinformed on basic facts.

Comment
6 of 22

Anonymous

August 10, 2010

The Stanford prof who is trying to promote his own poll -- and his own career -- can hardly be believed. The poll that asked "green" product purchasers is much more apt to be accurate and it says 52% agree that "global warming is caused by man." I agree with the 48% who disagree.

Look at what the climate scientist who was Research Director for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Phil Jones, said -- after his resignation from his post -- that his research was "tricked."

Jones said they changed the computer model to make the results agree with the alarmists who were, as he was doing, making money off "Climate Change nee Global Warming." Jones also stated for the media (who would listen), "There has been no appreciable global warming for the past 15 years." And this was the scientist who had the data, not speculation or self-promotion, to rely upon.

Jones said that in 2010. So the people who pay attention, the folks who think "green" when they shop are certainly closer to being correct than that Stanford prof who is trying to boost his fame and career. I agree with the scientist who gathered the weather data for years and "tricked" it -- and finally confessed to his wrong-doing.

Think facts, please.

Comment
7 of 22

HowellHaus

August 11, 2010

Good grief...!!! What is it they say about Frogs and Boiling Water...? If you need facts, go to the places in trouble and do the research yourself Anonymous (i.e., unwilling to stand up for your beliefs).

The time to doubt is over. The time for action is past (Bill McKibben). This is a world all about adaptation. Northwest migration from California, Arizona, New Mexico - happening (I live in Oregon, see it every day). I supposed when there's no ice or snow 'anywhere' on the planet in August, September (let alone June, July) - then you'll become less skeptical ? Or, you'll attach a micro-climate happenstance on the issue and continue with your day...? Let's ask the Russian's whose country is doused in flames if they believe something 'might be going on'...

Comment
8 of 22

Therese

August 11, 2010

I'm not surprised. As someone who _is_ educated in science (a lot of it on my own effort, not at school) I find that nearly everyone I meet is ignorant and even in some cases scornful of science and/or scientists. Surprisingly, immigrants, if they have at least a high school education, are better informed on science than most U.S. born people. I blame this on schools trying to avoid offending parents, and parents who think religion and science are incompatible so they choose religion first. Very stupid choice!

Comment
9 of 22

HJarrs

August 11, 2010

Anonymous, I think you are guilty of repeating information on websites that inaccurately report what was actually a balanced interview of Phil Jones on the BBC website;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

He did say...

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."

I have also seen a TV interview where he confirmed the above.

If the survey figures in the article are to be believed then we should be worried! Why is there reluctance to accept that 6.7 billion people using the environment as a toilet by burning billions of tons of fossilised carbon will have a negative impact?

Comment
10 of 22

michael-taylor-48754

August 11, 2010

yes the earth has natural warming cycles,but try this math problem to prove human influence. 7 billion people x 98.6 degrees of body heat + deforestation+pollution+misuse of water= human influence on global warming.

Comment
11 of 22

Anonymous

August 11, 2010

I offer my opinion to perhaps add some insight into the thinking of an environmentalist who, depending on how the question was worded, might fall into the skeptics column. I would concede there is little doubt the climate is changing. What is the cause of this warming, however, is far from a scientific fact. Carbon emissions as the culprit is more like a hypothesis based on how the scientific establishment has decided to interpret the historical data. The extrapolation of this data into the future based entirely upon computer models seems a bit of a stretch when current computer models have a hard time accurately predicting the day after tomorrow's weather.

I am however in favor of taking steps to reduce all kinds of pollution and if current main stream opinions foster that reduction then I'm all for it. I have no interest in debating the merits of either side of argument. I'm hoping to shed some light on possible reasons for the results of this poll. Not everyone who might answer skeptically is an ignorant polluter.

Comment
12 of 22

fred-linn-151968

August 11, 2010

Every person in the US is exposed to over 3500 advertisements per day urging them to buy and consume more and more and to not be satisfied with what they have.

The "scientific establishment" does not buy advertising, and is not trying to sell anyone anything. Nor does it have any economic stake in what people think or do.

For profit companies however, have an innate interest in manipulating public opinion and influencing people's actions. For profit companies are the entire reason that we have the media and advertising in the first place. Influencing people to spend money on the products or services that they provide in order to make a profit are the entire reason that for profit companies and advertising exist.

It is no wonder that the for profit companies message of buy, consume, and anything we do is OK is getting embedded in public opinion. It is their only job to manufacture public opinion---even if it is detrimental to public good. For profit. At the expense of the public.

They are doing their job well. The public opinion polls prove it.

Comment
13 of 22

JohnDall123

August 11, 2010

Global Climate change is the most nationally and internationally peer reviewed climate science in the world. There has been more peer review of Global Climate Change than there was medical peer review for inserting a monkey heart into a human.

A list of a few Science-based entities that have concluded human (anthropogenic) activities related to the burning of fossil fuels has accelerated Global Climate Change include:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The US National Academy of Sciences
The US Global Change Research Program
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
The US Environmental Protection Agency

Those opposed:
The 6 scientists funded by Exxon Mobil
The 20 or so follow-up studies that were created after the 6 earlier reports were directly linked to Exxon Mobil

Comment
14 of 22

gary-mccallum-153526

August 11, 2010

15% of doubters would agree to the notion of global warming if the polar ice caps melted. Was this survey conducted in the mall of the religously inspired, developmentally challenged, uneducated, consumer contentment summer camp. Good to know human stupidity is going strong.
I was told while skiing last winter that weather is cyclicle and that explains the anamolies.
My responce was where in the previous cycles were there seven billion people burning hundreds of millions of years of stored hydrocarbons.
Never did get an answer.

Comment
15 of 22

george-reynoldson-33887

August 11, 2010

Unfortunately, people act not on science, but their aggressions, myths, beliefs and hopes, which in this case center on "I do not want to change my religious myths, my politcs or my lifestyle." Advertisers know this and make use of the fact that most people perceive reading the studies mentioned by Johndahl123 as either being "too much work" or in conflict with other deeply embedded belief systems.

If aggression would help, perhaps RE/CC advocates should start a series of "black earth holidays" like say July 22... Black Climate Thursday... the day Harry Reid kissed off his energy-climate legislation... or maybe celebrate "Shove it-World", March 29, 2001 the day W announced that the US would withdraw from the Kyoto process.

It seems like just about anything might work better than facts in these very strange times of mass disinformation. Unfortunately, I am only sort of kidding here, but also hoping to stimulate some unusual suggestions in the blog to address this huge dilemma.

Comment
16 of 22

Therese

August 12, 2010

I think someone said it best "Denial is not just a river in Egypt."

Comment
17 of 22

fred-linn-151968

August 12, 2010

George Reynoldson---------" It seems like just about anything might work better than facts in these very strange times of mass disinformation. Unfortunately, I am only sort of kidding here, but also hoping to stimulate some unusual suggestions in the blog to address this huge dilemma."--------

George---that is because advertising and propaganda, relies on appeal to fears, insecurities, twisting information, leaving important facts out, and appeal to emotional instincts. It does not rely on facts---or only relies on facts to the extent of giving the appearance of being true.

Look at television, or any type of advertising. It bears little or no resemblence to reality and never has. If you use this toothpaste or deodorant, beautiful girls, or handsome guys will swarm all over you and throw themselves into your arms----if you take these pills you, use this cream or whatever else, all your physical ailments(that make the tortures of hell look like minor inconveniences) will be instantly erased. Put this stuff on your face or hair and you will instantly be 20 years younger, and a picture of virile manhood, or female beauty.(I've often wondered what happens if we get the tubes mixed up----do we go around changing tired old men into ravishing young female temptresses and old women into handsome young men?)
Advertising is a fantasy and imaginary world where every result is instantaneous and miraculous. All you have to do is buy this today, sign up now, call before the end of this commercial.........operators are standing by NOW to take your order........and if you use your credit card to order NOW, you will receive absolutely FREE...........

So, you see, when you argue facts, reality, science, or cost.........you are trying to argue against fantasy, wishes, fears and insecurities, herd instinct, instant gratification, greed, and all of the lower basic drive instincts.

Fantasy wins everytime.

Comment
18 of 22

george-reynoldson-33887

August 12, 2010

To both Therese and fred-linn I say thanks and a big YUP!!!... but what to do, since polls indicate that belief in AGW and climate science has gone down about 6% this year???

This is especially scary in this election year where fantasy advertising is so pervasive and dishonest that we do not even know who and/or what we are voting for. Joseph Kennedy's famous quote, "we will sell Jack like Kellogg sells cornflakes" seems trite now compared to the scale of our current problems with journalism and the communications media.

Comment
19 of 22

dursun-sakarya-36606

August 12, 2010

Most Americans are skeptical about Evolution, but not about UFOs.
Most Americans are idiots.

Comment
20 of 22

fred-linn-151968

August 13, 2010

George----personally, I don't worry about AGW too much.

We have a LOT of good reasons to get rid of petroleum and coal as it is.

We need to get rid of petroleum for economic and security reasons #1. Spending somewhere around $800 Billion a year for a raw material that we are only going to burn it is idiotic, and a major reason behind our current economic problems. The single easiest, least expensive and most effective thing we could possibly do to stimulate our economy to be more productive and stable is get off of petroleum and onto biofuels and natural gas(methane---and methane is both a fossil fuel and biofuel) We won't need expensive wars and high taxes to pay for them if we don't need oil.

Wind and solar power are good, and will prevent the wholesale destruction of the environment..........and gee whiz----if we use wind and solar, we don't have to worry about AGW.

We can even save ourselves money in the long run using wind and solar---we don't need to keep paying for fuel over and over. We can run our vehicles on natural gas at less than 1/2 what it costs to drive the same distance with gasoline.

And watching girls in bikinis is MUCH more fun when the beach doesn't look and smell like a freshly tarred parking lot.

Comment
21 of 22

Therese

August 13, 2010

Since the politicians are failing us, and since conservatives and oil and coal industries are not interested in doing anything, the rest of us will have to implement carbon saving techniques on our own. That means voting with your dollars...insulate, conserve, recycle, and change society in the microsphere. That will translate into macro change.

Comment
22 of 22

fred-linn-151968

August 14, 2010

Therese-------".......the rest of us will have to implement carbon saving techniques on our own. That means voting with your dollars...insulate, conserve, recycle, and change society in the microsphere. That will translate into macro change."--------

I agree. Let them scoff all they want. There will always be only a few leaders, but eventually the herd follows the leaders.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

NEW Smart Phone App

Stephen Lacey

About: I am a reporter with ClimateProgress.org, a blog published by the Center for American Progress. I am former editor and producer for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, wh... more »