Fewer Americans Believe in Global Warming

Poll Finds 57 Percent Believe There is Strong Scientific Evidence - a Three-Year Low

(AP)  The number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence the Earth is warming because of pollution is at its lowest point in three years, according to a survey released Thursday.

The poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that only 57 percent believe there is strong scientific evidence the Earth has gotten hotter over the past few decades, and as a result, people are viewing the situation as less serious. That's down from 77 percent in 2006, and 71 percent in April 2008.

The steepest drop occurred during the past year, as Congress and the Obama administration have taken steps to control heat-trapping emissions for the first time and international negotiations for a new treaty to slow global warming have been under way. At the same time, there has been mounting scientific evidence of climate change - from melting ice caps to the world's oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded temperatures this summer.

The poll was released a day after 18 scientific organizations wrote Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming. A federal government report Thursday found that global warming is upsetting the Arctic's thermostat.

But while the evidence appears clear, only about a third, or 36 percent of the poll respondents feel that human activities - such as pollution from power plants, factories and automobiles - are behind a temperature increase. That's the first decline since 2006.

"The priority that people give to pollution and environmental concerns and a whole host of other issues is down because of the economy and because of the focus on other things," said Andrew Kohut, the director of the research center, which conducted the poll from Sept. 30 to Oct. 4. "When the focus is on other things, people forget and see these issues as less grave."

Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said politics could be drowning out scientific awareness.

"It's a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public," he said.

Despite misgivings about the science, half the respondents still say they support limits on greenhouse gases, even if they could lead to higher energy prices, and a majority - 56 percent - feel the United States should join other countries in setting standards to address global climate change.

But many of supporters of reducing pollution have heard little to nothing about cap-and-trade, the main mechanism for reducing greenhouse gases favored by the White House and central to legislation passed by the House and a bill the Senate will take up next week.

Under cap-and-trade, a price is put on each ton of pollution, and businesses can buy and sell permits to meet emissions limits.

"Perhaps the most interesting finding in this poll ... is that the more Americans learn about cap-and-trade, the more they oppose cap-and-trade," said Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican who opposes the Senate bill and has questioned global warming science. Republicans in general have grown even more steadfast in their opposition. A majority - 57 percent - now say there is no hard evidence of global warming, up from 42 percent last year, according to the poll.

Other results of the survey also suggest that it will be tough politically to enact a law limiting emissions of global warming pollution. While three-quarters of Democrats believe the evidence of a warming planet is solid, and nearly half believe the problem is serious, far fewer conservative and moderate Democrats see the problem as grave as they did last year.

Regional differences were also detected. People living in the Midwest and mountainous areas of the West are far less likely to view global warming as a serious problem and to support limits on greenhouse gases than those in the Northeast and on the West Coast. Both the House and Senate bills have been drafted by Democratic lawmakers from Massachusetts and California.

One of those lawmakers, Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, told reporters Thursday that she was happy with the results, given the interests and industry groups fighting the bill.

"Today, to get 57 percent saying that the climate is warming is good, because today everybody is grumpy about everything," Boxer said. "Science will win the day in America. Science always wins the day."

Earlier polls, from different organizations, have not detected a growing skepticism about the science behind global warming.

Since 1997, the percentage of Americans that believe the Earth is heating up has remained constant - at around 80 percent - in polling done by Jon Krosnick of Stanford University. Krosnick, who has been conducting surveys on attitudes about global warming since 1993 was surprised by the Pew results.

He described the decline in the Pew results as "implausible," saying there is nothing that could have caused it.

[Renno56]

There are so many gullible people these days. There was a time when we believed we were causing the "hole in the ozone layer" over the south pole. What people failed to realize was that the atmosphere is thinner down there and they launched their weather balloon too high.

As a meteorologist I cannot say that there isn't any GW going on but its happening mostly due to natural causes. However the effect that humans have on it is probably less than 1%. The fact is that the Earth runs in cycles hot, cold, wet, and dry. Since coming out of the Ice Age we have had many documented mini ice ages. Add in that studies have shown the sun is still getting hotter and increases global temperature by about 3.6F every hundred years.

All im saying is the earth will do what it will. The sooner people realize they are "along for the ride" the better they will be.

[robham777]

You forgot to mention acid rain. What happened to that? Seriously, astronomers believe the sun has been more active (until recently) during the the last few decades than it has been in the last 8,000 years.
"This study showed that the current episode of high solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last 8000 years. This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions, which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past. The origin and energy source of all these phenomena is the Sun's magnetic field."
I definitely believe that mankind has a detrimental impact on the environment, but I question whether a naturally occurring gas which makes up less than .04% of the atmosphere is the driving force behind temperature increases over the last century.

[Renno56]

robham777,
We could add in factors that contribute to warming all day long. And I agree its not one factor but all factors combined. However im not sure the human factor is making that big of an impact. And if it is that big of a factor what do we do? With todays growing population it would be near impossible to put things back the way they were 200yrs ago.

Since 05 when we had Katrina and Rita occured people freaked out about GW we have had relatively colder winters and hardly any hurricanes at all. the NHC has been struggling to meet number quotas by naming non-tropical systems. I mean heaven forbid if they take a budget cut right?

Again the earth will cool off when its ready. Until then...

[troutfishyman]

You skeptics might have a little problem explaining how the sea level is rising if the ice is not melting. This is a pretty simple mass balance equation.

Do you think Jeebus stuck his big toe in the water and cause levels to rise?

[robham777]

I think a lot of the sea level increase you mention could be explained by the fact that as the global temperature increased so did the ocean temperature, which last time I checked increased temp causes expansion.

[bruce691]

As a trained geologist I have never heard about our polar ice caps melting away in such a short period of time. The oscillating climate changes characterized by ice ages etc happen over 10 of thousands of years in time. During these oscillations the rock record would show gradual changes from ice coverage to melting and then warmer climate indicators. This ?climate change? will be so abrupt that the rock record will go from evidence of ice coverage to warmer climate. It will look like a meteor hit in terms of climate. Sorry, these are the facts, climate change is real and it is caused by humans. What?s happened in the last 100 years? The industrial revolution. It has had many positive effects, to numerous to list. But, it has been driven by fossil fuels. The output of which, is warming our atmosphere. We might be past the point of no return. But we must try to slow this trend.

[BeckieBest]

Real scientific debate ended years ago.

Global warming is real, happening now, and the consequences will be catastrophic if we don't act soon.

[bruce691]

If the melting of the ice caps is not caused by man made global warming then what's causing it? The geologic history does not include an example of polar ice cap melting in such a short period of time. Stop talking about the cyclic cooling and warming of the earth. This does not apply in your situation.

[sjc_1]

Some get caught up in the global warming debate and get side tracked. Using fossil fuels wisely and using more renewable energy instead has many benefits. If CO2 is reduced, then that is an added bonus.

[bruce691]

This comment is slightly off topic, but when ronald reagan was asked about when life begin with relation to abortion. He said just give the fetus the benifit of the doubt.

Global Warming: If global warming is not proven and we spend alot of money. We'll just be out of a lot of money. I'm not belittling this.

If global warming is true and we don't do anything about it when we could have tried. Millions will die.

I choose to life. Let's try to do something about it. Let's give our scientist the benifit of the doubt.

I know the economic reality of this. Global warming programs will cost multi national corporations a lot of money and profits. You need to factor in the political ramifications of this.

[parisdakar]

Finally, people are realizing how much of the "certainty" in global warming is just trying to make a buck.

[briannorwood]

Congratulations to the oil industry. They have successfully defended their God given right to pollute the environment. Aided by the right wing, science-denying nutcases of the Republican party and similar support from the Conservative talk show hosts, they have formed the perfect trifecta to add confusion and doubt into the minds of the undereducated American people.

[lulucleo]

Thanks to this global warming farce, my inhaler was discontinued and a new, "safer for the environment" is now the only one. And because of Big Pharma patents, what used to cost me $5 now costs $50, because it doesn't come in generic form yet. It's all a scam people.

[ampsanne]

Your right, since they've switched to the new kind. They gave me a generic inhalor and it made me feel like I was going to pass out. So I'm back to a brand name one and having to pay 30 dollars every two months.

[brian1920]

the stupid anecdotal data being written here is amazing. The facts are: The world climate changes continuously and has for billions of years. The earth has been hotter by several degrees and cooler by several degrees. The transfer of latent heat is about 100 times more effective in transferring heat than CO2. In the history of the earth, the next most likely event is an ice age. Nobody doubt climate change, but it is really arrogant of humans to think they they can really effect climate in a serious manner. The scientific community is split on just how much effect man really has. The reason is that when they load their predictive models with historical data, they cannot predict today's climate as their models always show the earth should be much much warmer. This gives them some real trouble. I personally agree with the head of Meteorology at MIT who says that by 2015, the AGW theory will have disappeared.

[bruce691]

I am a degreed geologist. There has NEVER been any evidence in the rock record to show Ice shelves receeding so much in such a short period of time. There is only one variable here, humanity. But don't believe a scientist, after all evolution is a lie, the planets has only been around for a few thousand years.

[bruce691]

Now I know what they meant by "don't want to be an american idiot"

[lileoj]

Shows how stupid us americans can be. I mean glaciers are receding and will be gone in 20 years but NOOOOOOOOOOO, theres not such thing as global warming.......idiots.....

[mopar1956]

Just use your head or do you have one. Ice does not melt below 32 degrees f. The arctic temperature has not changed, even the expidition of scientists that just got back had to leave because they were freezing to death. The only thing that can melt ice like that is the ocean current.

No mjatter how hard you try you can't stop underwater erruptions. Until the volcanic activities stop in the arctic we will continue to loose the ice. But hey you are smart and believe that out 1 degree change in air temperature from 30 below zero to 29 below zero is melting the ince.

[on_alert247]

ubrew12 October 22, 2009 9:22 PM EDT
Thinking that we could release into the atmosphere in 150 years the same amount of carbon that it took nature several million years to fix, and not have an impact, is ridiculous on its face, except for faith-based denialists like yourself.

##################
Knowing for a fact that you don't know what you are talking about, science-based realists like myself consider in detail ALL the science behind AGW and find the theory lacking. And all without ad-homenim as you are so proficient at.

[robham777]

The fifth most abundant gas in the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. The volume of this gas has increased by over 35% in the last three hundred years. As the fifth most abundant gas it makes up less than .04% of the atmosphere, however AGW proponents attribute 90%+ of the warming of the last century to co2. It is quite likely that co2 has made significant contributions to the warming of the planet, but it also seems likely that there are other natural phenomenon at play.

[ubrew12]

Let me get this straight: because CO2 has 'only' gone up 35%, it cannot possibly contribute 90% of the warming of the last century? Is that what you just said? What CAN it contribute, 35%??? (LOL). Sheesh, I know your rightwing denier crowd is stupid enough to fall for that. But, what must you think of the rest of us??

[rightbehind]

Your drink will stay cool until the ice is gone. Little bit of rocket science for the republikooks.

[dolansprings]

If you don't believe in climate change, google water + Lake Mead. If you live in the southwest get ready to move to the east.

[Virgil-1]

So the big scare is over?Time to move on to a much bigger scare.Wonder
what kind of bigger lie they will come up with next?Make a movie!Get rich quick scheme!
Al smiles all the way to the bank.

[m_moonshine]

Did you know that the atmosphere of Venus is 96% carbon dioxide, and that its surface temperature is 850F, which is even hotter than Mercury's? I didn't either. I just looked it up.

Once upon a time, Venus was thought to be a possible home for life. That lasted until the 1960's, when Mariner 2 flew past Venus and measured its surface temperature. This observation eventually led to an understanding of how its carbon dioxide atmosphere produces such inhospitable conditions, and to new questions about what increasing levels of CO2 might do to us on Earth.

So we have reason to worry about rising CO2 levels.

But if you are in the oil business, you worry instead about lower profits if fossil fuel consumption is reduced. And you are willing to dump money into political campaigns and media outlets to be sure your profits stay healthy.

On average, Americans have got to be about as smart and about as dumb as people anywhere else. But we Americans also have a mass media that is owned and operated by big corporations, and utterly shameless in its willingness to sacrifice telling the truth for selling us out.

You can't really blame average Americans for not figuring it out themselves when they are being lied to by expert professional liars every day of their lives.

[excoachken]

Faux News says the world is flat. And they will keep saying it over and over until Barney Fife and the rest of the yahoos believe it.

[troutfishyman]

by truthforhumanity October 22, 2009 8:11 PM EDT
This is encouraging! The mass media is actually reporting the truth.




The truth? That years of intentional disinformation by the fossil fuel industry and right-wingers has clouded the science? That they have spent millions and millions to accomplish this? That truth?

[truthforhumanity]

To troutfishyman:

The truth I was referring to is that more and more people are waking up to the fact that the GW/climate change campaign and carbon tax implementation are not what they appear to be...to save the Earth.
The "truth" is that people are waking up. Clarified?

[truthforhumanity]

This is encouraging! The mass media is actually reporting the truth.
It's encouraging that Americans are waking up to the truth that global warming a la Al Gore is not man-made. The powers that be have even repackaged it as "climate change." That's true...the climate is always in a state of flux in the short and long term. And, yes, we certainly have pollution issues to deal with, but this campaign (and that what it is) to convince people that we are on the verge of global disaster because of a warming of the planet is manipulation in order to institute a carbon tax whereby the rich ruling families of the world can parasitically suck the blood out of the masses to engorge themselves further. Carbon dioxide makes up approx. 0.5% of the atmosphere, and it's not poisonous...it's what plants breath in. But the media manipulators would have you believe it's like breathing in sarin gas. The graphs in Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth are put together/overlying to show that over 600,000 years, the trend of planetary temperature increases and CO2 levels coincide perfectly. But when you separate those same two charts, and look at them up close, you can plainly see that CO2 level increases follow, not precede, an increase in temperature increases. That is, CO2 levels increase AS A RESULT OF temperature increases, not the inverse as is propagandized through the media. In short, people are doing their armchair research, listening to the experts, and realizing that GW/climate change with a resultant carbon tax is a scam. This is exciting...this is encouraging...stay awake people! There is hope.

[ubrew12]

The media has not popularized the idea that CO2 levels preceded temperature increases in the ice-core record, neither has Al Gore. All Gore said was there was a correlation but, looking at his graph, that was obvious, wasn't it. How could CO2 have preceded temperature, unless 'something' was burning fixed CO2? Well, now something IS burning fixed CO2, enough to increase CO2 levels by 50% in the last 150 years. That something is US. Thinking that we could release into the atmosphere in 150 years the same amount of carbon that it took nature several million years to fix, and not have an impact, is ridiculous on its face, except for faith-based denialists like yourself.