Climate change scepticism grows in United States

– Given where we are in human history, this is an amazing and rather depressing story.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

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, a survey suggests.

A poll of 1500 adults by the Pew Research Centre found 57 per cent of Americans believe there is strong scientific evidence the earth has grown hotter in the past few decades.

As a result, people are viewing the situation as less serious – down from 77 per cent in 2006, and 71 per cent in April 2008. The steepest drop occurred during the past year, as Congress has taken steps to control heat-trapping emissions. International negotiations are also under way to agree a treaty to slow global warming.

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 northern summer.


8 Responses to “Climate change scepticism grows in United States”

  1. Dennis says:

    That’s a sad bit of business.

  2. M says:


    I think your comment is condescending. You, through your web site, have made it known that climate change i.e. global warming is a fait accompli. We now find that the basis for most of the supposed evidence backing up this charge has been accidently lost to accommodate a move.

    We the skeptics are now supposed to believe that this was a gross oversight but nonetheless understandable. Considering that there have been numerous attempts to get the actual data through legal means, and it turns up destroyed is too convenient. Your comment “that is a sad bit of business” just does not hack it.

    I see my last comment on this was not even posted. I am, to say the least, very disappointed by this flippant shrug. As far as I am concerned, all of your long and hard work on this, as it stands, is discredited.

    This needs attention. Your point to the article is that it is a gross miscarriage of attention and due diligence to such a serious problem by humans. Implying they are morons, should be ashamed of their behavior, and maybe even chastised. Can you tell me why?


  3. Dennis says:

    M, I love it when you get irate. It’s like adding wasabi to excellent sushi – it all just gets better.

    But there are two things going on here so let’s separate them. First, I did approve your last comment but you, my friend, associated it with the wrong post. if you go look at my most recent post:

    You will see your comment there, approved, and my reply that I thought you might have misplaced it.

    Now, speaking of misplacing things, the folks who lost the data say they shredded it quite some time ago (decades?) back when no one realized how important it would be. I really cannot speak to the truth or falsity of those statements – indeed, how could I? Neither you nor I were there.

    We both know that those who are sympathetic will believe them and those who are skeptical will not.

    For me, the real question (since we will never know the answer to that last question) is are there other independent data that, standing alone, would still lead us to the same conclusions?

    And again, if someone asserts there is, then those who are sympathetic will believe and those who are not will deny.

    Doesn’t this game get old?

    Rather than trying to prove one ideological position over another, shouldn’t we all be trying to drop our biases and seek out the ‘real’ truth where ever it lies?

    And even if we say we are doing that, it is still hall of mirrors, isn’t it?

    My only comfort, and small comfort it will be, is that the ‘truth’ will arrive one day in the form of how the weather actually shapes up in coming decades – regardless of what you or I or anyone else asserts with such passion and angst.

    My only interest is in trying to sort out the ‘truth’ concerning which way it is going to go. Not in having comment food-fights a-la Rush Limbaugh or the other radio rabble-rousers.

    Come on, M, give us some real wasabi here .

  4. M says:

    Yes, I see the comment; gotta lay off the french wine when I read these things.

    Regarding Limbaugh: “To have a left, you need a right”; he has his place and he does it well! It’s too bad he doesn’t own an NFL franchise.


  5. M says:


    Just when you think its safe to get back into the water, something interesting comes your way. So, I am not so sure that this game is geting old, it seems to be waking up with some very interesting twists. For example:


  6. Dennis says:

    Oh, It’s not over. people with big vested interests on both sides are going to give it legs whether or not it has any. But again, beyond the media frenzy for and against, isn’t the real question whether or not there is good valid data for global climate change or not?

  7. M says:


    Yes, but it sure is fun to watch this unfold. Even some of the players are changing sides. Imagine all the big corporations that have shifted to “Green Energy” devices such as, windmills, solar panels, geothermal, and what ever else can be sold as green. Before they were all about denying, now they are all about supporting. Why? Greed of course. How do you suppose you will ever get the “valid data”? Valid is what ever you are told it is. How will you ever know? If it gets hotter, the greens will say, “See, we told you so”, but the deniers will say, “No, this is a normal cycle; it will cool off soon enough”. If it gets colder, the deniers will say, “See we told you so”, but the greens will say, “Just wait, this is just an anomaly”. And so it will go. They will even pull out reams of paper to prove it.

    I just listened to a scientist who is studying cloud behavior. He says this is a completely unknown factor which has not been properly accounted for. Seems that clouds are working at odds will all of this. When it heats up, you might get more clouds which deflect sun effects and therefore could cause cooling, but on the other hand they help keep the earths warmth from leaving. But, no one seems to know which is the stronger effect, and also they are not sure what clouds do when the weather actually changes. Will we have more or less of them? Will they be higher up, or closer to the ground? So around and around we go. And, if the data isn’t supporting the desired outcome, then change it or loose it.

    Anyway, it’s a lot of fun just chit chatting about all of this as I doubt that you and I will ever know for sure. Oh, that can’t be right; the UN is all over it. There is now an honest broker to straighten in all out!