Scepticism about human-caused climate change continues to increase around the world. A recent poll conducted by a group within the University of Chicago found that belief in humans causing all or most climate change had slumped in America to 49% from the 60% level recorded just five years ago. Similar falls have been recorded elsewhere, with a recent IPSOS survey covering two thirds of the world’s population revealing that nearly four people in every 10 believe climate change is mainly due to natural causes.
Perhaps the most surprising statistic from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) survey is that 70% of Americans are unwilling to spend more than $2.50 a week to combat climate change. Nearly four in 10 Americans said they were unwilling to pay a couple of dimes. Despite decades of relentless green doomsday agitprop designed to corral populations into living under a collectivist Net Zero-ordered society, it appears that the vast majority of Americans are unwilling to pay even the chump change in their back pockets to stop the climate changing.
Surveys such as EPIC and IPSOS speak to the fundamental flaw in the ‘settled’ science surrounding the suggestion that humans burning fossil fuel are causing the climate to breakdown. The hypothesis is unproven – not a single science paper provides conclusive proof. Natural causes and the proposition that carbon dioxide becomes ‘saturated’ beyond certain atmospheric levels are more convincing explanations for scientific observations. Fears that mainstream climate science is heavily corrupted by faulty data, pseudoscientific modelling and outright political cherry-picking are becoming more widespread.
Interestingly, the recent overall fall in support for human-caused climate change in the U.S. is due to Democrats and Independents.
Scepticism levels remain high among Republicans but there have been dramatic increases among Left-leaning Democrats. Nevertheless, Democrats were found to be more likely than Republicans to be influenced by the ‘evidence’ of what is called ‘extreme’ weather (71% vs 30% for Democrats vs Republicans). This news will bring some comfort to green propogandists since the recent lack of noticeable global warming has led to a massive rise in pseudoscientific attributions of single weather events to overall climate change. Personal observations are said to influence 55% of Democrats, compared with 20% of Republicans, while appeals to higher authority play better on the Left than the Right. News coverage ranks higher for Democrats at 47% vs 20% , while scientists, most of whom go along with the ‘settled’ agenda, score 73% against just 32% for more sceptical Republicans.
EPIC also found that scepticism was rising among young people aged between 18-29 with a 17% decline in numbers who think humans play a predominant role in changing the climate. The drop was just as significant for those who graduated from college as those with a high school diploma (11%). Of considerable interest was this 17% fall compared with just a 9% drop for those aged over 60. This will concern alarmists, since the impressionable young are heavily targeted with green agitprop from an early age.
The IPSOS survey found that levels of climate scepticism were similar in all age categories. As with EPIC, it found that political leanings were decisive. In the seven countries where political input was sought, 28% of supporters of the Left turned out to be climate sceptics, compared with 50% on the Right.
Is it surprising that climate scepticism is increasing throughout the world? As noted, anthropogenic climate science rests on a shaky evidence base, which no amount of debate cancellation, modelling, invented attributions and data manipulation can hide. Over nearly 50 years, laudable environmental concerns have been hijacked to promote a collectivist, controlling political agenda. But decades of easy virtue-signalling are coming to an end, and the harsh realities of Net Zero are starting to become obvious. Claims that the green revolution will be largely painless are seen for the nonsense they are by the realistic Net Zero appraisal publicised by the Government-funded U.K. FIRES collaborative project.
According to the FIRES report, written by a number of British academics, Net Zero means just 60% of current levels of food cooking, heating and energy by 2050. Within less than 30 years there will be no beef and lamb, and all flying and shipping will have to stop. Road use will be restricted to 60% of today’s levels. There will be no cement, and the only steel available will be recycled. Norman Fenton, the recently retired Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London, noted that these conclusions are consistent with UN/WEF Agenda 21, the UN ‘World at 2050’ agenda and the WEF Great Reset. The latter, noted Fenton, incorporates ‘Build Back Better’ in which you’ll “own nothing and be happy”, and eat bugs instead of meat.
Another senior academic, the nuclear physicist Dr. Wallace Manheimer, recently warned that Net Zero would lead to the end of modern civilisation. The new green infrastructure will fail, cost trillions, trash large portions of the environment, and be entirely unnecessary. Manheimer noted that before fossil fuel became widely used, energy was provided by people and animals. Because so little energy was produced, “civilisation was a thin veneer atop a vast mountain of human squalour and misery, a veneer maintained by such institutions as slavery, colonialism and tyranny”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Good news. 0% should believe that man made plant food does anything or causes anything. It doesn’t. But at least the sheeple are moving ever so cautiously in the right direction. Given the literally trillions of £ / $ in endless propaganda and funding
over 40nay 140 years, this is indeed surprising. See Rona Fascism for a template and more information.The propaganda didn’t work for BREXIT either. Sometimes my faith in human nature is restored (a bit).
In the Brexit referendum, both sides used propaganda, but the Leave side’s propaganda was much more effective.
The fundamental reason Leave won was that there were three broad mutually exclusive outcomes for the country – Remain, Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit – but only 2 options on the ballot paper. And the Leave side took full advantage of this major faux pas by Cameron … and the rest is history…
I’m sorry but that is mostly nonsense.
I doubt if many people today could give you a coherent definition of hard versus soft Brexit.
The majority of people realised, to at least some degree, that the EC was dominated by venal, corrupt, bureaucratic incompetents who they could never, even theoretically, replace. And that the UK was being milked financially whilst the EC wouldn’t even give Cameron the fig leaf of a Neville Chamberlain style ‘piece of paper’ when he asked for some very modest reforms.
It was even then felt very widely that the pace of immigration was much to great and that “rubbing their faces in diversity” was in fact affecting ordinary working class people much more than even the “leafy suburb” Tories.
Cameron, to give him his due, put a lot of effort (and a Hell of a Lot of our money) into his ‘Project Fear’. But he had seriously underestimated the level of resentment about the EU and the fact that the European Elections were an even more blatant charade than domestic elections.
Whether people today could give a coherent definition of hard versus soft is somewhat irrelevant given we are now 7 years later. But, at the time, there was much discussion about a Canada-style free trade deal and World Trade Organisation rules (hard Brexit) and the Norway option (soft Brexit).
In the Referendum the result was 52:48 (Leave: Remain). Let’s assume the Leave vote split roughly 50:50 between Hard and Soft. Given we now have a Hard Brexit, for your argument to prevail logically, you are effectively saying that virtually all those voting Leave and wanting a Soft Brexit would rather have a Hard Brexit than Remain. Which is clearly nonsense, I’m sure you will agree.
There was never a hard or soft Brexit. You either leave an organisation or you don’t.
We voted to leave – reaching a “new deal” with the EU was not on the ballot paper.
We haven’t left: they simply created the terms of the “outer tier” which will, in due course, be applied to the likes of Turkey, Ukraine and (probably) the north African states bordering the Med.
Norway is in the Single Market but not in the European Community, so it clearly is possible.
The bastards don’t care what normal people think.
True, but normal people care what normal people think, and there is only so far that we can all be pushed. Some can be pushed much, much further than others, of course, but in the end, normal people are quite capable of digging in their heels and saying no.
9 out of 10 to the Uni that came up with a organisation name with an acronym that sounds appropriate.
I believed in the official climate change narrative up until 2020, as I didn’t know much about it and believed that virtually all the scientists in the world (as we are being led to believe) would hardly be wrong, up until I saw how “debate cancellation, modelling, invented attributions and data manipulation” were being used on a worldwide scale to push lies about Covid and Covid vaccines.
I wonder if many other recent climate change sceptics have had their eyes opened about climate change in a similar way.
Same here, exactly describes my scepticism history. Now my default position is to not believe any official pronouncements in either the public health or environmental areas without solid evidence.
Really pleased that you’ve seen the light.
The whole things been a scam from start to finish. When ‘Global Warming’ turned into climate change, and then to climate emergency, I just knew they were adjusting the narrative to suit there purposes.
The whole wretched nonsense is just another multi-faceted control mechanism, developed by the likes of Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome way back. In plain English.. the eugenics driven billionaire club. Check out their book in PDF format.. ‘The First Global Revolution’.. they tell you in that exactly what their aims were/are, and how they’re going to achieve them.
Research Maurice Strong and the 1992 Earth Summit.. IPCC.. the truth is out there, but being removed, smothered and mollified as I type this..
I believed that CO₂ might be a factor until I attended a teacher training course when anybody (students, staff) who was sceptical about this (and some other political agendas at the time, notably Slave Trade Reparations) found themselves separated from their
gonadsfunding. I sought in vain for “The Science” (especially “The Climate Model”) so that I could assess it for myself. Then I too got cancelled, but escaped, biologically intact at least. (This was about a year before Climategate.) Blow me down, the same thing happened two decades later to anybody who questioned the Covid Narrative, and again regarding the Trans Narrative. It’s not that Critical Thinking is dead in the UK, its more that Critical Thinkers are culturally excised in a sort of anti-science, anti-technology, anti-maths Cultural Revolution, which is forcing Real Scientists© to become DeliverEat drivers delivering insect pizzas to The Great Gullible coming out of schools.With me it was the reverse – after a few years wondering and reading I came to the conclusion that we are in a Propaganda State regarding sexuality and gender, race, and not least climate change. I wrote an e-book on it in 2019.
When COVID arrived it was immediately clear to me that the whole thing had shifted up several gears, and that the threat to the culture was immediate, not future.
Climate Sceptics Rise
ignore climate lies
***************************
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
“Climate catastrophe, spouted on a TV near you since 1970”
(And we are still here!)
“Climate scepticism” — what a silly phrase. No-one is sceptical of the fact that there is such a thing as climate. What we’re sceptical of is man-made global warming. Stop conceding to their slanders by adopting their loaded language.
The zeal of the liars with the microphones can actually damage their cause in some cases. I know of one person who woke up to the C19 fraud while actually watching the TV alarmism. They were trying too hard. But don’t tell them that.
I’m in my early ’60s. I live in southern England and have done all my life (although I’ve moved in stages from east to west).
The climate now is no different now to when I was a girl. We get the occasional very hot summer and occasional very cold/snowy winter. We sometimes get prolonged dry spells and sometimes prolonged periods of rain. Flooding is more common but that is due to environmental action/inaction (building on flood plains; failing to keep waterways clear; failure to build flood relief schemes) than anything else.
I believe the evidence of my own eyes; there has been no discernible climate change over the past 60 years. I’m immune to the propaganda pumped out at us by the Government and the likes of the BBC. I don’t believe a word they say …. about anything.
Encouraging article Chris – thank you.
I regularly rebuff alarmists on twtr, mainly JSO, XR, the UN’s new bit of fluff, and many nutty professors, and am seeing both fewer comebacks from them and a significant increase in R/Ts. I hope the trend increases.
This is about science not about what people believe.