Fewer Americans worried by climate change: survey

Steam and other emissions are seen coming from a power station in Wollongong, some 89 km (55 miles) south of Sydney November 17, 2009. REUTERS/Daniel Munoz

Steam and other emissions are seen coming from a power station in Wollongong, some 89 km (55 miles) south of Sydney November 17, 2009.

Credit: Reuters/Daniel Munoz

NEW YORK | Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:04pm EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Al Gore's pitch for saving the planet from global warming appears to be falling on increasingly deaf ears, a Zogby Interactive survey shows.

Nearly half of Americans, or 49 percent, say they are only slightly or not at all concerned about climate change, while 35 percent are somewhat or highly concerned, the survey shows.

Zogby's latest poll shows those with more relaxed views on the issue jumped 10 percentage points from 2007, when 39 percent said they were slightly or not at all concerned. In 2007, 48 percent said they were somewhat or highly concerned.

The survey's results emerge as the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen heads into its final week, amid warnings that global warming could eventually melt the polar ice caps, raising sea levels and causing drought and other severe weather conditions.

Gore, a former U.S. vice president, helped raise awareness of climate change by narrating the hit documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," which won two Academy Awards in 2007.

"Well, I think people respond to what is going on around them. In the last couple of years, especially in the Eastern part of the United States, weather patterns have been quite normal," said Stephen Harned, executive director for the National Weather Association, and a 36-year veteran of the National Weather Service.

RECORD "PRETTY FIRM"

Harned, who cited regular snowy winters and particularly cool summers, said there could be a shift in perception because the weather seems to not be getting warmer.

"But I think the record is pretty firm that global air temperatures are increasing," Harned said. "The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is also increasing."

Global warming refers to an increase of average temperatures on the earth's near-surface air and oceans, which many experts believe is caused by higher concentrations of greenhouse gases caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels.

"It's a fact that there has been warming of the earth's atmospheric temperatures in the past few years," Harned said.

However, Harned explains that near-term doomsday scenarios are far-fetched. He said sea levels will not rise dramatically over the next 10 years, even though glaciers worldwide have shrunk in many locations.

"But in the next 50 to 100 years -- and hopefully I won't be here -- that is what's going to happen," Harned stressed. "And that is where the controversy comes into play."

Many Americans seem unworried, the survey showed.

The percentage not at all concerned about global climate change rose to 37 percent from 27 percent in 2007, while only 20 percent said they were highly concerned, compared with 37 percent in 2007.

The survey found that 44 percent believe the United States should act to reduce energy use if it means major lifestyle changes.

Harned said more renewable green sources of energy are needed and that people need to live more energy-conscious lives because "worldwide there is going to be more and more of us."

The survey also showed 68 percent of Republicans and 46 percent of political independents said they are not at all concerned about global climate change and global warming, compared to just 7 percent of Democrats.

The interactive survey of 3,072 adults nationwide was conducted December 8-10. A sampling of Zogby International's online panel, which is representative of adult Americans, was invited to participate. The margin of error is plus or minus 1.8 percentage points.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (31)
roamabit wrote:
I think the statistical trend which Zoghby’s polls identified as decreasing concern about global climate change has much to do with public suspicion of the soundness of the science related to the subject. The public perception of underlying political motives and their ramifications also appear to be problematic to more general acceptance.

For example, I understand that several concerns regarding the factual accuracy of certain assumptions within Mr. Gores award-winning movie “An Inconvenient Truth” have been widely raised.

I believe any questions raised have been ignored and not answered by Mr. Gore or his representatives.

The movie claims to be based upon sound science, so I don’t understand what difficulty exists for addressing these concerns.

In medieval times, scientists questioning the doctrine that the sun revolved around the earth were persecuted by religion that found these new theories “inconvenient” to currently-advocated religious beliefs.

Stone-walling and refusal to respond to valid questions about the assumptions of a “documentary” can be considered the modern-day equivalent of persecution of those challenging then currently accepted beliefs.

The scientific method evolved to improve scientific methodology and eliminate outside religious or political influence on or obstacles to those seeking scientific truth.

Perhaps Mr. Gore would be well advised to simply address scientifically the questions regarding certain portions of his movie. Unwillingness to openly discuss the subject will only increase suspicion and the percentage of people polled in future surveys who are not really concerned about climate change.

Dec 15, 2009 7:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Batjak456 wrote:
A 100% disabled U.S. Air Force vet here…

Folks…this is an easy one.

This issue is about credibility, not “quoted” facts and figures, as some would have you believe (or buy into).

During the course and privilege of serving my country, I garnered fourteen ribbons, six bronze oak leaf clusters, two bronze star devices and, of course, my wings.

Enough about all that.

I only mention it in hopes of establishing a bit of credibility (there’s that word again) with you, other concerned peoples of this planet.

Wanna hear ‘an inconvenient truth’? *

ANY understanding of the stupidity of ‘global warming’…er, ‘climate change’, (and now this, as of November 26) ‘global warming pollution’ or whatever the hell these schysters and con artists are callin’ ‘it’ now, MUST begin and end with Al Gore.

By The Content Of His Character…

* When Al Gore was sent to Vietnam, in his own words he said he went “so that some other ‘Son of Tennessee’ wouldn’t have to go.”

After he realized that some people actually believed his line of crap, he knew he was onto something.

That’s when myself and a whooooole lot of other disgusted folks figured out just what kind of ‘man’ he really is.

Listen up.

I’m tellin’ you, when you deal with this clown, you’d better keep your head on a swivel.

By The Content Of His Character…

By The Content Of His Character…

By The Content Of His Character…

Yeah, yeah, I know.
It sounds like an ad hominem.
But, HE SAID IT!

Dec 16, 2009 12:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
tupiazul wrote:
The decline in concern related to global warming reflects growing skepticism regarding the science behind it. Employing fudge factors as REM in Fortran codes, manipulating data to “hide the decline,” blacklisting colleagues with differing opinions, withholding raw data under request for release by FOIA (both at NASA and CRU), losing raw data such that the above actions are indefensible and conclusions cannot be confirmed by independent observers and making efforts to take over the peer review process is not sound science. Given reliance on this data by parties on both sides of the Atlantic and the obvious biases of the investigators, the only thing supported by overwhelming evidence is corruption of the scientific method with the scientist as advocate as opposed to observer. No conclusions can be made until science acts independent of advocacy and investigators can review data with transparency on a level playing field without fear of character assassination for the conclusions that they reach. The science needs to be redone…now is not the time to use flawed and biased data to make policy conclusions.

Dec 16, 2009 1:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.