Majority of Human Race Does Not See Global Warming as Serious Threat - Most of the human race does not see global warming as a serious threat, according to a Gallup poll released last week that surveyed individuals in 111 countries.
Respondents were asked: “How serious of a threat is global warming to you and your family?” They were given the options of anwering: not at all serious, not very serious, somewhat serious or very serious.
Worldwide, only 42 percent told Gallup they believed global warming was either a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat. Gallup did not publish the separate percentages for each answer.

(h/t Marc Morano) 

See also Gallup : HERE


  1. So, when someone points out that the scientific consensus is that AGW is a real and serious issue, that has less merit than "Most of the human race does not see global warming as a serious threat"

    Your consensus is fine, but theirs isn't?

  2. "scientific consensus is that AGW is a real and serious issue..."

    Scientific consensus is an oxymoron and anyone that uses the phrase is to be pitied for their lack of knowledge of the scientific method.

  3. Not one international scientific body of any note disagrees with the consensus. Not one.

    While consensus is not part of the scientific method it can be based on research and the scientific method.

  4. Shane -

    Your statement re international scientific bodies is not accurate. The Royal Society, the oldest scientific body in the world used to say that they supported the falsified hypothesis that man-made emissions of invisible trace gas carbon dioxide is causing runaway warming.

    However a group of members strongly disagreed with their report and now the Royal Society issued a new report that says that there is no proof supporting the hypothesis.

    See this item about Maurice Strong:

    See also the corruption of the "science" at NOAA:

    Also see:

  5. I don't know where you get the info about the RS Geoff? You only have to go to the Royal Society's web page and download the latest report (Sept 2010) which concludes:

    "There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human
    activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last
    half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation
    over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are
    likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems."

  6. Well, Shane, did you read the links on Maurice Strong and NOAA?

    Read this article:

    and from the RS:
    It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made. Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected.

  7. The Maurice Strong link points to the same link as the NOAA article.

  8. Well spotted Shane!

    Here is the correct link. Humble apologies.

  9. I read lots of links to either self referential articles or links to blogs making unverifiable assertions in "scare quotes". All essentially irrelevant went it comes to the science of climate change. So far the science is pretty unassailable.

    Maurice Strong appears to be some bloke who got rich, worked for the UN for decades, counts major power brokers as friends, has lefty green leanings, implicated in oil-for-food scandal (but never officially accused of wrong doing) and has done a lot of work for environmental and humanitarian causes. He now lives in China. He sounds like a poor man's Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Both very rich and now working on humanitarian causes.

    Again, pretty irrelevant to the science of climate change.

    As far as the Royal Society's report is concerned. True they say there is uncertainty in the science but they are talking about the degree of impact. They don't deny there will be impact or that it is human activity that is contributing to the problem. To say the RS supports the "sceptical" position is disingenuous.

  10. Thanks for your latest comment, Shane.

    I notice you missed commenting on the corruption of the science at NOAA.

    You say: "To say the RS supports the "sceptical" position is disingenuous." Did I say that, Shane? Where? I said that some members disagreed with their previously published position and they then modified their report.

    Of course humans have an affect on the climate. The Urban Heat island affect is well-recorded. See
    and test number six.

    But also see and see how climate stations placed behind jet engine
    exhausts and next to air-conditioner outlets
    affect the recording of temperatures.

    Shane, do you seriously believe that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are causing runaway global warming?
    If so, why not collect $10,000 dollars. All you have to do is show empirical evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.

    The challenge has been out there for more than six months and not one alarmist scientist has accepted the challenge.


    Easy Peasy if the falsified hypothesis was not falsified.

  11. I wasn't sure by what you meant by corruption at the NOAA? Now I think you probably mean the administrator appointed by Obama has politics you don't agree with? As yet I haven't seen anything like active interference in the running of the NOAA like a Bush appointee at NASA did a few years ago.

    "However a group of members strongly disagreed with their report and now the Royal Society issued a new report that says that there is no proof supporting the hypothesis." I'd suggest that statement strongly implies it supports the skeptical position otherwise why mention it?

    My understanding is that anomalous data is filtered out in regards to the heat island effect. Then there are satellite observations, the oceanic data etc. Same with localised concentrations of CO2. Forests also fluctuate. I wouldn't be surprised if it contributed to localised weather conditions but, again, my understanding is it is the global concentrations of CO2 that are the issue.

    Regarding the climate challenge.
    “will pay $10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.”

    Conclusive argument to who? There's nothing in the challenge about adjudication. At least with Randi's million dollar challenge the claimants know exactly is being tested and the results expected.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!