Global Poll Shock: Four in 10 People Believe Climate Change is Mainly Due to Natural Causes
According to a worldwide IPSOS survey covering two-thirds of the world’s population, nearly four people in every 10 believe climate change is mainly due to natural causes. The degree of scepticism over human-caused global warming will shock the ‘settled’ science green catastrophists, who use constant scare tactics to promote the command-and-control Net Zero agenda. There have been over two decades of IPCC reports, COPs and relentless catastrophising of the weather, and it seems that 37% of people agree with the notion that changes in climate are “mainly due to the kinds of natural phenomena that the Earth has experienced throughout its history”.
The detailed 30-country survey across all five continents was carried out by IPSOS on behalf of the French energy company EDF. The climate sceptic finding is said to be “unexpected” by EDF, which notes that it is committed to “achieving carbon neutrality” by 2050. EDF says that climate scepticism has “consistently grown” over the past three years. There was a global rise of six points in this time to 37%, while in France, scepticism grew by eight points in just one year.
The survey found that the level of climate scepticism is very similar in all age categories. Political leanings, on the other hand, were more 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. This political split is obvious in many countries. In the U.K., the two Right-wing news channels Talk TV and GB News often feature scepticism about ‘settled’ climate science, while the woke, Left-leaning BBC has long banned a wider debate. In the U.S., climate scepticism is often found in Republican circles, but is rarely tolerated in the Democrat community.
EDF seems rather bemused by its findings. It suggests that populations are noting the occurrence of what it calls “extreme climate events”, but this is not making them “more concerned, nor is it convincing them of the human origins of the phenomenon”.
The IPSOS survey is not the first inkling that climate scepticism is on the rise. To date, most green measures, such as importing gas from elsewhere and outsourcing manufacture to the developing world, have been easy virtue-signalling hits. But the dreadful reality of Net Zero is starting to strike home. Writing in the Telegraph last week, Allister Heath noted that “blackouts will trigger a people’s revolt against the new eco-tyranny”. He added that the public want to be greener, “but not at the cost of suffering extreme material regression”. Meanwhile, waiting in the political wings, and rising in the polls, is the climate and Net Zero sceptic Reform Party of Richard Tice and Nigel Farage.
Decades of relentless climate catastrophising, characterised by far-fetched predictions and forecasts that never materialise, is starting to take its toll. Perhaps, people are just getting tired of being scared all the time, all to no avail. Global warming ran out of steam at the end of the last century, despite the upward adjustments made regularly by corrupted surface temperature datasets. This year in particular has been a disaster for doomsters with coral growing back in record amounts, Arctic summer sea ice and, possibly, the Greenland ice sheet increasing in mass, and annual hurricane energy falling by 33%. Living by the sword means dying by it, although of course there is a constantly moving conveyor belt whipping up new hysteria about ‘extreme weather’ events.
There is also a growing awareness that the science that blames all atmospheric warming on the 4% of carbon dioxide that humans emit into the atmosphere is not quite as ‘settled’ as it is claimed. Many scientists suggest that the effect of CO2 is more logarithmic than linear, and as it becomes ‘saturated’ in the atmosphere, its warming abilities fall sharply. This hypothesis offers a more plausible explanation for any temperature and CO2 relationship seen in the historical and paleoclimatic past, when CO2 concentration was much higher than today.
Last week, the tweets of Editor in-Chief Toby Young promoting the Daily Sceptic’s climate coverage were said to be one of 10 sources accounting for 25% of global sceptical climate material on Twitter. Both the Times and Guardian ran articles noting a recent rise in climate scepticism on Twitter. This proved alarming to both newspapers. The Guardian led with the suggestion that denialism claims “flooding Twitter” have scientists worried. Scientists and activists are said to have told the Guardian that they have become “unnerved” by a recent resurgence of debunked climate change denialist points. Twitter was said to be a “cherished forum” for climate scientists to share research and rally action.
‘Cherished Forum’ seems to be another term for ‘Safe Space’. With that comes freedom from the tedious need to debate science, and all the devastating economic, societal and environmental destruction likely under Net Zero. And, it seems, the tiresome need to pay any attention to the views of almost 40% of the world’s population.
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.
Hallelujah!
As the climate is 100% due to natural causes (and always has been), I suppose 40% should be seen as a step in the right direction.
Poll reveals that 60% of people are stupid. Down from 80% during Rona fascism….(so indeed stepping gingerly in the right direction….)
But even they are uncertain since they “mainly” believe it is natural causes. That is 100% idiots in my view.
And who believes that they would exist if the climate had never changed over the last few centuries?
Those of us who have been around a while know this climate nonsense is a scam as was Covid and furthermore Russia is not responsible for our energy prices either! I’m just waiting for everyone else to catch up with me! 🙄
Russia would be responsible for us being wealthier if we were currently net energy exporters as we should be.
Exports are a cost – a process which consumes our capital labour & other resources but from which we derive no benefit, instead Johnny Foreigner enjoys the fruits of our labours.
Exports are the means by which we obtain foreign loot to buy what others make. It’s imports that make us wealthier.
As the man said, imports are Christmas Day, exports are the January credit card bill.
Talk Radio is not that skeptics.
Two separate hosts today had a weatherman on telling us that this cold spell was due to climate change caused by rising temperatures in the Arctic waters….
You can never win the argument with these modellers…
That was not the story of September/ October, at least not the German story. That was US scientists have calculated (berechnet, ie, modelled) that – due to climate change/ breakdown/ $something – we were heading for an unusually mild winter. Hence, that’s another case of Our predictions of yesterday turned out wrong again. Let’s talk about something else in the hope that people won’t notice!
I remember back in 2010 when we had prolonged periods of very cold weather the “scientists” claimed that it was due to a warming arctic, aka climate change, and it could become the new normal. Since then we’ve had some mild winters, and some wet winters with a lot of flooding which the same “scientists” have claimed is due to climate change and could become the new normal. Is it any wonder more and more people are refusing to take them seriously.
According to http://www.electroverse.net the minus 15 degrees recorded in the Scottish Highlands this morning and yesterday morning made it the coldest December 11 and 12 on record. So much for the MSM claims that this sort of cold is nothing unusual for the time of year.
‘Children won’t know what snow is’. Even on the bottom coast we have snow…first time in a long while.
It snows in December – climate change.
It does not snow – climate change.
It rains – climate change.
It does not rain – climate change.
The weather does nothing much – climate change.
Look at my Double D models and their curves. Lovely aren’t they. My models are always right now please send a few trillion more £ so we can save Gaia.
That’s the typical behaviour for people driven by a preconveiced political agenda: Whatever happens, afterwards, they’ll ascend their respective soap boxes and explain why it shows they’ve been right all the time.
There are currently no rising temperatures in the Arctic. All temperatures are dropping right across the Arctic as they do every year during the northern winter. The area of Earth in the North that is below zero C covers all of Russia (worlds largest country), all of Canada (world’s second largest country), and stretches from the Himalayas right down to the border of Texas. over the coming months this area will ebb and flow but ultimately keep increasing all the way to mid March – like it does every year. We have had ‘mild’ late summers in the Arctic in recent decades but they were milder in the 1930s and very mild during the Holocene Climate Optimum.
I deeply object to being termed as a ‘denier’. Denial requires me to ignore the fundamental truth, and instead to follow some fantasy that is easily disprovable. I am a sceptic. I cannot prove that Climate Emergency is a load of balls, but it looks like it, sounds like it, and the clearest sign of it is that whatever contradictory evidence is produced is ignored point blank by those claiming it to be true. That is not the scientific method. If the data changes then the hypothesis changes. If it doesn’t then it is little more than propaganda.
As usual, the climate apostles want to imply that whoever doesn’t agree with their opinions down to the last comma has mental issues: A climate change denier is someone who denies the reality of man-made climate change and its catastrophic consequences for some reasons unrelated to it, ie, either because he’s corrupt and being paid by people or companies making money from evil stuff (like oil or coal) or because he’s a victim of a condidition which could be called obsessive compusive climate change denial disorder.
The same mechanism is employed whenever someone talks about XYZ-denial. People using such terms can immediatley be marked down as dishonest propagandists, no matter what they proposing (or opposing).
I just described Toby as a climate realist, which is hopefully somewhere near the mark.
People have forgotten where the ‘denier’ tag came from. In 1988, there was a US Senate Hearing arranged by Senator Tim Wirth, into claims of Global Warming ( in which Margaret Thatcher had taken a lead). Wirth and a NASA / Goddard Laboratory activist, Jim Hansen had arranged the meeting on the hottest day of the year and had spiked the Air Conditioning, so , with the arc lights, everyone was literally in a sweat. That Senate meeting is often taken as the start of the scam. (Or when the public was made aware of it.) Hansen knew that some of the most important Scientists who opposed his blatant alarmism, such as Richard Lindzen, Professor at MIT, with hundreds of published papers on (genuine) Climate Science, were Jewish. So let’s call him a ‘climate denier’ – and if the link to ‘Holocaust denier’ isn’t clear enough, weigh in with ‘Death Trains’ and ‘Death Factories’ (here Death Trains for Coal Trains, Death Factories for Coal Power Plants). It isn’t clear that Hansen originated the ‘denier’ tag but he certainly promoted it and admitted and gave a very faux apology (doubling down) for his coining of the ‘death’ tags. Of course his… Read more »
You don’t have to prove the negative, it is up to those who hypothesise to prove the positive. But then, that’s science as we used to know it.
There are two problems with this poll result:
1 there are even more numpties around than I thought possible – where do you find 60 per cent who think it is not natural events
2 the political class will spend even more time and money propagandising in favour of Net Zero.
I suspect 90% of the 60% have never given it a thought.
Likely too busy working, looking after their families, and avoiding all the “Covid crisis” hysteria to worry about esoteric tripe.
Meanwhile, Drax will not be using coal-fired units after all, preferring. last I heard, to burn wood from Carolina. And that is going to change the climate (and presumably be profitable some time or other). Fair play if you could have made that one up! And congratulations to Toby on annoying the Times muppets (re. climate realist tweets)!
How do the moronic climate activists explain the Great Frost of 1709, or the Medieval Warm Period…or numerous other inconvenient anomalies which completely destroy their man-produced-carbon-is-bad rhetoric?
Spoiler alert: they can’t.
I think they try and cover it up. Would “political activists” be more accurate? I understand the “Green” party to be neo-Marxist.
The explain the so-called medieval clima optimum by claiming it didn’t exist. This includes denying that the green in Greenland means green as the land cannot ever have been green.
Odd isn’t it. The climate lobby are the real climate deniers.
I am hopeful that the current chilly snap and lack of wind might make people and particularly politicians think a bit more deeply about their climate obsessions.
“Extreme” weather events used to be known as just weather.
If you carry out your life mostly indoors in highly regulated indoor climates as many people now do, what was once just ordinary bad weather will probably seem very extreme.
“EDF says that climate scepticism has ‘consistently grown’ over the past three years.”
Perhaps that’s because it the hypothesis is based on modelling and over the past three years everyone has witnessed the extent to which modelling can be utter bollyollox.
The Daily Sceptic is doing a sterling job in “calling out” the Eco Nutters and climate catastrophists.
Well done Chris Morrison!
10,000 years ago was an Ice Age and homo sapiens were around far less. Who caused the Ice Age……Fred Flintstone?
Firstly—–What people “believe” is irrelevant. Believing things is religion. What people believe or don’t believe is of no consequence to reality. You should either know something or not know it. Believing things can get you into a whole lot of trouble. ———-We have for many years now been told “Listen to the scientists”. But climate change science is mostly computer modelling, not science. But un-validated speculative models are not any kind of evidence of anything. A model is only a tool, like a calculator is only a tool. A calculator is not mathematics, and neither are climate models “science”.—- But in science the whole idea is to question things, or as someone once said “scepticism is the highest calling, and blind faith the one unpardonable sin”. For decades now the western political establishment have been doing an awful lot of “sinning”. and the leftist compliant media have been assisting them in their sins with endless stuff like “all scientists agree” ————–Nope they do not, but science was never decided by a show of hands from government funded data adjusters anyway was it?
Well..I ‘believe’ you are correct…LOL!
ebygum—-I “believe” you are correct to “believe” me, so it is probably time to abandon, dismiss, discard, and exclude any climate change beliefs any of us may previously had and replace them with facts reason and evidence.
Well 4 in 10 is a better ratio than the Solomon Asch Conformity test, that found 2 in 10 will conform. It will mean that those pushing the AGW will likely double down on their efforts. Who knows, we might have a more virulent virus turn up. What are the chances of that?
I meant ‘2 in 10 will not conform.’
It’s probably quite a lot more than 37% but the trouble is the high priests of this scam have successfully convinced the general population into feeling like they’ll be seen by their friends as tyre burning, ocean raping, oil gargling, plastic loving Trump supporters if they dare to object. The deliberate politicisation and polarisation of this has been extraordinary.
But it only works up to a point. When people are on the bones of their arse, wearing five jumpers and an old coat in their living rooms next to their dead TV, phone and laptop, they might start discovering the long lost art of critical thinking.
Isn’t the shock that 6 in 10 brainless dolts do believe in it?
It is the 60% of nutcases that believe we can control the climate that bother me and the fact that the other 40% think it is mainly natural causes. I assume in an earlier life they would have viewed themselves as witches or not yet qualified.
In the UK over that last few days anybody with basic powers of observation can see the proof that there is no warming of the surface from the atmosphere. With temperatures below freezing, the snow is thawing only where there is direct sunlight. In the shade it is not melting. There is the proof that there is no heat from the atmosphere to melt the snow in the shade.
Thanks Chris. Good article.
“blames all atmospheric warming on the 4% of carbon dioxide that humans emit into the atmosphere” – you are getting rather confused again Chris.
After millennia of stability, CO2 concentrations have risen from a pre-industrial 278ppm (parts per million) to 417ppm today, an increase of 50%. This is because oceans and plants cannot absorb all the extra CO2 we put into the atmosphere by burning hydrocarbons that would otherwise have remained locked underground.