Americans Less Concerned About Climate Change than Reptiles, Tornadoes, Credit Card Fraud, Cyber-Terrorism, Bio-Warfare, Nuclear War, Mass Surveillance, Economic Collapse or Obamacare

How concerned are Americans about climate change?

A poll this month by Chapman University shows that we are more concerned about government corruption, mass surveillance, cyber-terrorism, bio-warfare, identity theft, running out of money, economic collapse, credit card fraud,  Obamacare, illness, nuclear attack, meltdowns and civil unrest and tornadoes than global warming:

Global Warming PollSimilarly, a Gallup poll from March found that only 32% of those surveyed say global warming is a problem they worry about a great deal, compared to 55% who say they worry most about the quality of their drinking water, 38% who worry most about the quality of the air they breathe, and 36% who worry about extinction of plant and animal species:


This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • michaelrivero

    Probably those several record-setting winters that started arriving right after the global warming cult predicted that snowfalls are now a thing of the past (UK Independent Headline, March 20l 2000) has something to do with the lack of concern.

    • David Evans

      I’ll bet no climate scientist attached his name to that stupid headline. Global warming puts more water vapor into the air, which can mean more snow at times when it’s cold enough (which will be true in most winters even if the temperature goes up a degree or two).

      Meanwhile, here’s some actual evidence of global warming:

      • michaelrivero

        Okay, so you claim global warming puts more water into the air which is why we get more snow … but fail to explain how the water gets cold enough to fall as snow and not as rain.

        Back in 2000 the global warmistas were predicting snow was a thing of the past!

        If they were that wrong over the space of just a few years, why should we listen to their prognostications about what will happen 100 years from now?

        • David Evans

          I would like some evidence that real scientists were predicting that. EXXON knew global warming was real in 1981 and kept very quiet about it – in fact kept funding people to deny it:

          Let me explain. In winter in temperate latitudes the temperature sometimes drops well below zero because that part of the Earth is turned away from the Sun. A degree of global warming (and we haven’t had that much yet) isn’t enough to bring the temperature back up to zero, so we get snow or hail instead of rain. If global warming continues, fewer places will get cold enough for snow, but we’re not there yet.

          • michaelrivero

            They were certainly described as real scientists when they made that prediction, but since the prediction has failed we are seeing this nonsensical propaganda that global warming causes colder weather!

            All so the people get screwed for carbon taxes.

            And if Exxon is paying people to question global warming WHERE IS MY CHECK! 🙂

          • David Evans

            I’ll believe that (maybe) when you give actual names to these scientists, preferably with a web link as I just did. And I just explained how global warming can cause more snow. Didn’t you understand?

            PS you say I “fail to explain how the water gets cold enough to fall as snow and not as rain.” In fact the tops of clouds are usually below zero. Precipitation starts as snow or hail, and only turns to rain if it’s warmer nearer the ground.

          • michaelrivero

            I understand that the Carbonazis want to tax carbon because it supposedly causes global warming but since mother nature (meaning solar output) has started to cool the planet, the carbon tax fraudsters are trying to figure out some way they can protect their little scam by claiming that global warming makes for cold weather, which is not in fact science but the plot of a science fantasy movie, “The Day After Tomorrow”, which I worked on, and they knew it was nonsense while the cameras were still rolling!

          • David Evans

            Again, I’ll believe that “mother nature has started to cool the planet” when you give me some actual data to counter what I posted.
            That was an entertaining movie, but most SF movies contain a high proportion of nonsense. Do you disbelieve in DNA sequencing because Jurassic Park got it wrong?

          • michaelrivero

            You seem to forget the Climategate scandal in which data,m emails, and computer codes leaked from the Hadley CRU proved the data used to support claims of global warming is faked. People no longer trust fancy charts presented by the same government and media that told us all Saddam had nuclear weapons. We will use our own senses to look at all that snow and ice the Carbonazis claimed were a thing of the past.

          • Sarastro92

            There’s been no global; warming for almost two decades. That’s why the public laughs at people like you and ignores the Climate Hysterics.

          • VooDude

            Rasool, S. Ichtiaque, and Stephen H. Schneider 1971. “Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate.” Science


            Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, Prof., Dept. of Biological Sciences and Sr. Fellow Inst. for International Studies, Stanford University, wrote a paper with Rasool, published in the journal, Science, in 1971. It concluded with the scary scenario, (and a few caveats, of course) “our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 K … in the average temperature of Earth, … believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

            1971: ”••• For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase, by only a factor of 4, in global aerosol background concentration, may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

            In the book Schnider wrote, The Genesis Strategy (1976), he cried, “wolf”, again, because of global cooling. He advocated that government leaders should act now, making little mention of any doubts, while chiding skepticism: ” ••• nor does political action require knowledge of the exact location of each tree behind which a wolf may be hiding.” (page xi). Somewhere along the line, his Chicken Little cries became scary scenarios that were all about Global Warming. He applied his BS in Mechanical Engineering, and his PhD in Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics, as a lead author for three, count them, three IPCC “the sky is falling” reports.

            Stephen Schneider said, “The greenhouse effect is the least controversial theory in atmospheric science”

            Global Warming Unchecked: Signs to Watch for by Harold W. Bernard, page 12.

            In 1988 Steven Schneider said “Clouds are an important factor about which little is known. When I first started looking at this in 1972, we didn’t know much about the feedback from clouds. We don’t know any more now than we did then.” Global Warming Unchecked: Signs to Watch for by Harold W. Bernard, page 80.

            Schneider wrote, about clouds: … “unknown, and potentially important change to earth’s heat balance if cloud albedo is altered.”


            Miffed about being misquoted from an interview published in Discover magazine, pages. 45-48, October, 1989 where he was accused of saying “Scientists should consider stretching the truth”, Schneider laid it all out in APS News August/September 1996 (Volume 5, Number 8) where he said:

            “«On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both… I disapprove of the ‘ends justify the means’ philosophy, of which I am accused, but, in fact, have actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings. Instead, I repeatedly advocate that scientists explicitly warn their audiences that ‘what to do’ is a value choice as opposed to ‘what can happen’ and ‘what are the odds,’ which are scientific issues. …

            Vested interests have repeatedly claimed I advocate exaggerating threats. Their ‘ evidence’ comes from partially quoting my Discover interview, almost always -like [Julian] Simon – omitting ‘I hope that means being both’ and the ‘double ethical bind’ phrase.»”



            Didn’t he just say, “Scientists should consider stretching the truth”, but without the quotation marks? How does the inclusion of the phrase, “double ethical bind” excuse him? It seems quite clear that he advocates exaggerating science to enhance the appearance of environmental threats.

            Dr. Stephen H. Schneider: “Simon ‘quotes’ me directly, as supposedly saying ‘Scientists should consider stretching the truth •••’ to get good publicity for their cause. After the March issue was in print, Simon notified the editor that this false and very damaging statement was incorrect. What he hasn’t yet admitted is that even what he states to be the ‘correct quote’ is still an out-of-context misrepresentation of my views, a distortion he persists in perpetuating even months after I personally told him of the context of the original quote.”

            What are “vested interests”, anyway? Were the Koch Brothers active in 1989?

        • VooDude

          The cooing scare was mostly in the press …

      • VooDude

        David Evans, your plethora of graphs that indicate a rise in temperature, show no indications of the cause of the warming. Pretty much everyone agrees that the world has warmed, recently. As for “…actual evidence…” pointing to a cause … there is no evidence. None at all, showing that Mannkind’s burning of fossil fuels, perhaps adding to the global atmospheric concentration of CO2, has done anything at all.

        As for your supposition that “Global warming puts more water vapor into the air…”
        which you claim, increases precipitation … well, show us:

    • VooDude

      “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”

  • andrew1212

    Thanks to Washington’s Blog for shining some light upon the Dennis Hastert criminal case–it inspired me…

  • Tom

    Not being afraid of tornadoes is easy. In the most tornado-stricken part of the world, Tornado Alley in the US midwest, a study found that the chances for any given square meter of land to be hit was once every 400 years. From there it went down to a low somewhere in Nevada of once every 10,000 years. Yawn.

  • jo6pac

    I’m sorry but you are taking time from watching dancing with has beens. You here are being mean:)

  • MrLiberty

    Given that government, along with demanding that we believe their “facts” about our climate and the role human activity plays in impacting it, they also want us to blindly support THEIR solutions, I would say that caring more about government corruption, mass surveillance, economic collapse and everything else directly tied to the failure of government is MORE THAN APPROPRIATE. How can we possibly take anything the government says or is proposing seriously when they and the Federal Reserve are the greatest criminal enterprises on the planet? Just look at the ridiculous proposal of “carbon credits.” All this did was create a market for polluters to buy their way out of “trouble” while putting billions in Al Gore’s pockets. Why should anyone believe that anything the government comes up with to “address” the so-called problems will be anything other than a giant profit-making scheme for their friends in big business/Wall Street/the banking cartel?

    Frankly as the federal government so micro-manages the economy in a manner that essentially picks winners and losers, it is more than likely that far more environmentally-friendly technology has been kept out of our hands over the decades while government “energy policy” has promoted oil above all else, and our military has supplied free security services for the oil industry all over the middle east – not to mention the blatant collusion with the nuclear energy industry to “hide” the true costs of the energy or the long-term safe storage of waste.

    Eliminate most government power over our lives, our freedoms, and our economy, and we might find that the marketplace starts delivering the positive changes that we have been prevented from obtaining all along.

  • SonsofAnarchy5768

    Climate changes, but it is less then 1% because of humans, so its a lie, fraud, fake, just another scheme!

  • Charlie Primero

    This is good news. Carbon-taxing working stiffs to enrich corporations via “green” government subsidies is a butt-raping every American could live without.

  • Lilly Lévy-Jarguel

    Please, Mr Zuesse, reading the studie of french specialist scientist against lies of Global Warming aka climate change” Gore’creature frankestein :

    In France also, “Climat change religious” is bad, green market, making for bancksters, politics, with ONU. Taxs and others money against poor people. Gore working with Banks Brothers Lheman…Kind regards

  • Cosmic Ray

    Most likely, they are less concerned about climate change because they know that its occurred for billions of years and will continue to occur for billions of years more. And many of them probably read the climate gate emails or are paying attention to the left-wing politics that stands to benefit from implementing climate change control-freak policies.

  • Sarastro92

    Similar polls have been run that canvass internationally. Same results. Some people (mostly bobo types) are suckered by climate propaganda… most of the world isn’t. And they really oppose proposals that would pauperize everyone in the name of climate change.