Gallup: Global Warming Skepticism Growing in U.S.

Paul Walsh

Paul Walsh

A record 41 percent now say news coverage of global warming is exaggerated, while 57 percent say coverage is generally on the mark or underestimated.


By Paul Walsh

More Americans are skeptical about the seriousness of global warming than ever before, according to a survey released this week by the Gallup organization.

A record 41 percent now say news coverage of global warming is exaggerated, while 57 percent say coverage is generally on the mark or underestimated. As recently as 2006, Gallup found that 30 percent viewed news coverage of global warming as exaggerated vs. 66 who did not.

Read the rest of this story at Star Tribune.

10 Responses to Gallup: Global Warming Skepticism Growing in U.S.

  1. Neil F. March 13, 2009 at 9:50 pm #

    And it will keep growing as long as the alarmists continue to spew their fertilizer.

  2. Neil F. March 14, 2009 at 11:32 am #

    Speaking of fertilizer, Tom Brokaw is doing a special on global warming on the Discovery channel March 18th at 9pm Central time. The boy who cried wolf has nothing on the AGW alarmists.
    I think I know what is going on. The alarmists are afraid that public sentiment is starting to turn against them so they are turning up the heat (pun intended).
    Its going to be a grand portrayal of green energy.
    How much do you want to bet that they don’t mention any of the cons?
    I think I’ll start a drinking game. Every time they show a big chunk of ice falling into the ocean, you have to drink a shot!

  3. Earl_E March 14, 2009 at 1:06 pm #


    You ask a man who lost his job, home and family what is most important to him and he says his lifestyle and job. Wow, rocket science.

    Why not ask the survivors what they hate most about New Orleans days after Katrina?

    The poll is a timed propaganda assault by the fossil fuel industry as a last ditch effort to curtail the Obama cleansing.

    Too late.

    I noticed most of the comments on your article were agreeing with you. Like 9 out of 10 people who commented agreed with you.

    What does that statistic mean?

    Most star readers think global warming is a hoax? I’d be interested to see how you spin that.

    Here is mine.

    Most readers who understand the climate is changing and that we may be impacting it in negative ways did not read your story. hence 9 out of 10 people who did read it wanted to feel a community about their denialism.

    In other words, when you are scared and find yourself the outcast, you huddle around for comfort like minded people.

    Much like the people who didn’t rebuild the levies and instead lost their homes.

  4. Neil F. March 16, 2009 at 5:10 pm #

    Why are you attacking the messanger? This guy, Paul Walsh, is simply reporting on a poll conducted by Gallup. If you are unfamilliar with how the Gallup organization conducts polls, perhaps you should read this:

    The results of the poll state:

    “A record 41 percent now say news coverage of global warming is exaggerated, while 57 percent say coverage is generally on the mark or underestimated.

    Lets look at it in a way that will make you feel better.
    57% of the respondents of this poll think news coverage is generally on the mark or underestimated. While only 41% say news coverage of global warming is exaggerated.”

    Now this is saying that a MAJORITY of respondents are agreeing with you. Why are you getting your panties in a bunch? Might it be that the number of people that disagree with you is growing?

    “As recently as 2006, Gallup found that 30 percent viewed news coverage of global warming as exaggerated vs. 66 who did not.”

    I think so.
    And what happened to the term Global Warming? You now call it Climate Change.
    I got news for you, the climate constantly changes. It always has and it always will.
    It is sheer arrogance to believe that we have the ability to affect the global climate. The volume of Earth’s atmosphere is about 51,006,560,000,000 cubic metres (m^3). And larger volumes of CO2 have been released in singular volcanic eruptions, than the total of all the CO2 released by man since the first time we lit a fire in a cave in Africa.
    So its no wonder to me that the skepticism is growing. I’m am wondering why it has taken this long for people to start to realize that AGW is a lie. And that what is really behind it is an anti-Capitalist Socialist agenda.
    Maybe someday you will too……but I’m not going to hold my breath, comrade.

  5. Roger March 17, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    It’s the same with “arguing” about evolution. You make a statement “well, you can’t prove it and there are other points of view”. Even if that statement is complete rubbish, it will create doubt in people’s minds. If they are in doubt, they are likely to go with the idea that best suits them. In this case the best idea is that there is no climate change.

    Given this, and the resources behind the people presenting the bogus arguments, it’s hardly surprising there is doubt in the mainstream opinion.

  6. larrydalooza March 18, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    CO2 didn’t do it. Nothing proposed undoes it. So, we have neither solved what it is, or what to do about it. I say… CO2 is the gateway to a great Earthly prosperity that alarmists can not keep us from. They will try to tax it away and start wars… but ultimately it will come and plants will rejoice. Fight heavy metals and smog… but you will not vilify CO2 on my watch.

  7. Neil F. March 18, 2009 at 10:10 pm #

    I just got done watching the Tom Brokaw piece on Global Warming. I should have made the drinking game around how many times the word “crisis” was said. They only showed the giant chunks of ice falling into the ocean once, but “crisis” was uttered in just about every sentence. I was very disapointed.
    Just as I suspected though, there was scant mention of any cons of “green” energy. And what was mentioned was downplayed. They did say that corn ethanol was a mistake, but in the same breath they said other types of ethanol may be better.
    I was not surprised that the first two sources mentioned by Brokaw were the IPCC, and James Hansen. Surprise, surprise!
    A short synopsis of the entire show was: lie, lie, scare, lie, scare, scare, lie, lie, scare, solar, wind, fuel cell technology good, oil, coal bad, lie, scare, scare, lie, lie, lie………. It was amazing.
    The one thing that really upset me was when they blamed the food riots in Haiti on global warming. Anybody who was paying attention knows that they were caused by food shortages created by the diversion of corn production to ethanol.
    I can’t go into every aspect of what the entire show covered, but I do want to say that it was an excellent production, very professionally done. It was very slick propaganda.
    The way it was presented seemed plausable, but how they do that is an old trick called building your case on a false premise. That climate change is caused by Man’s use of fossil fuels. In fact, a lot of the things they cited did have to do with the changing climate. Of which I do not dispute. The climate is changing, it always has, and it always will. But they present it all in a way that says this is caused by us. Of which I do dispute.
    It’s all so very frustrating. They assume that people will see this slick production and take their word for it that we are causing these things. And unfortunately they are correct in that assumption for the most part.
    Fortunately, there are people like most of you, and me, that have not settled for just what the mainstream media presents, and seeks out information from many different sources.
    Because that is what I have done for a long time, I already knew that what Brokaw was saying was not true. For example, He said that “because of global warming mosquito born illnesses will spread.” This is something I looked into years ago. The fact is that mosquitos are not just in warmer climates. They are everywhere already. They are in the tundra of the arctic circle right now!
    That was just one lie of many, too numerous to address here.

  8. Neil F. March 19, 2009 at 6:00 pm #

    Roger: there is climate change. The climate has always, and always will change. There is no disputing that fact.
    What can be, and is, disputed is that climate change, or more precisely global warming, is caused by Man releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
    I appreciate that you have come down on, in my opinion, the right side of this issue. But if you insist on taking the position that there is no climate change, you could be torn to shreds in an argument about it. So good luck with that.

  9. Alex April 4, 2009 at 9:17 pm #

    So firstly in the past 10 years we have recorded the highest tempuratures on record whoop!! England could do with a bit of sun if you ask me, but it seems to have hit a bit of a peak, and has stated to drop in the last couple of years, now i beleve that this is due to the recovery of the ozone layer! the record size was on average 10.3 million square miles, the latest recording is at 8.5 million, nuf said!!! Global warming is a bit of a hoax, but climate change is not, its very real, i do truly belive that people who cant see this are the people that follow the crowd, and see the results they want to see not the facts, im not professing that im the one in the know cause im not haha but what i have found so far seems to suggest that the climate has already changed, i think its too late to go back to the 50’s but who wants to live in the cold any way.
    Also to Neil_F you think that man has had no impact on CO2 levels?! during the last 400 thousand years, the Earth has gone through a period of aprox 4 revolutions of CO2 spikes, then a gental decrease in CO2 levels, the spikes reach between 260 and 280 parts per million, ok so in 1950 we reached about 272 parts per million, time to go back down right? wrong! in 2006 that figure had reached about 365, so thats aprox 85 parts per million more in the last 50 years, than the highest reading in the last 400 thousand years, you cannot tell me that this is completely natural? weather this contributes to global warming, im yet to make my mind up

  10. Rob N. Hood April 28, 2009 at 3:23 pm #

    You must be willing to ask yourself a very simple question- and then answer it honestly. Do you really believe that the “greenies” have more to gain from some kind of hoax conspriacy (it would have to be a true CONSPIRACY, as your comments all seem to suggest). OR, does it make more sense that the petroleum/natural gas, etc. industries have the most to gain from denying climate change and the possible role that the burning of fossil fuesl has in it.

    Honestly… really… you know who benefits. “They” are already talking about dividing up, or fighting for, all the undersea oil around the North Pole, once the ice is GONE. That IS the OIL companies planning for this, NOT the greenies. Wake up and smell the exhaust.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.