Most Europeans Don’t Believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming

Most Europeans Don’t Believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming | climate-change | Environment Global Warming Fraud Special Interests World News

Among elitists there is a certain global consensus that seems to have been reached on the need to combat climate change. However, the jury is still out when it comes to how real human-driven global warming is and how responsibility for this alteration should be assigned.

A survey of 10,000 Europeans, published last week, shows that most of them understand  the minimal role of humans at the source of climate change.

Only 46% believe that the human hand is the main responsible for this global change, which is the explanation given by manipulated science. That is, science produced to fit the policy of global depopulation.

On the other hand, 51% believe that either the change is essentially due to a natural evolution, 8%, that it is a mixture of the two previous factors, 42%, or that the change does not exist, – 1 %. The remaining 2% do not know what to answer.

The study, published in Frontiers in Marine Science, shows that only 18% of Europeans believe that global warming change is the biggest problem facing the world.

But perhaps the most interesting of their conclusions are the differences between countries and between demographic groups.

For example, Spain stands out as the country that allegedly best knows this problem: 60% of Spaniards say they know that climate change has a human origin, the highest of the ten countries surveyed. That contrasts, at the other extreme, with the 26% of Estonians.

Spanish citizens stand out for their conviction that climate change is due to human action, and their convictions to be adequately informed about climate change, their level of concern and awareness on this issue, and their willingness and support actions to address the causes of climate change,” explains oceanographer Carlos Duarte, who is among the study’s signatories.

The Spaniards also stand out among the citizens who trust scientists the most and among those who have less confidence in opinions about climate change from friends or relatives,” he says.

“However,” Duarte clarifies, “when deepening and asking questions about objective facts, such as rising temperature or sea level, it is noted that their level of information is still precarious and they tend to magnify the changes already noted, confusing future forecasts of models with things that already occurred.”

In other words, these people believe in the so-called science of climate change blindly. They do not know the facts behind it or how to explain the alleged human effect. They just believe  that is happening.

This aspect is what most concerns Duarte, director of the Red Sea Research Center, an organization that belongs to the University of Science and Technology King Abdullah.

The survey, which focuses essentially on the problems facing the oceans because of climate change, indicates that many citizens take for granted that some of the most fearsome situations have already occurred:

They think that the media tend to exaggerate the changes and impacts that the ocean has already experienced, confusing these with what is expected to occur at the current rate of emissions by the end of this century.

This points to a serious miscommunication by scientists, who by insisting on the changes that could occur towards the end of the century, have confused the public.”

They believe that these changes have already occurred: “2° C of warming, an Arctic without ice in summer, and an ocean whose level has increased by more than 50 centimeters,” explains the oceanographer.

This leads to hopelessness and inaction, because if they think those changes have already taken place, what will be their incentive to prevent these things from happening? “

In general, European citizens are concerned, feel relatively well informed – as in Germany, Italy and Spain – and rely on information on the impacts of climate change that comes from scientists.

However, their information seems to focus on ice loss, marine pollution and overfishing, while another essential problem, such as ocean acidification, is out of the question.

Of course, it is the citizens who live on the coast or linked to the sea who are most worried about the effect of the change on the oceans.

Women are better informed and more concerned,” says Duarte, and yet the percentage of men who claim to be well-informed about all these problems is greater than that of women.

Young people feel less worried than older people, but prioritize taking action against the alleged causes of climate change, such as reducing CO2 emissions.

The elderly, however, prioritize actions to adapt to climate change and mitigate its consequences, such as raising coastal defenses.

Submit your review
1
2
3
4
5
Submit
     
Cancel

Create your own review


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


About The Author

Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

    Related posts

    • wayne

      Anthropology, Archeology. Geology, Biogeography, Meteorology, Hydrology, Geomorphology, and Climatology have produced some brilliant minds and revealing history.
      Some very positive, sure of themselves scientists in countless varied fields regularly recant, revise, and readjust their “written in stone” so called proof and theoretical hypothesis in favor of “new findings”.
      As the only constant is change, panicking fearfully because of some so called infallible “expert” forecasted change seems absurd at best.
      Ironically instituting some “new tax” always seems to be government’s convenient and repetitive solution to saving the world from “undesirable” change.
      Throw enough money at anything and it miraculously heals itself it would seem, at least according to some “experts”.