Global warming why dont people believe

She is the editor of the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada and the author of several books. Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.

By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time. Join the conversation Create account.

Already have an account? Science The psychology of climate change: Why people deny the evidence Despite evidence illustrating the planet is warming at a rate not ever seen in its history, there are still people who deny that it's occurring or that it's a result of humans pumping too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Social Sharing. Climate talks begin in Poland, with deadline looming for Paris accord 'rule book' Massive U. Global temperatures on track to rise C by , UN warns.

The faces of climate change: How a rapidly warming Arctic is destroying a way of life. Americans hold relatively positive views about climate scientists, compared with other groups, as credible sources of information. Far more Americans say they trust information from climate scientists on the causes of climate change than say they trust either energy industry leaders, the news media or elected officials.

But in absolute terms, public trust in information from climate scientists is limited. Public trust in information from the news media, energy industry leaders and elected officials is significantly lower, however. A majority of Americans report having not too much or no trust in information from these groups about the causes of climate change. But majorities say these less germane motivations influence results at least some of the time.

Throughout this report, Republicans and Democrats include independents and other non-partisans who lean toward the parties. Partisan leaners tend to have attitudes and opinions very similar to those of partisans. On questions about climate change and trust of climate scientists, there are wide differences between those who lean to the Democratic Party and those who lean to the Republican Party.

And leaners and partisans of their party have roughly the same positions on these questions. Political divides are dominant in public views about climate matters. Consistent with past Pew Research Center surveys , most liberal Democrats espouse human-caused climate change, while most conservative Republicans reject it.

People on the ideological ends of either party, that is liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, see the world through vastly different lenses across all of these judgments. As with previous Pew Research Center surveys , there are wide differences among political party and ideology groups on whether or not human activity is responsible for warming temperatures.

Pew Research Center surveys have found these kinds of wide political gaps in previous years. About six-in-ten or more of liberal Democrats say it is very likely that climate change will bring droughts, storms that are more severe, harm to animal and plant life, and damage to shorelines from rising sea levels.

There is wide gulf between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans when it comes to beliefs about how to effectively address climate change. And, at least half of liberal Democrats say that both personal efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of everyday activities and more people driving hybrid and electric vehicles can make a big difference in addressing global warming.

By contrast, conservative Republicans are largely pessimistic about the effectiveness of these options. Most conservative Republicans say each of these actions would make a small difference or have no effect on climate change. About three-in-ten or fewer conservative Republicans say each would make a big difference. Few in either party say climate scientists should have no role in these policy decisions.

But there some differences among party and ideology groups in their relative priorities about this. Conservative Republicans give a higher comparative priority to the general public in policy decisions about climate change issues.

Relative to other groups rated, fewer Americans think elected officials should have a major say in climate policy. Conservative Republicans stand out as being disinclined to support a major role for elected officials or leaders from other nations in climate policy. Fewer in either party think climate scientists understand ways to address climate change. Much smaller shares of other groups see widespread consensus among climate scientists. Moderate or liberal Republicans and moderate or conservative Democrats fall in the middle between these two extremes in their level of trust.

Conservative Republicans are particularly skeptical about the factors influencing climate research. Not surprisingly, those who care a great deal about global climate change issues are more attentive to climate news. Those most concerned about climate issues come from all gender, age, education, race and ethnic groups. And, they are more likely to be Hispanic than the population as whole. Politically, those who care more deeply about climate issues tend to be Democrats.

People who say they care a great deal about this issue are far more likely to believe the Earth is warming because of human activities, to believe negative effects from climate change are likely, and that proposals to address climate change will be effective. This group also holds more positive views about climate scientists and their research, on average.

The area could get wetter, or drier. The duration of summer and winter could change. These variations occur—that is, climate changes—due to changes in the total energy within the Earth system and one of the ways this can happen is if the Earth warms. So, human-induced global warming where we attribute rising temperatures to CO2 emissions from human activities may be debatable, but climate change the changes in the climate of an area is not.

Because many parts of the world are experiencing it as we speak. I recently read two articles. One was on how sea ice is decreasing in the Arctics and the other was on how ice cover is increasing in Antarctica. People are confused as to how there could be reverse effects in the two polar regions.

And that throws them right of. Climate change never meant that temperatures must increase around the world. As the climate is controlled by various factors, climate change can cause places to get colder than normal also. Climate has multiple variables that affect each other constantly. Therefore, different regions of the world react differently to climate change. The phenomenon cannot be generalized for the globe. It requires constant and extensive scientific study and constructive debate; not brow-beating and flawed arguments.

Science, and scientists, are built to contradict. That is how science evolved into what it is today and that is how it will continue to grow in the future. It gives scientists the freedom to explore different options, conduct extensive studies and experiments before coming up with a final consensus even then, there will be skeptics. While that is very healthy in the scientific community, people outside do not understand that!

The in-fighting among scientists and complexity of nature can both be handled if scientists could do one thing well: communicate effectively. If they took out the time to explain what they were studying and explain it with simple language and relatable metaphors, there is no reason why people will not believe what they say! But if scientists sit in front of a camera with an expressionless face, drone on about facts and figures displayed behind them in a monotone with words that are too hi-fi for people to understand, people will naturally turn away.

Climate change has, unfortunately, taken on social and political meaning because the solutions to mitigate and adapt to climate change speak to different groups of individuals.

As a result, people base their opinions on climate change based on their social circle, the types of media they consume and the political ideologies they follow.

Climate change is no longer about facts or graphs, but it is about how you want the world to look like. This brings various biases into play. The media, our primary source of information, also loves short-cuts. They like a clear cause-effect relationship in their stories; otherwise they lose their audience. People panicked and began to evacuate. And as unlikely as it was, an earthquake struck the town on the very next morning.

For this, they were jailed with a charge of manslaughter! Many blamed the complete breakdown of communication as the cause for this injustice.