Did you know that your version of Internet Explorer is out of date?
To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend downloading one of the browsers below.

Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

A group of children are suing the Obama administration over climate change, which Slate calls "next important civil rights struggle of the 21st century."A group of children are suing the Obama administration over climate change, which Slate calls "next important civil rights struggle of the 21st century."

America Contains the Most Climate Change Deniers

Like us on Facebook:
The current article you are reading does not reflect the views of the current editors and contributors of the new Ecorazzi

The Arctic ice caps are melting, global leaders are concerned and the United Nations have called for urgent action in regards to climate change but to Americans more than people from any other country, climate change is no biggie.

New research from Ipsos Mori, a polling company based in Britain, concluded that out of the 16,000 people surveyed across 20 countries around the world, Americans are the ones that still deny the impact of climate change the most.

When asked to agree or disagree with the statement, “The climate change we are currently seeing is largely the result of human activity,” 54 percent of Americans agreed. That’s more than half but the results are still meager compared to 80 percent in India and 93 percent in China.

The opposite question was also asked, seeing if people agreed or disagreed with the fact that climate change was a result of natural cycles. Only 35 percent of Americans disagreed with the statement, the lowest of all nations included in the study.

Among the questions participants were asked, was if they recycle. While in China 92 percent of people recycle as much as possible, in the United States 76 percent recycle only whenever possible and 18 percent throw recyclables in the garbage with the rest of the trash. Still, Russia was the one with the most awful numbers when it comes to recycling with a quarter of people not participating in any program.

Seriously? In how many more debates must Bill Nye The Science Guy and Neil DeGrasse Tyson participate to make the deniers believe, already?

Via Tech Times

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

Like us on Facebook:
  • Komit

    Why did the Bill Nye’s of this argument decide to change the global warming battle cry to climate change?
    This year’s winter Antarctic sea ice maximum extent, reached two weeks
    after the Arctic Ocean’s ice cap experienced an all-time summertime low,
    was a record high for the satellite era of 7.49 million square miles,
    about 193,000 square miles more than its average maximum extent for the
    last three decades.
    Thats from Nasa not the science guy.

    Im not convinced and heres why. The same people that were screaming the sky is falling in regards to ozone layer being destroyed by cfc’s. Well the scientists reformulated our refrigerants and the ozone layer is thicker than any time in recorded history. The problem with climate change is the retoric causes real money and job losses as a result of the hysteria. Continue to use coal while developing new sources like hydrogen. But stop barring things like the pipeline to bring oil down from Canada. Thats jobs and resources we need to stop sending money to people that want to kill us.

    • Mark Schantz

      You seem very I’ll informed by drawing a parallel for our CO2 emissions vs CFC, The ozone layer DID actually have a massive hole in it, however CFC’s were dated technology and were soon to be phased out anyway, CO2 being released into the atmosphere is an indefinite process which we increase to dangerous levels every day, and the collective decision made by every one is to do nothing.

      • Komit

        I appreciate your position but you are factually incorrect. CFC’s were not scheduled for replacement they were modified specifically as a result of the ozone depletion issue. Science dealt with that. What I’m saying is again this is a science issue. When the government gets involved it becomes political and real life people get harmed. The alarm raised was quickly shown to be unrealistic ergo climate change instead of global warming. This planet has been evolving for billions of years and global warming began after the ice age. Neither you nor I will see any significant impact resulting from man made pollutants. Understand in the formation of this planet while the earth was a huge ball of molten lava the sphere produced more “greenhouse gasses” in an hour than mankind has produced in its entire history. The earth is changing with or without our involvement. We should implement real world best practices and hope the rest of the world will follow. You have to understand that China might say man for man that we have an issue but their government will continue to use the cheapest fuel they can use to fuel their progress. What real impact will America have by diminishing our economic position because we place sanctions against our industry that the rest of the world ignores. Fossil fuels will be used until their is no other alternative but to move in a different direction. While I prefer the idea of using Hydrogen the second most abundant element in the universe we will need to build the infrastructure to transition into this new technology. The sky is falling element of society want humanity to believe that in not much more than 100 years mankind has tilted the planet into destruction. That is ego on a scale that can barely be comprehended.

    • Leslie Graham

      Dear oh dear – not that tired old “They changed the name” myth. Is that one still doing the rounds even now?!

      It’s just pure parrotted denierblog junk.

      For the nth time – global warming and climate change are two seperate
      The rise in global temperatures has caused changes to the climate.
      My 12 year old niece has no difficulty understanding that simple schoolgirl concept but apparently it is completely beyond the intelligence level of climate change deniers.

      And the term ‘climate change’ was in use long before the term ‘global warming’

      Gilbert Plass’ study ‘The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change’ was published in 1956 for example.


      It wasn’t until 1975 that Professor Wallace Smith Broecker coined the phrase “global warming” in a paper called “Climate Change: Are we on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

      Lawmakers and scientists have also used the term ‘climate change’ for
      decades. For example; in 1970, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a paper titled “Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change,” focusing on how emissions of carbon dioxide warm the atmosphere.


      But the most glaringly obvious example is the IPCC – founded in 1988.
      You do know what the CC stands for don’t you?


      What IS true however, is that US Republican political strategist Frank

      Luntz advised the Bush administration thusly;

      “It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ and ‘conservation’ instead of ‘preservation’.

      He goes on; “…’Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming’.

      As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge…”
      [From a leaked memo to G W Bush]

      So, if anyone, it was right-wing politicians in the US who led to the
      increased media use of the term ‘climate change’. Not that it makes the
      slightest difference to the fact that the globe has warmed and the climate has changed before our very eyes.

      So now you know you have been parroting a manufactured denierblog
      myth are you going to stop repeating it?
      We are all sick to death of the endless mindless repetition of thousand-
      times-falsified nonsense. Humanity just doesn’t have the time to humour crackpots any longer. The tide has turned – reality has long since proved you wrong.

      If you really can’t bring yourself to admit you have been duped, or to be of any help whatsoever, at least have the common decency and humility to STFU and get out of our way while we try to clean up your mess.

      • Komit

        Thats how the narrow minded make their argument. Take one little line out that you don’t like and whitewash the rest. Your argument is hollow. And your mindedness is shallow.

      • Komit

        I see you added a good deal more to your response wrap your mind around the concept that what you want to do will not be done. It would simply shut the world economy down. But before I go on- telling people to STFU is no way to have an honest debate but I guess coming from a man that calls his niece a simple school girl I shouldnt expect much more. Thats the problem with you eco minded if someone says something you dont like you resort to name calling and such. Everything I wrote before is accurate. When Carter hit the oil companies with a windfall profits tax deregulating the price of fuel and causing gas rationing he fed the money it generated back as tax refunds. He could have used the money to direct our efforts into energy research so leave bush out of it as I stated politics only hurts this issue. The EPA does nothing more than shakle american industry tilting the advantage to china and every other country that talks the talk but continues to use fossil fuels. A russian energy group bought controlling interests in a major coal mine in west virgina why? Because they can mine it and ship and still be profitable. But we cant use it because of poeple like you. Our industry is saddled with regulations that Russia uses for its gain and the coal still gets burned just like our economy. If you cant understand that then theres no reasoning with you. I would say your the one who’s been duped by the eco warriors that would prefer to see a global financial melt down. I respect your opinion but I also know that without any doubt we will still be using fossil fuels when you and I are long dead. And that sir is why this conversation is redundant…


    With our independance comes a dash of skepticism. We have the privilege to question. Like Missouri, the “Show Me State”. Whatever the definition, we want proof. Hear say is passe…

    • Mark Aaron

      proof is in the pudding (science/data) http://climate.nasa.gov/

    • Mark Aaron

      climate dot nasa dot gov .. therein lies is the pudding (data)

  • Leslie Graham

    No surprises there. I’ve liked almost all of the several hundred Americans I’ve met over the years but I have to admit they are so easily duped it’s tragic.
    And he might have been having me on but someone told me recently that some schools in the US want to start teaching creationism in the classroom!!
    Only in America.

    • Komit

      Well id say any nation that has a catholic school in it teaches creation. So out of those several hundred how many were easily duped and what methods did you employ to come to that asinine assertion. I don’t believe being eaisily duped is a serious enough malady to be labeled “tragic”. Having me on I’d guess you to be a steak pie eating limey. If true I can’t recall in history the US needing the UK to save us.

What About Zero Waste?

Going vegan must be at the heart of any environmental discussion.

Why it doesn’t matter if the Impossible burger is healthy

The Impossible burger doesn’t need to be overtly healthy – it just needs to be vegan.

France’s ban of faux-meat branding won’t stop veganism

I’ll take “mycoproteinous food tube” over a tube of dead pig any day.