While nine out of 10 people surveyed in a recent Ipsos poll “believe that the climate has changed significantly in the past 20 years,” those polled in Japan, Britain and the U.S. had the highest rates of climate change skepticism. 
Commissioned by the AXA Group, an international insurance firm, agreement on whether climate change has been scientifically proven was the lowest in Japan at 58 percent, followed by Britain at 63 percent and the U.S. at 65 percent. Conversely, 95 percent of those polled in Indonesia agreed that climate change is scientifically proven. Hong Kong and Turkey also had relatively high rates of agreement at 89 and 86 percent, respectively. The results of the online poll, which surveyed 13,492 adults in 13 countries from July 5 to August 6, are similar to those of a smaller Angus Reid Public Opinion survey released earlier this year. The online Angus Reid poll found that climate change skepticism is higher in U.S. and Britain than Canada, with 21 percent of Americans and 22 percent of Brits responding that climate change is “a theory that has not yet been proven.” Both polls indicate that there are many in the U.S. who still don’t believe climate change is confirmed by science, but the numbers may be changing. Belief in climate change was on an upswing last year, with 83 percent of Americans agreeing that the world is warming, as compared to 75 percent in 2010, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. However, the results of the most recent Ipsos poll suggest skepticism in the U.S. has spiked, only 72 percent of Americans surveyed said the climate has changed significantly in the past 20 years. Despite the country’s wavering public opinion, 97 percent of American scientists and over a dozen national science academies acknowledge the reality of climate change, and the link between global warming and extreme weather is becoming more and more apparent.
The subject here is about science, not politics. Polls play little to no role in science. Climatology is about 20 years old as it relates here. In so far as to our knowledge of our only heat source, the Sun, we know very little as to all its ideosyncricies and how it and our orbits play out in terms of their various cycles, most of which involve thousands of years of interrelated impacts on our Earth climate with most of our weather being effected by our thermohaline ocean currents with a half cycle of 800 years.. The oceans, by the way, both produce and absorb most of our CO2 which is a minor, not major, greenhouse gas, and is considered to be plant food by knowledgable people, not pollution. Finally, you cannot have science that is either subjective, predetermined to support preexisting theories, or paid for by vested interests, such as enviromentalism in this case, as it relates to the IPCC. Regarding the latter, with their censorship of opposing theories contrary to anthropogenic warming, the idea that there is any real peer review effectively being applied here is nonsense. Add in to this the reliance on computer modeling and you have something approaching fraud, which lies at it’s origins with British PM Margarite Thatcher who first promoted it to enlist support for atomic power. The debate is so irrelevant to science and stupid in its scope of years rather than centuries, if not millenia, that it’s small wonder that it gets as much consideration here as it does.