Conflating feelings and facts for Climate Change

16 yr old Climate Change activist Greta Thunberg scolds UN

At the moment US media and social media are obsessed with 16 yr. old Swedish national #GretaThunberg. The high school student caught international media attention for imitating medieval sailors sailing the Atlantic Ocean. All for the cause of Global Warming/Climate Change. More recently she is being hailed by the Far Left ecological fringe for her scolding of her elders in a US tour.

These proponents of Climate Change are inseparably dependent on feelings to support their views. This is because it is a indisputable fact that every scientific model for the climate since the 1960’s has failed to be proven correct. There has been no global famine, no global ice age, no flooding of coasts across the world. Therefore it is as credible as the theories that Earth was the center of the universe – popular and accepted as truth with no data to support it.

YouGov poll

Reinforcing the concept of feelings as fact, timed in release to match Greta’s media blitz, a new poll was released. Though it was conducted in July, it largely supports the claims made by Greta and Democrat Socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The poll was released by YouGov, and cites 28 countries and regions opinions on Climate Change. This poll, and YouGov, deserve greater attention.

YouGov was created in 2000. They are a market research company focused on online data collection with offices in 22 countries. It boasts some 2000 political, cultural, and commercial clients – though none of the names of the clients are noted in its website. We note that one of the divisions of the company, YouGov Blue, is dedicated to research and analytics specifically for Democrats and Progressives. No similar division exists to provide the same services for Republicans and Conservatives.

Global feelings agree 

The report, released September 15, 2019 on the feelings of respondents about the impact of Climate Change, is curious. They include 1 city – Hong Kong. It includes 6 countries which are noted as having such low online representation as to eliminate any consideration of the general public in the findings of the poll.

All of the surveys were conducted online,and in some countries the internet penetration is low to the point where the sample can only be said to be representative to the online population. The countries where the online population is lower than 60% of the total are China,Thailand, Vietnam, Egypt, India and Indonesia.”

If we are to look at the poll with fairness, all 6 countries and Hong Kong should be eliminated from the results. In addition, the wording of the conclusions made by the poll are suspect. The data does not present the singular and universal image that YouGov seems to portray.

“Acknowledgement of mankind’s role in the changing climate is widespread”


57.1% of the countries and regions polled reject man-made Climate Change

The poll states that the results show a consensus in man-made climate change. It asserts that 71% of countries and regions agree.But that’s not exactly correct.

Again, 7 of the 28 areas in the survey need to be rejected wholesale. Of the remaining 21 Countries and regions, 12 have respondents (less than 50% – with 1 nation being exactly at 50% and not counted) that believe humanity has cause climate changes. So 57.1% of the countries and regions polled reject this concept.

In addition, 0% of all the poll had a majority believing that human life contributes to climate changes. Only 9 of 21 had respondents significant (40% but less than 50%) that felt man-made factors contribute to the issue. In Sweden, the home of Greta, 35% agree with her feeling of human cause with 48%finding people as partially a factor. The US, home of AOC, 38% agree with the extremist view, and 37% feel there is some impact from human life.

“Most expect climate change to have a large or moderate impact on their lives”

The report then goes on to say that most of the countries and regions feel there will be a major impact due to climate change. But the data shows only 9 of the 28 respondents (32.1%) have majorities that feel there is a great impact potential – with number going to 5 of 21 with the prior stated correction (23.8%).

Of course the question of what someone feels equates to”great” or “fair” impact on human life is about as vague as any question could be asked. In the US 45% also felt there is little or no potential impact. Looking at Sweden 51% felt there could be little or no impact from climate change.

Ask not what your country can do for you… but what can you and your country both do for climate change”

For all but 3 countries (Finland, Norway, and Sweden) the respondents felt the priority was government to take action in favor of climate change prevention, rather than their individual actions. This is telling, as YouGov did not provide any data on who responded to their poll survey. Looking at the examples of Greta and AOC, which are representative of many of the individuals featured in social media discussion of the issue, online respondents tend to be skewed.

What can be concluded?

Suffice to say, there are serious questions here. YouGov has a questionable motivation in this issue. Why was the poll delayed? Given the partisan lean of their business, their credibility on the issue is unclear. How old are the respondents? What education levels do they have? Was this a poll responded to by high school and college students like Greta and AOC? Was it older members of society? Business owners, and of what businesses? The questions continue and are too numerous to note.

Just like Greta and AOC, YouGov insists there is a consensus on Climate Change. All substantiate this via a theory that has no proof and feelings. Those feelings have been documented by many and most recently YouGov- without providing their motivation as a company nor the details of who was polled. The messaging from Greta and YouGov is highly emotional, and evocative of a conclusion they like.

Is improving the ecology of the world a good cause? Yes. Is Climate Change policy therefore real, credible, and the only solution? No.

Emotional pleas, made by children and freshmen members of Congress, backed by questionable organizations does not change that. Confusing feelings and desires with science does not affect this. Data measuring the feelings of an unknown selection of online populations is not scientific nor proof.

About the Author

Michael Vass
Born in 1968, a political commentator for over a decade. Has traveled the U.S. and lived in Moscow and Tsblisi, A former stockbroker and 2014 Congressional candidate. Passionate about politics with emphasis on 1st and 2nd Amendments.

Be the first to comment on "Conflating feelings and facts for Climate Change"

Thank you for lending your voice. We appreciate hearing what you have to say.

%d bloggers like this: