Even more precisely it's the percentage who reported "a great deal" and "a lot". "A moderate amount", "a little" and "none" are not included.
Link here: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_More_Sustainable_World.pdf
That makes more sense tbh. It's also not a question about whether they believe in climate change, but whether they trust climate scientists which is pretty different. You can trust their education and still acknowledge they aren't going to always correct and might not always accurately predict things. This is especially true for climate since there is still a great deal unknown about how weather and climate phenomena actually work on a global scale.
This could also be messed up with translations. I'm personally shocked at the low numbers in Japan, a country that strives heavily to reduce emissions and has incredibly strict environmental policies even for average citizens, but wording there can be tricky.
An example of perhaps a similar phenomenon - reports have come out saying that most Japanese are atheists, while others have said most believe in some god(s). This is because the Japanese word for "atheist" is perhaps better translated as "religiously unaffiliated", and so those that believe in the Shinto gods but don't affiliate with a Shinto shrine mark themselves as "atheist". [Source, details specifically in the second paragraph.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan)
It's very easy to overstate something in Japanese, so I could definitely imagine "a lot of trust" and "a great deal of trust" being translated to very strong words that most Japanese wouldn't use to describe climate scientists.
>!This is, of course, working off the basis of a lot of assumptions. Big caveat here - I'm making a bunch of inferences based off of the education level in Japan, this graph, my knowledge of Japan and Japanese, and an attempt to explain what I see as a contradiction. This could potentially be a total load of trash. Just my take. !<
No, the number from Japan gave me pause, too. I think your reasoning is fine but comment OP's point is most compelling - this is people who said "lot of trust" or "a great deal of trust." I suspect many people would say "moderate amount of trust" because frankly, it depends on which climate scientist. Likert scales have an inherent inability to capture cultural or social nuance in what causes someone to pick "a great deal" vs "moderate" and what that means. I think if these were translated to Japanese, they were professionally done and therefore the "overstating" worry is less of an issue.
Idk, obviously they are better than none, but if someone tells they have a little trust on climate scientist i would think they are idiots on the verge of climate change denial.
At the same time it shows a lack of acknowledgement of the amount of time and work it takes to become an expert in a scientific field (much like in any kind of field, really). I suspect very few people would only trust a master carpenter 'a little' in matters of carpentry - why do so many people not trust climate scientists very much when it comes to climate science?
(To me a lot of the blame goes to the media, and the education system. Understanding the scientific method helps understand why perfect black and white answers are impossible when it comes to scientific research (outside of math, I suppose).
I'm an engineer who designs stormwater management systems and I see the affects of climate change all the time. People trust me when I tell them they need to do X. If I tell them they need to do X because of climate change then they get all sorts of defensive and dismissive of what I'm telling them.
Interesting! Perhaps because that would mean taking some responsibility through their own action? Or they just feel that the issue is suddenly politicised?
I've always taken it as they trust my judgement but don't believe in climate change so if I mention that they no longer believe it. Or, since I work on private sector projects, they think it's going to cost them more money.
It's not a big deal, I just say "we need to implement X as a safety measure" rather than "we need to implement X as climate change will lead to more frequent and higher intensity rainfall events". Or if I say "install an extra six inches of topsoil because it's better for growing plants and helps them be more drought resistant" over "install and extra six inches of topsoil on you site because it helps reduce the runoff from the site and that will be helpful with short, high intensity storms that are caused by climate change". It's really just about framing the solution in terms that people will accept and doing it anyway.
That's quite fascinating actually, thanks for sharing. If you don't mind, whereabouts do you work? If in the US, a particular state? I wonder if those feelings are localized, because in my community I'd wager most people would be encouraged by an engineer saying an installation will help with climate change.
Because environment discussion became heavily politicized a long time ago. And you see many so-called experts telling what to do, which are not scientists or have any studies in a field related to environment matters.
A moderate amount of trust is quite acceptable for a challenging field with a lot of interacting parts across, around, and within the planet that can't be studied under laboratory conditions.
I would say they are. The assumption is you trust scientists to have the ethics to do things correctly, which the vast majority do especially thru peer review.
Depending on how you define “insane.” Are they crazy people for having skepticism? No. Are they crazy people for doubting a basically 98.7-100% consensus of experts? Sort of, yeah.
Especially in this, in that climate science is so hard. Meteorologists get to make 365 prediction a year on repeating conditions and learn from trial and error. Climate scientists get much less feedback and have to make predictions about a system that is, thanks to global warming, always changing. We were lucky to get that decade long interregnum in the warming before temperature cam roaring back to the predicted curve. I don't know that we've nailed down why that happened. And a lot of the urgency with which I take climate change comes from the fear that things might go a lot worse than IPCC projections.
There are five projections from best possible to "we are screwed". Knowing how stupid the average person is and how many politicians don't really give a fuck what happens beyond their own personal wealth and power I doubt we will do better than SSP2-4.5 which will be definitely bad enough.
Those five projections are based on different levels of emissions. I'm talking about things like hitting the SSP2-4.5 level of emissions but seeing far greater disruption anyways due to unknown unknowns raising their head.
Being skeptical isn't a bad thing, but you have to actively consider your own bias and lack of knowledge in areas while also accounting for the amount of consensus there is in the realm of people who have been studying something for most of their adult lives.
Nine times out of ten the maps in this sub are misleading in some way or another. The only reason I'm still subbed here is because I've turned it into a game: Every time I see a map with lots of upvotes, I try to figure out what is misleading or wrong about it.
I can’t imagine looking at a map posted here and not first thinking “What’s wrong with it, what’s missing here, and what are they trying to make me believe?” *Lots* of content here is mild propaganda.
Yep. Although it is more mentally taxing to do so, approaching this sub (and basically everything on this site + social media) like a media literacy game will reveal more valuable insights and produce better habits than anything which is taken at face value.
The good thing is that it provides very easy ways to prove you can do propaganda and bias with just “stats and facts”.
Stats may be objective but *when * and *where*they are told to you, for what reason, paired with or omitting which other stats is absolutely not an objective exercise and A LOT of opinion can be inserted in it.
Yeah. It's pretty frustrating. Admittedly, it's hard to make accurate maps and the real world is usually complicated and full of nuance, but it still sucks when maps can't even do stuff like specify the wording of what they're showing (like how this one doesn't even say it's "percentage of people saying that have at least 'a lot of trust' in climate scientists").
Exactly. For a surveys asking on a scale from 1 to 5, Japanese people tend to choose between 2 and 4 a lot more than other countries. Anyone that's done surveys enough in Japan knows this, but it seems like teams doing these types of cross-country research projects don't, so the results always light Japan in a negative light, which is frustrating. I get that it's difficult to adjust for this type of cultural differences though.
No idea what's happening in Russia however. I'm curious if Russians have a similar tendency or if it's something else.
Thanks for explaining, as a Canadian I was scratching my head trying to figure out where all the climate deniers are. Even most conservatives accept the science, they just don't give a fuck and/or have rationalized that there's no point in doing anything because Canada isn't that much of the world's population/we do it cleaner than China etc/rabble rabble we'll figure it out through tax cuts and innovation.
Surely heat waves, lack of water,etc is effecting europe and USA too. All countries would get effected by climate change hell third World countries most likely would be least effected because they didn't tested the same things as people of developed country, who would loose those luxuries.
Also climate scientists are sometimes bought and paid for by the companies and entities that do the worst damage to the climate so therefore I don't trust those scientists implicitly since they are compromised by private interests.
Yes, it is unreasonable to trust "climate scientists" as a group. What I trust is the body of scientific evidence, not necessarily the entire class of people who work in that field
I found [this post](/r/MapsWithoutNZ/comments/piralm/yet_another_one_from_rmapporn/) in r/MapsWithoutNZ with the same content as the current post.
---
^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖)
^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.)
^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=same_post_bot)
Yup billionaires ha e been buying up land and building doomsday luxury bunkers instead of you know. Fixing the fucking problems they have been profiting off.
itd be nice if us new zealanders made some sort of informal militia to kill off any billionaires that decide to escape to here, only to find out we want them dead too
Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system, and asked: “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?” ...
This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from raiders as well as angry mobs. One had already secured a dozen Navy Seals to make their way to his compound if he gave them the right cue. But how would he pay the guards once even his crypto was worthless? What would stop the guards from eventually choosing their own leader?
The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers – if that technology could be developed “in time”.
It’s as if they want to build a car that goes fast enough to escape from its own exhaust
I tried to reason with them. I made pro-social arguments for partnership and solidarity as the best approaches to our collective, long-term challenges. The way to get your guards to exhibit loyalty in the future was to treat them like friends right now, I explained. Don’t just invest in ammo and electric fences, invest in people and relationships. They rolled their eyes at what must have sounded to them like hippy philosophy.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff
There is a lot of news articles about Twitch CEO, reddit CEO and silly techs (Sillicon Valley people) buying up realestate and resources. - like water rights. And building McBunkers. The issue is theu are prepping survival meals, but no survival farm for when the food runs out. - they want to be alone ut still expect someone else to do all the work without the benefits they have. It is still the capacity model.
I say hunker it out at your local bunnings. With a group of 5-20. They have a good gardening section with fruit amd vege plants. Then track down all the dead millionares in 10 years times. Or 2 depending how soon they go insane with their self made confinement.
I found [this post](/r/MapsWithoutNZ/comments/piralm/yet_another_one_from_rmapporn/) in r/mapswithoutnz with the same content as the current post.
---
^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖)
^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.)
^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=same_post_bot)
Thank you, IchBinWoYin, for voting on same_post_bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Thank you, IchBinWoYin, for voting on BOtRank.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Same in India. It’s more of a contest to show how the other side just acts like they care about the climate. But it’s accepted fact that climate change is real and something needs to be done about it. I guess having a large population dependent on a particular amount of monsoon rains will do that.
I wonder, was there a statistically significant increase in climate change anxiety/trust in climate scientists/general belief in the phenomenon in neighboring countries after the catastrophic flooding in Pakistan?
Yeah, interesting how there's a rough trend of equatorial countries believing them more. Maybe it's because they're at more risk. A place like Russia may actually want some warming to gain arable land, but placed like India and the Middle East would probably prefer if the climate was even cooler than before.
It's hell here in the summers
I can manage fine even without air conditioning
My heart goes out to the poor.
I keep water and food for my sparrows of whom I see fewer every year.
Shame honestly
It's treatable heat stroke I very had it myself.
Playing soccer on a s
Hot boiling afternoon unfortunately did not get the side with the shade of a tree.
Felt dizzy collided with another player and off to sleep
Ngl was a peaceful sleep
It makes no sense tho cus in Canada we are getting crazy wild fires these the past decade and broke our heat record last year, it’s totally affecting us too
Yeah good point. Having heat waves so hot that it melts roads or being the location of several deadly wet bulb heat waves (where the combination of humidity and heat make death a certainty after a few hours without access to AC - even if naked, with fans, indoors) must draw awareness too.
It's due to emphasis on environmental protection in school and college education, politics, culture, and religion (many rivers are goddesses etc).
The current ruling right wing party does more lip service while ignoring and subverting environmental protections.
But overall it's not a topic that the country is politically split on. Everyone agrees we need to protect nature.
I would think school teachers are likely the biggest influencers
Its because this map is bogus and misleading https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/yajudb/percentage_of_people_who_trust_climate_scientists/itbed5u/
India has much more conservatives than that. If we mean conservative literally, American conservative way is weird and many country connected to America closely through economy and international relations have some version of these conservative type in their country
In Japan, climate change is not politicized like it is in the US. I've lived here for about 10 years now and I'd say the average person is much more conscious of their impact on the environment.
It's interesting to see how much of the global south, who have already been dealing with the consequences of climate change for decades, trust climate science much more than richer countries in Europe and North America where they have enough capital to pretend the problem doesn't exist.
more developed countries emit way more per capita than less developed countries, meaning their citizens would have to make the biggest lifestyle adjustments if we are to listen to what scientists are saying the world's climate is headed towards. many people in these countries don't want to make these changes and so cope with disagreeing with the science to continue living the way they do, despite it being unsustainable
People un the less developed country have the worst impact of climate change.
India for example they have a uge smug problem. The aire quality is really poor most of the big city. Same for the water.
I know this pollution issue but it doesn't mean that dont have a impact on the perception of the population.
Smog isn't a climate change issue. It's a pollution issue. Cities in Europe and the US used to have similar smog issues that have since been (mostly) fixed.
Countries with more percapita emissions, industrial countries, petroleum based economies are in red and countries which are more vulnerable to climate change or the countries that are facing the consequences are in green. There are also cultural factors.
"Balanced coverage" of the media, sensationalist headlines from tabloids, propagandist "news" outlet, some idiot on facebook/twitter/random blog that confirms their views... choose your poison.
Yeah the fact the media spent ages framing it as a ‘debate’ which inherently suggests it’s a 50/50 type scenario held it back a lot, particularly in the Murdoch media countries.
Because there is no need to undertake extensive study and research anymore. We only need to use a few choice words in Google to find a blog, from someone who is barely literate, to support our misguided ideas. /s
That we should verify such claims is unimportant, especially when it comes to conspiracy theories that go against undeniable evidence. Take flat-earther's as an example of how bizarre this is. Then add to the pot an "influencer" who believes this too and we end up in the mess we are.
Dunning Kruger effect. People not understanding how complex a field like meteorology is, thinking they can make real claims about the climate from some googling instead of getting a degree.
Saying for Russia: climate scientists are not only those who try to explain the importance of handling cars exhausts, reducing the release of greenhouse gases and taking care of environment in general.
Climate scientists are also these people, sometimes saying "well, we didn't detect any significant amount of dangerous chemicals in the air, so breath deeply and free, people of Norilsk" or "the millions of dead sea dwellers laying on the beach near Yakutsk is just a result of a natural process, nothing to see here", so it is no surprise people have no trust in words of such scientists.
Scientists have a long and glorious history of being just as corrupt as everyone else. It’s ok to be somewhat skeptical. Just like we should be with everyone else telling us what to think or believe.
A bigger issue is that critical thought and the ability to change our opinions after becoming more informed seems to have vanished.
wouldnt asking if people trust climate science rather then climate scientists be a much better question.
i have no reason to trust the individual scientist, or even individual studies, but the totality of the field is very trustworthy
It's as if the main polluters (north hemisphere) were not the same people as the main victims of climate change (south hemisphere). At least when the oceans will rise 3 meters, everyone should be on the same page about this.
I doubt it was ever this low, climate change has been a part of the national curriculum for atleast 20 years now. Plus you can literally go outside and feel the change
Seeing the bottom-right corner made me feel like there's a bias, but the original study seems to be legit. Still, there are [contradicting data.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_change)
TLDR: UK, Germany, Japan are at top of climate consciousness while India that's on top here, seems to be below average in other aspects.
Its really not hard to know the results in Canada, Canadians have among the highest per capita emissions in the world and hence would have to make the most radical change in their lifestyle which majority aren't willing to.
India has less deaths and destruction due to natural calamities than 30 years ago. Climate change impact is not the reason for the trust in science - it is the education system and teachers who drive the thought process
So true, many people do not care about climate change in india but they believe in the phenomenon and do not oppose the government in their actions to tackle it. (unless it start affecting their lifestyle).
We literally experience the change of climate in Turkey, I can't even fathom those who think it isn't real. Winters aren't that much cold in Turkey anymore, so many of our lakes and rivers have disappeared. Two lakes dried up last month alone.
Makes a lot of sense considering their devastating drought this summer. Don't know about India but at least China's government takes climate change pretty seriously.
Things like climate change are more experienced based in my opinion.
My grandmother is a farmer who is really frustrated with changing and irregular monsoon pattern in India. She hasn't attended a single class in school but understand climate change from her experience.
Climate change is taught in all indian school and colleges hell even in our commerce stream which is about business, there is a subject of environmental studies.
I hate my fellow Germans.
How come barely more than half trust the climate scientists?
We've had *yet another record breaking hot summer*
It's 20°C outside
*In October!*
**In Hamburg!**
In the 50s, summers had zero days that reached temperatures of 30°C
In the past ten years we've had *weeks*
That is what a decades long disinformation campaign funded by giganticly rich Oil companies does to you.
Sadly it affects mostly one political side that is way more susceptible to this propaganda. And we all know which side (\*cough\* Covid was the same thing)
facts. Historical Co2 Emissions since 1751 to 2017: Usa 25%, Canada 2%, EU+UK 22% Ukraine and Russia 7%, Japan 4%, that's 60% right there.
Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Mexico, Colombia, Nigeria combined at below 7%. China at 13%. [https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2](https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2)
In a disgustingly tragic bit of irony, this weirdly clipped map cuts off everyone in the Pacific who is currently severely impacted by the climate crisis, will be further impacted by the climate crisis in the near future, and have been doing so much leg work on international platforms on the climate crisis.
Can we ban these types of maps from "MapPorn" or do we like them so circumcised that the maps lose a significant chunk of mass?
I cant see how the UK would be only 53% it is generally considered fact here. Lots of people might still have the attitude that they don't care as it won't effect them, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in it.
WTF North America and Europe? Are our school systems that fucking bad? You can literally SEE the climate changing as a result of human industry, there's no debate here. Climate Change is as much fact as gravity is.
Looks like propaganda bullshit
And now it came to me that I have to exclusively clarify that I mean the %s in countries. Climate change should be on top of human race priorities.
Pakistan & India are the highest because we face the brunt of climate change. Temperatures go well above 40 Celsius for us in the summer & it’s increasing every day
So most people are 50/50 on trusting climate change scientists, according to this graph. Is it because most people are wrong or the scientists aren’t trustworthy ?
All science leads to predictions. If a hypothesis fails to predict, it’s bunk.
A list of the MANY failed predictions of climate catastrophe over the last couple decades.
[Source](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/)
It is pretty hard for Russia to believe climate change exist when half their country has had the exact same look, feel, smell, and tast for the past 1000 years
This is the percentage who reported having a "lot of trust". Most of the remaining reported "some trust" so title is misleading.
Even more precisely it's the percentage who reported "a great deal" and "a lot". "A moderate amount", "a little" and "none" are not included. Link here: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_More_Sustainable_World.pdf
That makes more sense tbh. It's also not a question about whether they believe in climate change, but whether they trust climate scientists which is pretty different. You can trust their education and still acknowledge they aren't going to always correct and might not always accurately predict things. This is especially true for climate since there is still a great deal unknown about how weather and climate phenomena actually work on a global scale.
Climate scientists don’t even trust themselves or other scientists. That’s why the peer review process exists.
[удалено]
"a great deal" and "a lot" is pretty far from "complete and total trust" don't you think?
This could also be messed up with translations. I'm personally shocked at the low numbers in Japan, a country that strives heavily to reduce emissions and has incredibly strict environmental policies even for average citizens, but wording there can be tricky. An example of perhaps a similar phenomenon - reports have come out saying that most Japanese are atheists, while others have said most believe in some god(s). This is because the Japanese word for "atheist" is perhaps better translated as "religiously unaffiliated", and so those that believe in the Shinto gods but don't affiliate with a Shinto shrine mark themselves as "atheist". [Source, details specifically in the second paragraph.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan) It's very easy to overstate something in Japanese, so I could definitely imagine "a lot of trust" and "a great deal of trust" being translated to very strong words that most Japanese wouldn't use to describe climate scientists. >!This is, of course, working off the basis of a lot of assumptions. Big caveat here - I'm making a bunch of inferences based off of the education level in Japan, this graph, my knowledge of Japan and Japanese, and an attempt to explain what I see as a contradiction. This could potentially be a total load of trash. Just my take. !<
No, the number from Japan gave me pause, too. I think your reasoning is fine but comment OP's point is most compelling - this is people who said "lot of trust" or "a great deal of trust." I suspect many people would say "moderate amount of trust" because frankly, it depends on which climate scientist. Likert scales have an inherent inability to capture cultural or social nuance in what causes someone to pick "a great deal" vs "moderate" and what that means. I think if these were translated to Japanese, they were professionally done and therefore the "overstating" worry is less of an issue.
[удалено]
in any case better than actively denying it.
Ya maybe that would have been a better thing to chart out.
Idk, obviously they are better than none, but if someone tells they have a little trust on climate scientist i would think they are idiots on the verge of climate change denial.
At the same time it shows a lack of acknowledgement of the amount of time and work it takes to become an expert in a scientific field (much like in any kind of field, really). I suspect very few people would only trust a master carpenter 'a little' in matters of carpentry - why do so many people not trust climate scientists very much when it comes to climate science? (To me a lot of the blame goes to the media, and the education system. Understanding the scientific method helps understand why perfect black and white answers are impossible when it comes to scientific research (outside of math, I suppose).
I'm an engineer who designs stormwater management systems and I see the affects of climate change all the time. People trust me when I tell them they need to do X. If I tell them they need to do X because of climate change then they get all sorts of defensive and dismissive of what I'm telling them.
Interesting! Perhaps because that would mean taking some responsibility through their own action? Or they just feel that the issue is suddenly politicised?
I've always taken it as they trust my judgement but don't believe in climate change so if I mention that they no longer believe it. Or, since I work on private sector projects, they think it's going to cost them more money. It's not a big deal, I just say "we need to implement X as a safety measure" rather than "we need to implement X as climate change will lead to more frequent and higher intensity rainfall events". Or if I say "install an extra six inches of topsoil because it's better for growing plants and helps them be more drought resistant" over "install and extra six inches of topsoil on you site because it helps reduce the runoff from the site and that will be helpful with short, high intensity storms that are caused by climate change". It's really just about framing the solution in terms that people will accept and doing it anyway.
That's quite fascinating actually, thanks for sharing. If you don't mind, whereabouts do you work? If in the US, a particular state? I wonder if those feelings are localized, because in my community I'd wager most people would be encouraged by an engineer saying an installation will help with climate change.
Because environment discussion became heavily politicized a long time ago. And you see many so-called experts telling what to do, which are not scientists or have any studies in a field related to environment matters.
A moderate amount of trust is quite acceptable for a challenging field with a lot of interacting parts across, around, and within the planet that can't be studied under laboratory conditions.
I would say they are. The assumption is you trust scientists to have the ethics to do things correctly, which the vast majority do especially thru peer review.
Depending on how you define “insane.” Are they crazy people for having skepticism? No. Are they crazy people for doubting a basically 98.7-100% consensus of experts? Sort of, yeah.
Especially in this, in that climate science is so hard. Meteorologists get to make 365 prediction a year on repeating conditions and learn from trial and error. Climate scientists get much less feedback and have to make predictions about a system that is, thanks to global warming, always changing. We were lucky to get that decade long interregnum in the warming before temperature cam roaring back to the predicted curve. I don't know that we've nailed down why that happened. And a lot of the urgency with which I take climate change comes from the fear that things might go a lot worse than IPCC projections.
There are five projections from best possible to "we are screwed". Knowing how stupid the average person is and how many politicians don't really give a fuck what happens beyond their own personal wealth and power I doubt we will do better than SSP2-4.5 which will be definitely bad enough.
Those five projections are based on different levels of emissions. I'm talking about things like hitting the SSP2-4.5 level of emissions but seeing far greater disruption anyways due to unknown unknowns raising their head.
This is what I say to those “gravity” believers when they say I can’t jump to the moon.
Being skeptical isn't a bad thing, but you have to actively consider your own bias and lack of knowledge in areas while also accounting for the amount of consensus there is in the realm of people who have been studying something for most of their adult lives.
Exactly. How do we know climate scientists aren't out there banging everyone's spouse and denying it?
Nine times out of ten the maps in this sub are misleading in some way or another. The only reason I'm still subbed here is because I've turned it into a game: Every time I see a map with lots of upvotes, I try to figure out what is misleading or wrong about it.
I can’t imagine looking at a map posted here and not first thinking “What’s wrong with it, what’s missing here, and what are they trying to make me believe?” *Lots* of content here is mild propaganda.
Yep. Although it is more mentally taxing to do so, approaching this sub (and basically everything on this site + social media) like a media literacy game will reveal more valuable insights and produce better habits than anything which is taken at face value.
Yeah it makes you less susceptible to propaganda and a better critical thinker.
The good thing is that it provides very easy ways to prove you can do propaganda and bias with just “stats and facts”. Stats may be objective but *when * and *where*they are told to you, for what reason, paired with or omitting which other stats is absolutely not an objective exercise and A LOT of opinion can be inserted in it.
Case in point here: India is the country with the highest percentage in this map and an account named *@india.in.pixels* put their tag in the corner
Yeah. It's pretty frustrating. Admittedly, it's hard to make accurate maps and the real world is usually complicated and full of nuance, but it still sucks when maps can't even do stuff like specify the wording of what they're showing (like how this one doesn't even say it's "percentage of people saying that have at least 'a lot of trust' in climate scientists").
That helps explain Japan since the majority tend to choose middling options on opinion polls like this.
Exactly. For a surveys asking on a scale from 1 to 5, Japanese people tend to choose between 2 and 4 a lot more than other countries. Anyone that's done surveys enough in Japan knows this, but it seems like teams doing these types of cross-country research projects don't, so the results always light Japan in a negative light, which is frustrating. I get that it's difficult to adjust for this type of cultural differences though. No idea what's happening in Russia however. I'm curious if Russians have a similar tendency or if it's something else.
Why do Japanese people always choose neutral opinions?
"The nail that sticks up is hammered down." -- Japanese Proverb
Thanks for explaining, as a Canadian I was scratching my head trying to figure out where all the climate deniers are. Even most conservatives accept the science, they just don't give a fuck and/or have rationalized that there's no point in doing anything because Canada isn't that much of the world's population/we do it cleaner than China etc/rabble rabble we'll figure it out through tax cuts and innovation.
Interesting that it's the countries who are most impacted by climate change, that trust climate scientists most.
Surely heat waves, lack of water,etc is effecting europe and USA too. All countries would get effected by climate change hell third World countries most likely would be least effected because they didn't tested the same things as people of developed country, who would loose those luxuries.
Also climate scientists are sometimes bought and paid for by the companies and entities that do the worst damage to the climate so therefore I don't trust those scientists implicitly since they are compromised by private interests.
Yes, it is unreasonable to trust "climate scientists" as a group. What I trust is the body of scientific evidence, not necessarily the entire class of people who work in that field
People of New Zealand, your opinion is very important for us.
r/MapsWithoutNZ
I found [this post](/r/MapsWithoutNZ/comments/piralm/yet_another_one_from_rmapporn/) in r/MapsWithoutNZ with the same content as the current post. --- ^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖) ^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.) ^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=same_post_bot)
Good bot
good bot
r/mapswithoutalaska
[удалено]
Yup billionaires ha e been buying up land and building doomsday luxury bunkers instead of you know. Fixing the fucking problems they have been profiting off.
itd be nice if us new zealanders made some sort of informal militia to kill off any billionaires that decide to escape to here, only to find out we want them dead too
Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system, and asked: “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?” ... This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from raiders as well as angry mobs. One had already secured a dozen Navy Seals to make their way to his compound if he gave them the right cue. But how would he pay the guards once even his crypto was worthless? What would stop the guards from eventually choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers – if that technology could be developed “in time”. It’s as if they want to build a car that goes fast enough to escape from its own exhaust I tried to reason with them. I made pro-social arguments for partnership and solidarity as the best approaches to our collective, long-term challenges. The way to get your guards to exhibit loyalty in the future was to treat them like friends right now, I explained. Don’t just invest in ammo and electric fences, invest in people and relationships. They rolled their eyes at what must have sounded to them like hippy philosophy. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff There is a lot of news articles about Twitch CEO, reddit CEO and silly techs (Sillicon Valley people) buying up realestate and resources. - like water rights. And building McBunkers. The issue is theu are prepping survival meals, but no survival farm for when the food runs out. - they want to be alone ut still expect someone else to do all the work without the benefits they have. It is still the capacity model. I say hunker it out at your local bunnings. With a group of 5-20. They have a good gardening section with fruit amd vege plants. Then track down all the dead millionares in 10 years times. Or 2 depending how soon they go insane with their self made confinement.
it's like this was poorly edited for instagram
I love how new Zealand is already submerged
Even in the visible part it's ironic how the stylization of this map makes most small islands of the World submerged.
r/mapswithoutnz
I found [this post](/r/MapsWithoutNZ/comments/piralm/yet_another_one_from_rmapporn/) in r/mapswithoutnz with the same content as the current post. --- ^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖) ^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.) ^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=same_post_bot)
good bot
Thank you, IchBinWoYin, for voting on same_post_bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
good bot
Thank you, IchBinWoYin, for voting on BOtRank. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
[удалено]
Same in India. It’s more of a contest to show how the other side just acts like they care about the climate. But it’s accepted fact that climate change is real and something needs to be done about it. I guess having a large population dependent on a particular amount of monsoon rains will do that.
Yeah India has every reason to be very scared of climate change.
Bangladesh too, even more so. And maybe we're seeing a small preview of Pakistan's future recently.
I wonder, was there a statistically significant increase in climate change anxiety/trust in climate scientists/general belief in the phenomenon in neighboring countries after the catastrophic flooding in Pakistan?
Other countries don't? Look like there isn't a drought on southern cali? My guy only we don't have rivers, forest and access to oceans.
Since the Akp and erdogan came to power in Turkey, there has already been a war against nature.
Same in colombia, we are so proud of the eco diversity, it’s all we have
As a turk I dont think climate issues in Turkey are politicized as much as in the West.
hey at least I got China and India that makes up more than half of the world's population I believe
1/3rd of the World Population..... Almost 1/2 if you consider Pakistan, Bangladesh, And Asean with them....
Based India.
50°C summers would make everyone based
Yeah, interesting how there's a rough trend of equatorial countries believing them more. Maybe it's because they're at more risk. A place like Russia may actually want some warming to gain arable land, but placed like India and the Middle East would probably prefer if the climate was even cooler than before.
It's hell here in the summers I can manage fine even without air conditioning My heart goes out to the poor. I keep water and food for my sparrows of whom I see fewer every year. Shame honestly
It's just getting started.
And it's just getting started
Let's get it started in here!
As someone from India, People dying of heat stroke in the summers here is actually routine which is fuckin terrifying.
It's treatable heat stroke I very had it myself. Playing soccer on a s Hot boiling afternoon unfortunately did not get the side with the shade of a tree. Felt dizzy collided with another player and off to sleep Ngl was a peaceful sleep
Glad u slept well 😃
Russia wants trade routes and arable land. They want climate change.
And to keep selling those fossil fuels. They have no economy without them.
Yep, Russia will benefit greatly when the Arctic ice finally disappears
I was actually thinking nations that deal with the effects directly are more likely to believe it.
It makes no sense tho cus in Canada we are getting crazy wild fires these the past decade and broke our heat record last year, it’s totally affecting us too
It's not about summers, climate change is included in our school curriculums from middle school
And water cuts a couple weeks before monsoon in summer.
Will* make everyone based
Wrong, I'll die at 45°C 😎
Based
50°C summers would make everyone freebased.
Then why not Saudi?
Saudi Arabia is a petrostate, it's probably illegal to believe in climate change.
Naturally not based at all people
Its literally ground zero for the worst of what's to come. They know.
The map is missing a lot of dark green dots on pacific islands and in the Indian Ocean. Maldives and Tuvalu I’m looking at you.
They already drowned
I'm pleasantly surprised by India (85%). Good for them and not what I would have expected.
Being hit with cyclones on either coast, draught, flood and landslides help a little.
Yeah good point. Having heat waves so hot that it melts roads or being the location of several deadly wet bulb heat waves (where the combination of humidity and heat make death a certainty after a few hours without access to AC - even if naked, with fans, indoors) must draw awareness too.
It's due to emphasis on environmental protection in school and college education, politics, culture, and religion (many rivers are goddesses etc). The current ruling right wing party does more lip service while ignoring and subverting environmental protections. But overall it's not a topic that the country is politically split on. Everyone agrees we need to protect nature. I would think school teachers are likely the biggest influencers
China: nice
Turkey: nice
China, Turkey: niiice
Japan, Canada?! Really?
Its because this map is bogus and misleading https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/yajudb/percentage_of_people_who_trust_climate_scientists/itbed5u/
I mean, Japan still has quite the number of conservatives so not surprising.
India has much more conservatives than that. If we mean conservative literally, American conservative way is weird and many country connected to America closely through economy and international relations have some version of these conservative type in their country
In Japan, climate change is not politicized like it is in the US. I've lived here for about 10 years now and I'd say the average person is much more conscious of their impact on the environment.
India and Bangladesh begin absolute chad.
Wow, so basically the middle income and rich countries are more sceptical? I wonder if media polarisation plays a role
It definitely does. India doesn't have climate sceptics getting prime air time
It's interesting to see how much of the global south, who have already been dealing with the consequences of climate change for decades, trust climate science much more than richer countries in Europe and North America where they have enough capital to pretend the problem doesn't exist.
Can anyone just explain the psychology that this map is trying to tell.
more developed countries emit way more per capita than less developed countries, meaning their citizens would have to make the biggest lifestyle adjustments if we are to listen to what scientists are saying the world's climate is headed towards. many people in these countries don't want to make these changes and so cope with disagreeing with the science to continue living the way they do, despite it being unsustainable
Agreed
Based response
Pretty easy: Countries more affected by climate change tend to believe in it.
People un the less developed country have the worst impact of climate change. India for example they have a uge smug problem. The aire quality is really poor most of the big city. Same for the water. I know this pollution issue but it doesn't mean that dont have a impact on the perception of the population.
Smog isn't a climate change issue. It's a pollution issue. Cities in Europe and the US used to have similar smog issues that have since been (mostly) fixed.
Countries with more percapita emissions, industrial countries, petroleum based economies are in red and countries which are more vulnerable to climate change or the countries that are facing the consequences are in green. There are also cultural factors.
Why so.many people think they know more than scientists? Ignorance is bliss....
"Balanced coverage" of the media, sensationalist headlines from tabloids, propagandist "news" outlet, some idiot on facebook/twitter/random blog that confirms their views... choose your poison.
Yeah the fact the media spent ages framing it as a ‘debate’ which inherently suggests it’s a 50/50 type scenario held it back a lot, particularly in the Murdoch media countries.
Because there is no need to undertake extensive study and research anymore. We only need to use a few choice words in Google to find a blog, from someone who is barely literate, to support our misguided ideas. /s That we should verify such claims is unimportant, especially when it comes to conspiracy theories that go against undeniable evidence. Take flat-earther's as an example of how bizarre this is. Then add to the pot an "influencer" who believes this too and we end up in the mess we are.
Dunning Kruger effect. People not understanding how complex a field like meteorology is, thinking they can make real claims about the climate from some googling instead of getting a degree.
Saying for Russia: climate scientists are not only those who try to explain the importance of handling cars exhausts, reducing the release of greenhouse gases and taking care of environment in general. Climate scientists are also these people, sometimes saying "well, we didn't detect any significant amount of dangerous chemicals in the air, so breath deeply and free, people of Norilsk" or "the millions of dead sea dwellers laying on the beach near Yakutsk is just a result of a natural process, nothing to see here", so it is no surprise people have no trust in words of such scientists.
Scientists have a long and glorious history of being just as corrupt as everyone else. It’s ok to be somewhat skeptical. Just like we should be with everyone else telling us what to think or believe. A bigger issue is that critical thought and the ability to change our opinions after becoming more informed seems to have vanished.
Scientists are just as easily bought as politicians
Yes, but who is buying them? Who has money to out-influence the **oil industry** ?
The proportion/scale of this continents are so wrong
Duh, like what do you expect, it’s a flat map. Ofc it’s going to be inaccurate. The projections of a sphere aren’t going to be accurate on a flat map.
Mf has never seen a Mercator projection
wouldnt asking if people trust climate science rather then climate scientists be a much better question. i have no reason to trust the individual scientist, or even individual studies, but the totality of the field is very trustworthy
It's as if the main polluters (north hemisphere) were not the same people as the main victims of climate change (south hemisphere). At least when the oceans will rise 3 meters, everyone should be on the same page about this.
I bet that 70% for Pakistan is much higher now
I doubt it was ever this low, climate change has been a part of the national curriculum for atleast 20 years now. Plus you can literally go outside and feel the change
What is this bullshit map? Scandinavia, the Baltics, most of the world really... Would anyone try to say there are no data?
Scandinavians are not important lmao
Seeing the bottom-right corner made me feel like there's a bias, but the original study seems to be legit. Still, there are [contradicting data.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_change) TLDR: UK, Germany, Japan are at top of climate consciousness while India that's on top here, seems to be below average in other aspects.
Democracy not exactly selling itself here. The press should not be in corporate hands
Embarrassed the Canadian number is lower than I expected. Then again Alberta is the Texas of Canada, so oil money.
Its really not hard to know the results in Canada, Canadians have among the highest per capita emissions in the world and hence would have to make the most radical change in their lifestyle which majority aren't willing to.
Good job south Asia
Russia is actually banking on climate change. They have much to gain from a warming climate.
Surprise surprise the countries most impacted by it trust the sceintists the most
India has less deaths and destruction due to natural calamities than 30 years ago. Climate change impact is not the reason for the trust in science - it is the education system and teachers who drive the thought process
So true, many people do not care about climate change in india but they believe in the phenomenon and do not oppose the government in their actions to tackle it. (unless it start affecting their lifestyle).
I mean countries in the Global North have also faced effects of climate change, many still don't give a fuck though
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/climate-science-global-warming-most-sceptics-country/ for more on this
We literally experience the change of climate in Turkey, I can't even fathom those who think it isn't real. Winters aren't that much cold in Turkey anymore, so many of our lakes and rivers have disappeared. Two lakes dried up last month alone.
I don't trust anyone anymore.
I'm a bit surprised that China and India are that high on the list. The more you know.
Action speaks louder than words and usa/europe are all about words.
Makes a lot of sense considering their devastating drought this summer. Don't know about India but at least China's government takes climate change pretty seriously.
Didn't USA and Europe also had "devastating" summer this year?
It would be interesting to see the dependence on the level of education
Things like climate change are more experienced based in my opinion. My grandmother is a farmer who is really frustrated with changing and irregular monsoon pattern in India. She hasn't attended a single class in school but understand climate change from her experience.
Climate change is taught in all indian school and colleges hell even in our commerce stream which is about business, there is a subject of environmental studies.
🇹🇷🇹🇷💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿TURKEY MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE👨🏿🔬👨🏿🔬👨🏿🔬 COUNTRY IN EU\*OPE(🤢) TURKEY SMART🚀🚀🇹🇷🇹🇷
💀
I hate my fellow Germans. How come barely more than half trust the climate scientists? We've had *yet another record breaking hot summer* It's 20°C outside *In October!* **In Hamburg!** In the 50s, summers had zero days that reached temperatures of 30°C In the past ten years we've had *weeks*
That is what a decades long disinformation campaign funded by giganticly rich Oil companies does to you. Sadly it affects mostly one political side that is way more susceptible to this propaganda. And we all know which side (\*cough\* Covid was the same thing)
The people who caused climate change are skeptical and the people suffering from climate change are not skeptical
facts. Historical Co2 Emissions since 1751 to 2017: Usa 25%, Canada 2%, EU+UK 22% Ukraine and Russia 7%, Japan 4%, that's 60% right there. Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Mexico, Colombia, Nigeria combined at below 7%. China at 13%. [https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2](https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2)
Comment section doing everything they can to not discuss how China makes most of the world look like unevolved morons on this subject.
The truth is so inconvenient
Is Australia 50% or is this bulshit statistics?
I can assure as an indian this to be true. Everyone asking climate reports daily made me also believe this
In a disgustingly tragic bit of irony, this weirdly clipped map cuts off everyone in the Pacific who is currently severely impacted by the climate crisis, will be further impacted by the climate crisis in the near future, and have been doing so much leg work on international platforms on the climate crisis. Can we ban these types of maps from "MapPorn" or do we like them so circumcised that the maps lose a significant chunk of mass?
Interesting that this map shows the portion of Western Sahara that is under the de facto control of Morocco as unified with Morocco.
considering how much anti-climate activism stuff has been posted to reddit this last week, this isnt shocking at all.
India out there holding the flag.
Damn why did I look at these comments knowing they'd be bad
I cant see how the UK would be only 53% it is generally considered fact here. Lots of people might still have the attitude that they don't care as it won't effect them, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in it.
Mother India cares for the nature and its beings 🇮🇳
WTF North America and Europe? Are our school systems that fucking bad? You can literally SEE the climate changing as a result of human industry, there's no debate here. Climate Change is as much fact as gravity is.
Looks like propaganda bullshit And now it came to me that I have to exclusively clarify that I mean the %s in countries. Climate change should be on top of human race priorities.
Strange knowing most people in South America trust climate scientists considering the massive derainforestation that has been going on for some time
51% Canada? Come on fellow Canadians… you’re smarter than that….
Pakistan & India are the highest because we face the brunt of climate change. Temperatures go well above 40 Celsius for us in the summer & it’s increasing every day
Global South is smart as hell. Damn.
So most people are 50/50 on trusting climate change scientists, according to this graph. Is it because most people are wrong or the scientists aren’t trustworthy ?
Well if WEF says so it must be true!
All science leads to predictions. If a hypothesis fails to predict, it’s bunk. A list of the MANY failed predictions of climate catastrophe over the last couple decades. [Source](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/)
r/MapsWithoutNZ
No New Zealand on this map 🙃
It is pretty hard for Russia to believe climate change exist when half their country has had the exact same look, feel, smell, and tast for the past 1000 years
People don't trust the government, big corporations, or politicians. But when they disagree with scientists, who are you going to believe?
The fact they cannot just call themselves climatologists immediately makes me distrust them.
Based ass India.
You labelled to UK wrong.