Results of Global Warming Survey 2014

474 oil and gas industry insiders completed this survey on global warming.  The results make for fascinating reading.  Thanks are due also to the folks at The Oil & Gas Year for helping to get the word out.

I present below the results of this survey in their unaltered form.  I have not processed the data in any way.  The graphs below are screen shots from the survey provider.

Please share your views on this survey, or on global warming more generally, in the comments area.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Q1.  Do you think that global warming is happening?

 Q2.  Assuming global warming is happening , do you think it is…

Q3.  How serious a problem is global warming?

 Q4.  Which of the following statements comes closest to your view?

 Q5.  What do you think should be the priority of global warming for governments?

Q6.  Assuming global warming is happening, what is the best way to reduce mankind’s impact on global warming?

Q7.  What is the best policy tool that governments have to reduce pollution to the economic optimum?

If you would like to see the responses to “Other” please click here to open a spread sheet.

Q8.  A little about you please.  Where do you work?


If you would like to download a pdf version of this report please click here.


  1. James Cobbett says:

    The main drivers for global warming are population increase combined with increasing per capita demand for/ use of resources, especially energy. This creates an exponential increase in use of resources, and in the resulting emissions of “pollutants”, including CO2. Though likely politically impossible to address these, linked, issues, without addressing them, the human race is in for a rough time. The planet will doubtless take care of itself, however. Unfortunately, this aspect was not considered by your survey.

    • Anonymous says:

      Unfortunately this survey assumed the wrong conclusion in it’s name. We have climate change absolutely, but it is not always in one direction. This survey in it’s name defines it’s bias just like the NAACP.
      Only in Washington is CO2 called a pollutant. Without it what would plants do to live? A world without photosynthesis would surely be a dull place to live, like a desert. Now I want to blow the warming enthusiasts and the surveys of people that have degrees in science that a 97% agreement that we have global warming is worthless! Let’s go back into history and look at all the consensus beliefs that were proven wrong by just one smart person.
      1. At one time at least 97% of people believed the earth was flat.
      2. It took Keppler to explain why the earth was not the center of the universe.
      3. It took Einstein to explain that light is electromagnetic radiation and described the photo electric affect.
      4. It took Bohr to explain that matter is made up of neutrons and protons in a nucleus with electrons in orbits around them.

      There are 1000’s of examples where just one person proved everyone wrong in the history of science. The Global Warming enthusiasts are going to see their beliefs disproved by someone in the future. It’s inevitable! It may just take a long time.

      • Anonymous says:

        AGW has already been scientifically proven wrong. However, AGW is based on ideology and not science. So, believers of AGW will never accept any scientific argument debunking AGW.

      • Edward Silha says:

        Anonymous wrote >> Only in Washington is CO2 called a pollutant.

        Humans must ingest vitamin A because they do not produce it and it is required by the body. However, taking more than 1.5 mg per day is detrimental and 8 mg per day can cause acute poisoning. Tiny amounts of some mushrooms can cause death.

        Your list of people that caused change scientific understanding is misleading. The myth that the earth was flat and the myth that it was the center of the universe were not even scientific theories but were believed by the general public long after scientists using observation and validation proved them to be false.
        Keppler, Bohr, and Einstein did not overturn a consensus so much as to extend scientific knowledge based on earlier findings. You cannot name a single scientific theory based on the scientific method, supported by a consensus of the science community and in existence for over 150 years that has had its basic assertions proven to be wrong.

    • Angus Warren says:


      Thank you for the comment. Any suggestions on how we can address your last point in next year’s survey? Perhaps adjust Q4. Please let me know your thoughts.

      Best regards.


    • A full 51% of GHG emissions are attributable to livestock, according to a recent World Watch Institute report. Big Media and federal government silence on that is perhaps under the influence of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

  2. I’m not sure the respondents understand the ramifications of their response on Q7 of a direct tax on climate altering emissions. That would close every coal fired power plant in the world currently and all coal mines as they are the most intense source of SO2 and particulates on an annual basis. All current ocean shipping would stop as the vessels burn oil products are significant emission sources. Airlines would have to double ticket and freight prices with special surcharges. Auto emissions are considerable as well so auto registration and renewal disc rates would go way up except for all EV vehicles. Direct taxation hugely disruptive to our hydrocarbon based energy world and we just don’t have the means to stomach that rate of change.

    • Angus Warren says:

      Paul – thank you for the comment. I agree that a tax based system, by it’s nature, must impose a greater burden on business because money flows from business to government. The advantage of the permit system, as far as I can see, is that it leads to the same optimum point as a tax system, but the net impact on business is much less (low emitters are selling permits to high emitters). Does anyone have any other views? Angus

    • Such a projection assumes we have no sufficient or superlative substitutes…such as thorium, solar, wind, hydro, wave, geothermal, electromagnetic…capable of competing with the cheap and dirty coal market. Well, we have all of those, and they can be done economically as well as ecologically. In the critical discipline of ecological economics, ecosystem services are factored into the calculus where mountaintop removal, drilling, fracking, and other fossil fool extraction technologies degrade habitats and destroy the economics of renewable and sustainable resource-bases. We have plenty of thorium; in fact we have already stockpiled enough to supply the increasing electrical demand of the world population for hundreds of years, yet Nixon went for a nuclear bomb producing and more hazardous form of nuclear fission for generating electricity.

  3. I find real reasons for optimism in this survey. Unlike some have portrayed, it is clear that the majority ( at least in this sample) within the O&G industry acknowledge anthropogenic climate change, recognize its seriousness, and are prepared to accept some serious action (such as a carbon tax) to deal with it. Would that our governments be prepared to be so frank and far-sighted. What causes me concern in the survey, however, is the responses to Q6. There is no doubt that coal is a major contributor to atmospheric carbon (as well as a source of many other pollutants). I have to ask myself if the high support for taking action on coal, higher than for petroleum, is a matter of diverting remedial measures away from one’s own interest. I hope not, as I don’t see the responses to the other questions. In any case, if any carbon reduction measure (tax, cap-and-trade, whatever) is applied on the basis of carbon emitted, rather than targeting particular industries, that will be both most fair and most effective. if we have broad agreement on that, then let’s get on with it.

  4. Warren
    My view global warming is big worry but the Kyoto agreement must be a step in the right directon but mother natures
    wrath can be deadly being a bit of an historian I know the story of Noahs Ark as a ring of truth in it and in the past a great flood did take place.Also I am aware in the 4th to 5th centurey AD a great volcano eruption took place and it
    left the British Isles almost unihabited for many years as the sun could not penetrate the thick clouds of volcanic dust
    no crops could grow, when the volcanic clouds did disappear it was the begining of the Viking invasion era so I conlude what happend in the past could happen again and I think the record world population will not be sustained by our planet and as allways mother nature will win and I think the ancient Druids were right about the Earths energy feilds such as Ley lines and magentic energy and not to respect the Earths energy feilds is foolish !!!
    Dan Buckingham.

  5. Good survey Angus and you beat last year’s figures. I was surprised at the level of agreement on the existence and threat of climate change. Two comments caught my eye:
    Paul Renkens said: “I’m not sure the respondents understand the ramifications of their response on Q7 of a direct tax on climate altering emissions…All current ocean shipping would stop…”
    DP “In any case, if any carbon reduction measure (tax, cap-and-trade, whatever) is applied on the basis of carbon emitted, rather than targeting particular industries, that will be both most fair and most effective.”
    A direct tax on carbon seems fair and most likely to be effective, carbon emissions are the problem let’s discourage them in particular. Renkens’ dire warnings are relevant. Go too far and the global economy would grind to a halt. But surely some sort of progressive tax rate could give time to convert the world to less carbon intensive energy sources.

  6. Anonymous says:

    This survey should have included the scientific background of the respondents. This was already suggested by some respondents of the first survey. Knowing the respondents’ scientific background would give the proper perspective on their opinion of man-made global warming. Being in the oil and gas industry doesn’t necessarily equate to having adequate knowledge to understand the arguments for and against man-made global warming. However, having said that, there are still many with supposedly more than adequate background in science who just blindly accept anthropogenic global warming as fact. Correct analysis of scientific data show changes/variations in global temperature (warming and cooling) are mainly due to natural causes. The operative word is “correct”. Improper anaylys of scientific data could be swayed to give any preconceived conclusion. That preconceived conclusion is man-made global warming.

    • Angus Warren says:

      Dear Anonymous – thank you for the comment. This is a survey of opinion, not of scientific credentials, as you correctly point out. Though no doubt interesting, we will have to leave such a survey to others. I carried out this survey of oil and gas industry insiders because I believe it is interesting to find out what folks think. This is important in it’s own right because, for example, those of us within the industry carry influence with others in society. We also have votes!

  7. Lewis Deaves says:

    The construction of knowledge is fundamental to understanding climate change, and yet overwhelming evidence/knowledge in favour of AGW has not yet led to power. What is happening? Why the stalemate? Climate change and individuals’ perceptions regarding and disagreements over it must be understood from the context of social settings. Climate change challenges the assumptions and expectations we have of the world, the social & cultural meanings we attach to our lives and the material conditions around us, along with the roles we make for ourselves and our sense of agency in the world. Nobody likes to be told what to think, particularly when they have been made to feel guilty, responsible, or have become sceptical, untrusting, and tiresome of mediated sources and voices with vested interests that seem to work solely to distract, confuse, and contradict a seemingly issue-fatigued lay public . Take your time, and make up your own mind, but be wary of the social settings in which that choice has been made, mediated, and manufactured. The construction of knowledge is fundamental to understanding climate change, and yet overwhelming evidence/knowledge has not yet led to power. We must acknowledge that we are likely to disagree when discussing the elusively abstract concept of ‘climate change’ not for the discrepancies in science, but for the value-laden interpretations we approach our understanding of the problem with, the different cultural, ideological, and social settings from which we view it and thus interpret our individual relationship to it. The next time you hear or read about climate change contemplate how it has been framed and why it has been framed in that manner. ‘FRAMES ARE SPECIFIC METAPHORS, SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATIONS, AND COGNITIVE CUES USED TO RENDER OR CAST BEHAVIOUR AND EVENTS IN AN EVALUATIVE MODE AND TO SUGGEST ALTERNATIVE MODES OF ACTION. FRAMES ARE TOOLS USED TO DEFINE A PROBLEM AND ITS PARAMETERS, TO MOBILISE SUPPORT FOR A PARTICULAR RESPONSE, AND TO PERSUADE A TARGET AUDIENCE OF THE APPROPRIATENESS/SUFFICIENCY OF A PROPOSED NORMATIVE RESPONSE’ – Pettenger 2007. Climate change illustrates a lack of cognitive empathy amongst a modern global society who is more connected than any other civilisation in the history of the planet, and who rely on one another more than we care to admit and acknowledge. ‘No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it’ A.Einstein

  8. As You're Told says:

    This is data from a voluntary online survey, this source of data is generally disregarded by honest statisticians; the number of specialists in climate change science is quite nominal in relation to the overall public, and therefore the data mostly represent the messages people have received from the media-industrial-complex…controlled by only a few families at the apex of power.

    World Watch Institute attributes 51% of GHG emissions to livestock, yet most people associate the warming curve with carbon dioxide due, with an economic scheme of carbon trading being the “solution” to the problem defined within a media echo chamber. Research the political tactic of “problem-reaction-solution” for emphasis on how citizens are often (mis)led to support political agendas against other nations which they would never want to have another nation inflict upon theirs. Climate change is a vastly complex phenomenon, and I don’t have, nor have I seen presented, complete enough information to conclude upon its significance at this point.

    Howbeit, with or without proof of the reality of anthropogenic climate change, blowing up mountains to burn coal, fracking to burn natural gas, drilling to burn oil, generating radioactivity to build atomic bombs, and factory farming are examples of damaging and clearly harmful and unjustifiable modes of production, seeing that there already exist technologies able to supply energy and everything else we enjoy without the toxic effect.

    This is what I keep going back to…keep it super simple…fossil fuels, factory farming, and fast-fission already are problematic enough to justify exigent decommissioning and divestment…then the data on global warming and climate change can be taken as icing on the cake. This is a site serving the interests of fossil fuel companies whose CEOs take in record profits while the drought destroys the livelihoods of countless people in the southwest, and they produce a voluntary poll…any honest statistician knows how easy it can be deceiving others and I see little else happening here.

Speak Your Mind

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!