Results of Global Warming Survey

330 oil and gas industry insiders completed this survey on global warming.  The results make for fascinating reading.

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. Thanks for posting this survey. I’d be interested to know what level of O&G insiders were surveyed. Are these A/B level exec’s, mid/junior level employees? Engineers/Scientists/Business/Finance? That would be excellent info to have to put these results in better perspective.

    • Thank you for all your comments and my apologies for the delay in responding.

      The survey went out to a good cross-section of the industry, both in terms of seniority and function. The survey was anonymous, so I do not know who actually responded. However, the folks that volunteered their details in the last question were also of a good cross-section.

      Only a small percentage of those invited responded, so there may well be some selection bias. Also, even though over 300 responded, we cannot claim that the sample is random. So, this survey does not lend itself well to statistical analysis.

      I have had several comments requesting a more detailed survey with more questions on, for example, the science of global warming. This survey was kept short as I felt that would encourage folks to take part. Nevertheless, I may well do this latter in the year. Any further thoughts on what form this may take would be most welcome.

      I also enjoyed reading your comments on the science of the situation and your reasoned arguments. Thank you for also citing sources. It does seem that the following argument is now commonly held to be true: emmissions from burning fossil fuels (and elsewhere) contain greenhouse gases, this is causing the plant to warm leading to climate change. And yet I sense that perhaps for some the data and the science does not support this view.

  2. Thanks for conducting and sharing the survey. It would be interesting to know how many were invited to respond vs. how many did so, as there may be a selection bias of respondents with strong feelings about the issue. Still, it is informative to see that such a large proportion of industry insiders think we have a man-made problem, but we are going to be hard pressed to implement a solution.

    • [Marked as spam by Antispam Bee | Spam reason: CSS Hack]
      The concept of “peak oil” and “global wriamng” is not talked about very much in major media in the U.S. because it doesn’t help you sell the latest gizmo from China. Our media is way too perky for my tastes. As ocean levels rise and climates change, there will be crop failures, human displacements and starvation in poor countries.The Western standard of living will be hurt as we reach the peak of oil production/capacity world-wide. We still rely on fossil fuels for about 86% of US energy needs, and of course just about every tangible product and even food crops (fertilizer & transportation) rely on oil production.The irony of all this is the fact that most major businesses and countries realize the phenomenon of Peak Oil and Global Warming and they are positioning themselves to take advantage of it. The passage North of Canada will open up and has already been a point of international controversy.We’ve had the internet bubble, we’re experiencing the downside of the housing bubble. The latest issue of Harper’s predicts the rise of the green industry bubble, which will help keep the economy going until it too bursts.

  3. Additional questions:-

    1. Where do you get your input regarding Global Warming that causes you to have the opinion that you have (e.g. TV , newspapers, radio, colleagues, my company, scientific journals)?

    2. Where do you think that the significant numbers of skeptics regarding Global Warming get their input (e.g. TV, newspapers, radio, colleagues. their companies, scientific journals)?

    3. Are the terms Global Warming & Climate Change interchangeable?

    4. What effect do you think that the Sun has on Global Warming?

    5. Which do you think will occur first, The catastrophic effects of Global Warming due to human activity, or the natural extinction of the human species?

  4. Yes, would be interesting to know the proportion of physicists, engineers etc who took the test, and then those which have actually read more than just “New Scientist” or listened to the BBC or Al Gore. I do public speakling on climate change (I think it’s nonsense that CO2 can have any serious climate disruption effect) and before my talks I ask some basic questions to the audience to see if they know their forcings from their feedbacks. Otherwise, everyone is entitled to any opinion but it is worthless.
    I have for example sat in on meetings about carbon sequestration. In one instance, the chairman of the meeting, who was quite convinced CO2 was an issue, made four basic errors of physcis in his opening address.

  5. Keith Martin says:

    Totally agree with R G Heath in terms of how informed people are. I would also be interested in the percentage of respondents who have any experience in paleoclimate, paleogeography, or the realisation that geologic, archaeologic and historic data show that climate is always changing. The best data regarding our estimates of average global temperature (from respected but essentially warmist places like GISS, UEA) show no warming since 1997 – that is now a 16 year period. Yet the mainstream media and many institutes and individuals on the warmist side of the debate are still trying to tell us about catastrophic rates of warming. The IPCC mid point prediction for 3 Deg. C warming / century has not happened over the last 25 years. The data (not my opinion or anyone else’s), just the data, show sensitivity of about 1 Deg. C / century. That is a rate that is consistent with CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but with no positive feedback or “forcing” effects. In most scientific endeavours, if the data do not match your model, you change your model, but this does not seem to have happened with the IPCC and various other institutes. At 1 Deg. C / century, the present plans to mitigate CO2 increases do not make sense in comparison to adaption strategy.
    As this message becomes clearer, warmists have moved to “Climate disruption” from “global warming” as warming has been shown not to have occurred for 16 years. However, even the IPCC admits there is no evidence linking global warming with extreme weather. We therefore have the situation where global warming was going to cause warmer dryer weather and snow would be a thing of the past. Now that there have been several snowy northern hemisphere winters, apparently global warming is consistent with more snow. So global warming is responsable for hot dry cold wet. So the question is, what weather would suggest that global warming is not happening?

  6. Keith Martin says:

    Further to an earlier comment about how informed people are, nearly 90% of the respondents to this survey think global warming is happening, yet the best data for the average global temperature show no warming for 16 years. I wonder what the basis is for thinking global warming is happening when the data say it has been flat for that period?

  7. Tony Holland says:

    I am a geologist by background, having worked in the Oil and Gas industry for 35 years. I am aware that throughout geological time climate has changed, well before any significant man made influences came on the scene, basically the effects of industralization in the last 250 years. I believe it is good to manage the earth’s resources well, not just for short term profit, but for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. However, while being good and responsible stewards, it is also prudent to ask, what part of so-called global warning is a natural phenomenon and what is a component that mankind is responsible for. To try to solve a “problem”, not of human making would be a huge folly and potentially a waste of much needed financial resources, that could be used elsewhere. Doing nothing is also not sensible, so let’s re-use, recyle, re-plant trees etc, do the relatively simple cost-effective things first. Let’s work more closely with nature and learn more from it rather than trying the all too familiar short-term “rape and pillage” approach.

Speak Your Mind

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

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Ok