The vast majority of Americans agree: the climate is changing. What we do not agree upon, however, is whether or not we are the cause. According to a recent poll conducted by YouGov, a thin majority of Americans claim that climate change is occurring as a result of human activity. Only approximately three in ten of those surveyed believe that humans are not causing the climate to change, and one in ten Americans deny the existence of climate change altogether.

The climate is changing because the climate always changes. However, human activity, primarily the burning fossil fuels, is one of the largest factors driving climate change. I feel like when the question is framed in this manner it asks whether humans are the only cause for climate change. It needs to be understood that our activities are significantly changing our already changing climate. Then maybe the debate could transition from contentious to productive.

Fair point. But the debate will transition when energy industry backed politicians and a major news network stop claiming that climate change is unproven. The energy industry uses the same messaging (and the same marketing firms) that big tobacco did last century to cover up how their product was slowly killing millions of people.

William, I totally agree that the poll question could have been framed better. There isn't ever just a single cause for change with something as complicated as our climate. And while I think that there still needs to be a lot more research on the topic, we should be proactive in trying to preserve our planet.

Noah, I agree. It's a huge hindrance to achieving progress on the issue. Some Republicans have at least evolved from "it's a hoax" to "well, I'm not a scientist." They believe it's changing but either think it's natural or don't know the extent to which humans play. Scientists and Democrats need to do a better job at messaging to be more effective in the debate. I am not sure how that can be done. However, what I do know is that framing questions in this manner simplifies the debate into human-induced versus natural causes. It's both. In fact, the climate models match up near perfectly when you include all factors, both natural and human-induced.

Christian, if we could all take that approach as you suggested, we'd be incredibly more productive.

William, I agree and disagree. The "evolution" from hoax to I'm not a scientist is disingenuous. It is directly out of big energy's marketing playbook and a direct replica of what big tobacco did. Better messaging won't change the politicians nor the "news" outlets that make their votes/money pandering to an ignorant populace who has been brainwashed to hate environmentalism despite the fact that it was the Republicans who founded the EPA.