Question: What percentage of people regard global warming as one of the top perceived global threats?
About the article "Global warming", section "Surveys of public opinion".

Candidate passages:
Researchers at the University of Michigan have found that the public's belief as to the causes of global warming depends on the wording choice used in the polls.
In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries.
Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware.
Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.
There is a significant contrast of the opinions of the concept and the appropriate response between Europe and the United States.
Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the US still debate whether climate change is happening."
A 2010 poll by the Office of National Statistics found that 75% of UK respondents were at least "fairly convinced" that the world's climate is changing, compared to 87% in a similar survey in 2006.
A January 2011 ICM poll in the UK found 83% of respondents viewed climate change as a current or imminent threat, while 14% said it was no threat.
Opinion was unchanged from an August 2009 poll asking the same question, though there had been a slight polarisation of opposing views.
By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed global warming as a serious threat.
In the US, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; this was 10% below the 2008 poll (63%).
Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.
That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.
A March–May 2013 survey by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press polled 39 countries about global threats.
According to 54% of those questioned, global warming featured top of the perceived global threats.
In a January 2013 survey, Pew found that 69% of Americans say there is solid evidence that the Earth's average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades, up six points since November 2011 and 12 points since 2009.
The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, substantially more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature, regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming.
The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements.
Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.
From 1990–1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to challenge the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem.
They challenged the scientific evidence, argued that global warming will have benefits, and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good.
Some people dispute aspects of climate change science.
Organizations such as the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, conservative commentators, and some companies such as ExxonMobil have challenged IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls.
Some fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years, or called for policies to reduce global warming. 
Psychic numbing is a tendency for individuals or societies to withdraw attention from past experiences that were traumatic, or from future threats that are perceived to have massive consequences but low probability.
Psychic numbing can be a response to threats as diverse as financial and economic collapse, nuclear terrorism, pandemics caused by genetic engineering, and global warming.
It is also important to consider the neuroscience behind the phenomenon, which gives validation to the observable human behavior.
The term has evolved to include both societies as well as individuals, so psychic numbing can be viewed from either a collectivist or an individualist standpoint.
Individualist psychic numbing is found in victims of rape and people who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. 
Cato scholars have written extensively about the issues of the environment, including global warming, environmental regulation, and energy policy.
The Cato Institute lists "Energy and the Environment" as one of its 13 major "research issues", and global warming is one of six sub-topics under this heading.
The Institute has issued over two dozen studies on energy and environmental topics in recent years.
Some experts, including writers cited by PolitiFact.com and "Scientific American", have criticized Cato's work on global warming.
Cato has held a number of briefings on global warming with global warming skeptics as panelists.
In December 2003, panelists included Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and John Christy.
Michaels, Balling and Christy agree that global warming is, in fact, related at least some degree to human activity but that some scientists and the media have overstated the danger.
The Cato Institute has also criticized political attempts to stop global warming as expensive and ineffective:In response to the "Worldwatch Institute Report" in May 2003 that linked climate change and severe weather events, Cato scholar Jerry Taylor said:Three out of five "Doubters of Global Warming" interviewed by PBS's "Frontline" were funded by, or had some other institutional connection with, the Institute.
Cato has often criticized Al Gore's stances on the issue of global warming and agreed with the Bush administration's skeptical attitude toward the Kyoto protocols.
Cato scholars have also been critical of the Bush administration's views on energy policy.
In 2003, Cato scholars Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren blasted the Republican Energy Bill as "hundreds of pages of corporate welfare, symbolic gestures, empty promises, and pork-barrel projects".
They also spoke out against the former president's calls for larger ethanol subsidies.
With regard to the "Takings Clause" of the United States Constitution and environmental protection, libertarians associated with Cato contend that the Constitution is not adequate to guarantee the protection of private property rights. 
The programme makes a number of assertions arguing that the integrity of climate research has been compromised by financial, ideological and political interests:  Increased funding of climate science.
According to the film, there has been an increase in funds available for any research related to global warming "and it is now one of the best funded areas of science."
Increased availability of funding for global warming research.
The film asserts that scientists seeking a research grant award have a much more likely chance of successfully obtaining funding if the grant is linked to global warming research.
Influence of vested interests.
The programme argues that vested interests have a bigger impact on the proponents (rather than the detractors) of arguments supporting the occurrence of man-made global warming because hundreds of thousands of jobs in science, media, and government have been created and are subsidised as a result.
Suppression of dissenting views.
According to the programme, scientists who speak out (against the view that global warming is man-made) risk persecution, death threats, loss of funding, personal attacks, and damage to their reputations.
Role of ideology.
The film proposes that some supporters of the finding that global warming is man-made do so because it supports their emotional and ideological beliefs against capitalism, economic development, globalisation, industrialisation, and the United States.
Role of politics.
The programme asserts that the view that global warming is man-made was promoted by the British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a means of promoting nuclear power and reducing the impact of strike action in the state-owned coal industry by the National Union of Mineworkers.
Role of industry.
The film argues that the assertion that global warming denialists are funded by private industry (such as oil, gas, and coal industries) are false and have no basis in fact.