Question: how many people believe global warning is a major concern?
About the article "Global warming", section "Surveys of public opinion".

Candidate passages:
According to Peter J. Jacques et al., the mainstream news media of the United States is an example of the effectiveness of environmental skepticism as a tactic.
A 2005 study reviewed and analyzed the US mass-media coverage of the environmental issue of climate change from 1988 to 2004.
The authors confirm that within the journalism industry there is great emphasis on eliminating the presence of media bias.
In their study they found that — due to this practice of objectivity — "Over a 15-year period, a majority (52.7%) of prestige-press articles featured balanced accounts that gave 'roughly equal attention' to the views that humans were contributing to global warming and that exclusively natural fluctuations could explain the earth's temperature increase."
As a result, they observed that it is easier for people to conclude that the issue of global warming and the accompanying scientific evidence is still hotly debated.
A study of US newspapers and television news from 1995 to 2006 examined "how and why US media have represented conflict and contentions, despite an emergent consensus view regardinganthropogenic climate science."
The IPCC Assessment Reports in 1995 and in 2001 established an increasingly strong scientific consensus, yet the media continued to present the science as contentious.
The study noted the influence of Michael Crichton's 2004 novel "State of Fear", which "empowered movements across scale, from individual perceptions to the perspectives of US federal powerbrokers regarding human contribution to climate change.
"A 2010 study concluded that "Mass media in the U.S. continue to suggest that scientific consensus estimates of global climate disruption, such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are 'exaggerated' and overly pessimistic.
By contrast, work on the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge (ASC) suggests that such consensus assessments are likely to understate climate disruptions.
... new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media.
The findings indicate that supposed challenges to the scientific consensus on global warming need to be subjected to greater scrutiny, as well as showing that, if reporters wish to discuss " both sides" of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate 'other side' is that, if anything, global climate disruption may prove to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date.
"Gallup's annual update on Americans; attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientist themselves are uncertain about it occurrence.
In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.
A recent search of Lexis-Nexis computerized database for any mention of the term 'global warming' in the following three news papers, Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Washington Post, found articles that were not concerned with the greenhouse threat but which only mentioned it in passing.
Nor did the newspapers fail to ignore any research which could conceivably cast doubts on the reality of the greenhouse effect or on the need for actions.
One article, for instance, wrongly led readers to believe that scientists now believe that human-induced global warming is most likely a fiction, and that the warming we have seen is due to solar cycles.
Many other reports of scientific developments implied that global warming would be good for us.
According to Moti Nissani, when the devastating effects of El Niño were reported, the likelihood that El Niño itself is caused by global warming was either whispered in passing, and always attached to an emphatic question mark, or flatly denied.
Out of 100 articles reviewed from The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, and Washington Post repeatedly cited a tiny minority of scientist whose views happened to coincide with those for the oil, coal auto, and petrochemical industries.
British Petroleum's views were cited in twelve of the 100 articles.
At the same time a warning by 21 leading ecologist were cited in one article.
There was a major U.W.
government study dismantling the greenhouse controversy.
In 99 articles the views of the ecologists and then Vice President of the United States were ignored.
On August 12, 1997, the New York Times promised its readers:"Between now and December, when representatives of most nations will meet in Japan to discuss limits on greenhouse gases, The Times will examine the science, politics and economics of climate change."
8/12.
The Times did not keep the stated promise.  
Public opinion.
In the United States, the mass media devoted little coverage to global warming until the drought of 1988, and James E. Hansen's testimony to the Senate, which explicitly attributed "the abnormally hot weather plaguing our nation" to global warming.
The British press also changed its coverage at the end of 1988, following a speech by Margaret Thatcher to the Royal Society advocating action against human-induced climate change.
According to Anabela Carvalho, an academic analyst, Thatcher's "appropriation" of the risks of climate change to promote nuclear power, in the context of the dismantling of the coal industry following the 1984–1985 miners' strike was one reason for the change in public discourse.
At the same time environmental organizations and the political opposition were demanding "solutions that contrasted with the government's".
In May 2013 Prince Charles took a strong stance criticising both climate change deniers and corporate lobbyists by likening the Earth to a dying patient.
"A scientific hypothesis is tested to absolute destruction, but medicine can't wait.
If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can't wait for tests.
He has to act on what is there.
"Many European countries took action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before 1990.
West Germany started to take action after the Green Party took seats in Parliament in the 1980s.
All countries of the European Union ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
Substantial activity by NGOs took place as well.
In Europe, the notion of human influence on climate gained wide acceptance more rapidly than in the United States and other countries.
A 2009 survey found that Europeans rated climate change as the second most serious problem facing the world, between "poverty, the lack of food and drinking water" and "a major global economic downturn".
87% of Europeans considered climate change to be a very serious or serious problem, while ten per cent did not consider it a serious problem.
In 2007 the BBC announced the cancellation of a planned television special Planet Relief, which would have highlighted the global warming issue and included a mass electrical switch-off.
The editor of BBC's Newsnight current affairs show said: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet.
I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped."
Author Mark Lynas said "The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of extreme right-wing climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action, so the BBC is behaving like a coward and refusing to take a more consistent stance.
"The authors of the 2010 book "Merchants of Doubt" accuse climate change "skeptics" of trying to sow seeds of doubt in public opinion in order to halt any meaningful social or political progress to reduce the impact of human carbon emissions.
The fact that only half of the American population believe that global warming is caused by human activity could be seen as a victory for these so-called skeptics.
One of the authors' main arguments is that most prominent scientists who have been voicing opposition to the near-universal consensus are being funded by industries, such as automotive and oil, that stand to lose money by government actions to regulate greenhouse gases.
A compendium of poll results on public perceptions about global warming is below.
In 2007 a report on public perceptions in the UK by Ipsos MORI reported that  There is widespread recognition that the climate, irrespective of the cause, is changing—88% believe this to be true.
However, the public is out of step with the scientific community, with 41% believing that climate change is being caused by both human activity and natural processes.
46% believe human activity is the main cause.
Only a small minority reject anthropogenic climate change, while almost half (44%) are very concerned.
However, there remains a large proportion who are yet to be fully persuaded and hold doubts about the extent of the threat.
There is still a strong appetite among the public for more information, and 63% say they need this to come to a firm view on the issue and what it means for them.
The public continue to externalize climate change to other people, places and times.
It is increasingly perceived as a major global issue with far-reaching consequences for future generations—45% say it is the most serious threat facing the World today and 53% believe it will impact significantly on future generations.
However, the issue features less prominently nationally and locally, indeed only 9% believe climate change will have a significant impact upon them personally.
The Canadian science broadcaster and environmental activist, David Suzuki, reports that focus groups organized by the David Suzuki Foundation showed the public has a poor understanding of the science behind global warming.
This is despite publicity through different means, including the films "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The 11th Hour".
An example of the poor understanding is public confusion between global warming and ozone depletion or other environmental problems.
A 15-nation poll conducted in 2006 by Pew Global found that there "is a substantial gap in concern over global warming—roughly two-thirds of Japanese (66%) and Indians (65%) say they personally worry a great deal about global warming.
Roughly half of the populations of Spain (51%) and France (46%) also express great concern over global warming, based on those who have heard about the issue.
But there is no evidence of alarm over global warming in either the United States or China—the two largest producers of greenhouse gases.
Just 19% of Americans and 20% of the Chinese who have heard of the issue say they worry a lot about global warming—the lowest percentages in the 15 countries surveyed.
Moreover, nearly half of Americans (47%) and somewhat fewer Chinese (37%) express little or no concern about the problem".
A 47-nation poll by Pew Global Attitudes conducted in 2007 found that "Substantial majorities 25 of 37 countries say global warming is a 'very serious' problem".
There are differences between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public.
A 2009 poll in the US by Pew Research Center found that "84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees".
A 2010 poll in the UK for the BBC showed "Climate scepticism on the rise".
Robert Watson found this "very disappointing" and said that "We need the public to understand that climate change is serious so they will change their habits and help us move towards a low carbon economy".
A 2012 Canadian poll found that 32% of Canadians said they believe climate change is happening because of human activity, while 54% said they believe it’s because of human activity and partially due to natural climate variation.
9% believe climate change is occurring due to natural climate variation, and only 2% said they don't believe climate change is occurring at all. 
Food scarcity is a major concern for many populations and is one of the prominent concerns with the changing climate.
Currently, 1/6 of the global population are without adequate food supply.
By 2050, the global population is projected to reach 9 billion requiring global food productions to increase by 50% to meet population demand.
In short, food scarcity is a growing concern that, according to many researchers, is projected to worsen with climate change because of a number of factors including extreme weather events and an increase in pests and pathogens. 
On 18 April 2009 a 7 year old boy was bitten by an adder after handling it while walking in the woods.
After receiving hospital treatment at Lincoln County Hospital he made a full recovery; however it reignited concern over the danger of snakes.
Although adders are a protected species, many local people believe that there should be adequate warning signs and that they should be under control.
A lack of anti-venom has also been highlighted.
Over the past years a number of dogs have also been bitten.  
Personal safety is a major concern for persons with epilepsy.
When sudden loss of consciousness occurs without warning, the patient is at risk for personal injury and possibly causing injury to others through loss of control or awareness of one's own body.
Many activities of daily living can be dangerous for people with epilepsy, such as bathing, cooking, or walking up or down steps.
These can be remedied by taking showers as opposed to tub baths, cooking with a microwave oven rather than an open flame, and living on a ground level.
Certain high-risk sports, such as swimming, scuba diving, or snorkeling are considered dangerous for people with epilepsy.
But they pose a level of danger for all participants.
They can be equally safe for people with epilepsy and others if carried out with proper safety precautions.