The correlation exists. American people are more divided on the climate change question than other countries or in other environmental and socio-economical issues in the US (please find my paper enclosed). The perception of climate change, news, extremities differs by the groups (money conscious, environmentally conscious, renewable supporters, and anti-renewables). In the US, farmers who lost their lowlands because of the rising sea level, cannot accept climate change exists, they blame something else.

I think this phenomenon or bias is similar of the attractivity of religions that helps to eliminate of underlying fears from the future. Also, can be a post-choice bias or cognitive dissonance (e.g., I love my truck, love Republican ideas - as general -, so climate change is a hoax I love trees, I love Democrats, so the Earthquakes, and a single hurricane itself caused by the climate change).

In my paper, you won't find the correlation but, you will find a different bell shape distribution of the climate change responses. 

Article Public perception of bioenergy in North Carolina and Tennessee

Sorry, no.  Not in my mathematical models.

I found this study that says that correlation between the perception of climate change depends on education and ideology. If you are democrat the probability is stronger that you will believe in climate change and this belief increase with eduction. If you are ultraconservator, your belief decrease with education. (see attached figure)

Thanks.  Do you have a citation for the article?

It's very complicated and regionally as well as politically dependent.  Apart from what Robert mentioned, there are several smaller island countries directly affected by climate change with their islands shrinking due to rising seas.  People in these countries have relied on this land for generations and are now seeing the end is near and the need for relocation inevitable.  Several 3rd world countries that lack a developed infrastructure to combat climate change have experienced crop decimation due to drought.  Other areas have experience 100 to 1000 year flood events on more than one occasion within a decade span.  Others may deny that climate change is a problem or exists because they, the individuals, are not impacted first hand.  It's one of those things that many people sometimes have to experience before they believe it.  Since the U.S. is a first world country with a strong infrastructure, with mixed viewed politics, you have two groups of people on either side of the fence.  However, there are even regions in the U.S. now that are experiencing the weight of climate change (e.g. Smith Island over in Delmarva, New Orleans, parts of Florida, California, etc.).

I believe it is poor judgement, respectfully, to rely on a mathematical model to make a correlation between human thought/response/feeling and climate change.  There are too many assumptions made in such models and human reasoning is not always rational, thus rendering mathematical models inaccurate for this kind of thing.  There are countless variables to consider such as changes in political opinion, economy, different regions how their impacted, cost of living, developing infrastructure, international market, and the list goes on. 

There are few case studies being conducted about how climate change affects  agriculture and how it brings down the self-esteem of farmers.

The scientific basis of meteorology is the theory of a rotating stratified fluid in the external gravity field. The main trust in research is to improve our understanding of the radiative transfer in the presence of trace gases and aerosols. There are also some efforts to include the effects of a global electric circuit of the atmosphere. I'm not aware, however, about any attempts to investigate the links described in your question. The main reason for this is the lack of an empirical evidence at this moment and the the major problems with formulating of a suitable mathematical model.

Answer to Stephen Schafer

You asked me for the reference. Apologize for the delay answering

Here we go

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244015602752

Regards

The new reality is counter-intuitive.  Everything happens at once in a quantum field, and this realization harks to universal religious precedents.  For this reason, modern science must re-evaluate its bias against religious-metaphysical “science”.  The terms “evildoers” and “psychotics” fit the metaphysical context of “Cosmic War”, including all the criminal behaviors and perspectives of unreconstructed humanity that foster endless murder, dissolution, chaos, suffering, and infinite malignancy.  In a quantum reality, thoughts and feelings of domination, malice, selfishness, and violence take energetic form throughout the quantum field.  "The scientific basis of meteorology is the theory of a rotating stratified fluid in the external gravity field. The main trust in research is to improve our understanding of the radiative transfer in the presence of trace gases and aerosols." (Janusz Pudykiewicz)

Creating a superconductive culture of conscience goes far beyond even the best of orthodox problem solving efforts, and this is the subject of the book and of the chapter. The objective is to change incoherent archetypal patterns in the Collective Unconscious into coherent patterns and human choices, and in order to do this, increasing knowledge relative to the quantum dynamics of thought and feeling must be acquired.

The connection between Carl Jung and theoretical physics emerged long time ago, in the golden era of sciences in 1940s and 1950s, when our mathematical image of the material world was shaped. One of many accounts supporting this statement was published recently in Mathematical Intelligencer. The story is about the strange friendship of Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00283-011-9198-3

There are also many examples of interaction between Carl Jung and Albert Einstein as well as Erwin Schrödinger. Unfortunately, the passage of time blurred many details of their discussions, and we do not know exactly what was achieved in result of these interactions.

At the present time all fundamental sciences are facing the challenge described so well by Erwin Schrödinger:

"The task is not to see what has never been seen before, but to think what has never been thought before about what you see everyday".

End quote.

This applies particularly well to atmospheric sciences. Unfortunately at the current stage it is very difficult to answer your question directly, we still need a major theoretical breakthrough and some empirical evidence.