The findings, based on interviews carried out on 3-4 February, show that only 26% of people think "climate change is happening and is now established as largely man-made".
In November 2009, a similar poll by Populus - commissioned by the Times newspaper - showed that 41% agreed that climate change was happening and it was largely the result of human activities.
In the latest poll, 38% feel that "climate change is happening, but not yet proven to be largely man-made", while 8% support the statement: "climate change is happening, but it is environmentalist propaganda that it is man-made."
Clearly the most reasonable viewpoint, and the one I share. It isn't yet proven to be largely man-made. I'm not sure where those who purport this to be the case get this from, other than Ed Milliband. People are finally realising it's far more rational and scientific to question what we're told. It took long enough.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' (Defra) chief scientific adviser, Professor Bob Watson, called the findings "very disappointing".
Well they would be for you, wouldn't they. Doubtless DEFRA had all sorts of money-making schemes cooked up based on the fact that people will pay limitless amounts of money in taxes to "avoid climate change". If people start to question your propoganda a bit, they're less likely to want to hand over their cash so easily for something that may not stop it anyway, and we couldn't have that, could we?
"The fact that there has been a very significant drop in the number of people that believe that we humans are changing the Earth's climate is serious," he told BBC News.
"Action is urgently needed," Professor Watson warned.
Yeah, I'm sure it is. How about we start with you shutting the fuck up?
"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."
This can be translated as: "We will be releasing more "Act On CO2" propoganda shortly to justify outrageous taxes on people who can't or won't change their habits"
Of the 75% of respondents who agreed that climate change was happening, one-in-three people felt that the potential consequences of living in a warming world had been exaggerated, up from one-in-five people in November.
Nooooo. Really? Could that be because the consequences (drowning polar bears etc) have been exaggerated? Not to mention ridiculous advice such as unplugging mobile phone chargers, which are now pretty much all switched-mode power supplies that don't take any power when they're not charging a phone.
However, 73% of the people who said that they were aware of the "science flaws" stories stated that the media coverage had not changed their views about the risks of climate change.
"People tend to make judgements over time based on a whole range of different sources," Mr Simmonds explained.
Good. Nothing will annoy the warmists more. If for no other reason that they've wasted time, money (our money!), and energy peddling their propoganda and it's pointless if people are prepared to look at the wider picture.
17 comments:
Good news.. that people are finally starting to ask questions, even if the answers are unknown.
Give some good scientific analysis of all the science out there, then you might have a case. You recently used some evidence from some work done at Bristol to prove that agw was false yet even the scientist who released the research said agw existed.
Give some good scientific analysis of all the science out there, then you might have a case.
But I don't need a case - all I'm trying to show is that people are beginning to think for themselves and are starting to ask for more substantial proof before they make punative changes to their lifestyle, rather than unquestioningly swallowing all the propaganda that's forced down our throats constantly trying to make us feel bad just for existing. The proof for this is in the poll results, however "inconvenient" they may be.
yet even the scientist who released the research said agw existed.
Yes, and I'm sure this was a statement he made entirely off his own back and was in no way connected to a possible phonecall or email from a government minister, probably a vague threat of funding withdrawl, or other similar events. No, after releasing evidence that questions the theory of AGW (not proves that it's false) he's really going to make a choice undo any impact his research might have by stating "oh, but we all have to change our lifestyles anyway", isn't he?
Sorry Dave you are not answering the question. Where do you get your evidence that says that climate change is 100% not caused by human activities. That is all I am asking. If you believe it is a national, international and supranational conspiracy then there is no debate between what you believe and what around 85% of the world's scientists state as researched evidence. How do you make your judgements - are they based on assesment of academic studies? How many scientific papers have you actually read on climate change.
Where do you get your evidence that says that climate change is 100% not caused by human activities.
I've never claimed this. I've claimed that I think the idea that it 100% is caused by human activities bullshit based on the evidence that has been presented so far, half of which seems to be "Look, it just is, alright, so shut up and start feeling guilty about merely existing please. Oh, and if you could pay your government a couple of hundred pounds more a year to run your car, that'd be great."
I also find the debate has been heavily skewed in one direction, not least with the careful introduction of terms like "climate change denier" to take advantage of fact it sounds like "holocaust denier", when in fact most people with my viewpoint aren't denying anything, we're just questioning it, which is a whole different kettle of fish. It's convenient for the warmists to blur the difference so they do so.
I don't necessarily belive it's an international conspiracy but the Copenhagen summit, the results of which were very little to do with the actual environment (as opposed to, say, Kyoto) and far more to do with large-scale wealth redistribution then this surely hints at a different motivation? Then you have the stories that funding is granted in large waves from the EU, but only if you set out to prove MMGW exists. At the end of the day, most scientists can't afford to exist without funding, so it's safe to say they're not researching for purely philanthropist reasons. As Old Holborn regularly says, follow the money. If scientists can't get funding to research reasons for climate change other than CO2, without resorting to private funding and the "bias" stigma that comes with it (even though I would assert that government-sponsored research is even more biased), how is it ever going to be looked at?
I don't believe climate change is 100% man-made, I think it's likely we have an effect but I think that effect is massively exaggerated because it gives governments the opportunity to tell people they need to drastically change their lifestyle, and then when they invetiably can't (mostly due to the governments not actually supporting them with these changes) it gives them the opportunity to tax people instead.
Why don't you show me the research that you use to put yourself in the 26% group of people that believe Climate Change is happening and is now established as largely man-made?
Not being a climate scientist, I can only use my judgment on what the majority of climate science says. My understanding is that the science does not say 100 % of climate change is caused by humans but are contributing to the change happening faster and having huge negative effect on the areas of the world already on the margins of extreme climates. Would you only change your behaviour if you were presented with 100% proof? If so then, it means you will never have to do anything, which will be alot easier.
I'm not a climate scientist either, but there are areas of expertise I can use to show that some of the things we're being told to do are just nonsense.
1) Turning off/fixing dripping taps to save water - are people in the slightest bit aware of how many gallons of water are lost each day due to leaky supply pipes? History tells us that these problems will probably never be fixed - the water companies have an "acceptable tolerance level" and whilst the leaks stay within that they do absolutely nothing. Furthermore, the idea that somehow the water is "wasted" as it disappears down the plughole, never to be used again, demonstrates unbeliveable levels of ignorance. The water that goes down our plugholes and into the drains is at least recycled (referring to the oft-quoted statistic that every glass of water we drink has already been through 7 people), whereas the water that leaks out of supply pipes under the road is absorbed by the ground (but never gets lost from the earth's eco-system anyway). Of course we should turn taps off or fix them because it's not a lot of effort to, but my point is it shifts the burden of responsibility onto US, trying to make US feel guilty. How can we trust campaigns that rely on guilt rather than common sense and proof?
2) Unplugging mobile phone/ipod etc chargers when not in use - nearly all modern chargers use Switched Mode Power Supplies (SMPSs) which consume no power when they're not plugged into a device. Even when they are, a mobile phone charger consumes so little current that you'd barely notice the difference. This page gives more information - the last paragraph is very relevant. This often-touted piece of advice is incredibly frustrating because it's just wrong.
3) Unplugging devices rather than putting them in standby. Most devices consume so little power when on standby you can barely measure it. A TV might only take 1 watt, many other devices like digital recievers, DVD players, etc take less than this. Let's say there's 5-10 devices left on standby in the house, that's 5 watts on average. Given that the average person uses 5000 watts (including car driving, home heating, and so forth), this means they are saving 0.1% of their total energy consumption. Whoop-ti-fucking do! You could save more energy just by boiling a kettle once or twice less a year.
So, if I can use the knowledge I do have to show that some of the things they are telling me to do are based on complete and utter bullshit, how am I supposed to trust any of the rest of it?
Everyone says "The scientific consensus is..." Well, how do we know what the scientific consensus is? Because the IPCC tells us?
Would you only change your behaviour if you were presented with 100% proof?
No, but I'm not willing to change my behaviour until someone shows me some sort of testing proceedure that's in place to show that reduction of CO2 is successful at reducing the effects of climate change, and that if the effects are reduced, it was the reduction of CO2 that caused it and not an external effect that we weren't aware of. These are the most basic fucking principles in any scientific experiment. And do we have a Plan B in case it doesn't? At the moment whilst governments and certain organisations are falling over themselves to get us to change our behaviour, neither of these two groups seem to give a rat's arse whether we have any "success" tests in place or not, which I find - at the very least - fucking alarming.
Not sure many scientists are the ones suggesting the examples you state but that is not the point I am discussing. Anyway, I agree to disagree as this will go round in circles forever and I am sure we can both use our Sundays for better things. In terms of consensus, I guess you can only look at the evidence out there in terms of the number of geophysical scientists who through their knowledge and own research believe in climate change and those who don't. If you think the IPCC is a scam then that is your opinion.
RAVEY DAVEY GRAVEY WHAT SHITHOLE DO YOU COME FROM ?
BRISTOL BLOGGER IS WINDMILLHILL!
AND YOU?
Dave I'll take my baseball cap off to you. You're on top of your game here.
At some point down the road the environmentalist narrative has to be challenged openly and publicly. Although the results of the BBC poll are encouraging it is only a very small step in the right direction. Being a sceptic in and of itself isn't good enough. We need to go further and develop an alternative way of seeing things.
Remember environmentalism isn't just an opinion about the weather, it's a whole world view about who and what we are and our relationship to nature. In their mindset human beings (that means you Dave as well me and everyone else) are essentially dirty, destructive creatures motivated by the 'gross' desire for a better standard of living and better life chances for ourselves as well as our kids. People have to make a stand against this attitude as it's just so much poison. Not to mention the fact that it's being rammed down our throats 24/7.
The question you have to ask is: is their an alternative to all this crap? If not then why not invent one?
BTW I do wish the econauts wouldn't keep posting as 'anonymous'. Do they fear being torn to shreds in 'hostile' territory? I post in hostile territory and usually get by balls hacked of with blunt, rusty instruments but I still don't backchat as 'anonymous'.
Anonymong: Fine, I'll reply if it means you'll shut the fuck up.
I'm from Bishopston, but I've also lived in Bedminster.
Thanks Weston Bay.
BTW I do wish the econauts wouldn't keep posting as 'anonymous'.
Put it this way, it's very likely to be either Chris Hutt or Glen Vowles. Hardly entirely anonymous.
Weston Bay - not really a name is it. Anyway the postings above by anon are me, just trying to have a discussion with this blogger, don't know who any of you are but I don't need to know either. My name is john, does that make you feel better. Anyway, I'll let you 2 revolutionaries get on with it.
I'm going to side with Weston Bay here and say I'm not a fan of "Anonymous" postings - mainly because it's difficult to tell between all of them!
Perhaps you could pick a pseudonym and use it with the Name/URL option?
Anonymous- or 'john' if I may- no one needs to know your real name. My point is there are seven anonymous on this thread. Which one are you? The one @17:57? Or maybe the one @1745?
Yes I know it's obvious (or is it?) but you get my drift.
Best thing to do if you wish to make this a regular thing is get yourself a Google or Blogger account. Honestly it's a piece of piss and you don't have to start your own blog either (mine lasted about a week before I dropped it- didn't have the commitment). I just think 'anonymous' is a bit pointless. Hell I'm even thinking of dropping 'Weston Bay' as it's also a bit daft- nobody would give a flying fart if I revealed my real name and my location's fairly bleeding obvious to anyone who lives in the Bristol/N. Somerset area.
Anyway apologies for going O/T and from one 'john' to another I wish you an enjoyable and productive week.
You're right, the world has been totally changed since the last two decades. People think more rationally for themselves than it was before. The best writing service is at your service when it comes to writing or editing!
Post a Comment